Posts by Edward Flores4

Gary James88 said:In its pure theoretical form, Democracy isn't a bad setup; it just leaves room for debate on how to actually run it. I’m with Ford on this one—government is usually just a mirror held up to the people, it doesn't just drop down from Mars. If 85% of the population quietly tolerates corruption because they love to judge it but refuse to live by any actual morals themselves, then you’re going to see plenty of corrupt officials in office. It’s just basic math. Naturally, the whole country ends up in the gutter because there simply isn't enough critical mass to sustain any sense of justice or true democracy on a national scale.

I have to disagree here!

Look, a democratically elected government is made up of human beings, not gods. If people are inherently good, then nobody needs to rule them in the first place. But if they’re fundamentally flawed? Well, then any government chosen through democracy is going to be flawed too. It seems pretty clear to me that even on paper, democratic rule doesn't quite hold water.

Sure, we can use democracy to decide things like whether shops should stay open on Sundays or whether we should join NATO. But using democracy to elect a handful of semi-clueless, wildly ambitious careerists—people who will inevitably break every single campaign promise they made—only to have them ignore us entirely for the next four years? That doesn't sound particularly good to me, even in theory.

there simply isn't enough critical mass to sustain ideas of justice and democracy on a global scale.

I don't see it that way... there are plenty of critical thinkers out there, they just aren't interested in playing the political game. Most democratic governments use the media to sideline intellectuals—and if they do happen to ask an expert for their opinion, it's usually just for show, so they can claim they "consulted the experts" before doing exactly what they planned to do anyway.

Plus, there's this fundamental clash between actual ability and raw ambition. The most capable people generally have zero desire to sit at the same table as thugs like boss, Đapić, Rojs, or Čehok—those kinds of caricatures whose IQ you could probably calculate just by multiplying their shoe size by two.😁

stormystag16 said:am I sensing a little too much idealism in your post?🤷

Look, how am I supposed to know exactly what you're feeling? It’s not like I can read minds here. And honestly, I have no clue what part of my writing you’re labeling as "idealistic"—or even what your personal definition of idealism actually is. If I really have to pin myself down to some kind of "-ism," then I guess I'm an optimist... but I'm definitely not an idealist.

stormystag16 said:yeah, I'm with you there...😉

but, we haven't actually nailed down what the best system is... we've just pointed out which ones suck and which ones are totally impossible...🤷

Unfeasible???

How can you label a system as impossible when we haven't even attempted to put it into practice yet? You can't really call something "impossible" until you've actually given it a shot and seen how it holds up.

A system like that is absolutely possible—and frankly, it’s probably inevitable—because none of the other models are going to keep our civilization hanging on this planet indefinitely. Systems built entirely on cutthroat competition and raw ego are basically on a slow march toward collapse. That decay might drag on for decades, centuries, or even millennia, but in the long run, any lasting system has to be rooted in actual capability—otherwise, it simply won't exist at all.

It reminds me of that old saying an Indigenous leader once told the Mayor of Sydney:
"Once you've eaten the last sheep from the pasture and the last fish from the sea, you'll realize you can't eat your money."

Just because people are terrified of disrupting the status quo doesn't mean a "rule by the capable" is impossible; it just means people don't *want* it. To them, the current setup is "best" simply because they aren't ready to let go. But calling something "the best" is pure subjectivity—it’s a loaded term. "Best" doesn't necessarily mean sustainable, fair, functional, or even viable in the long haul. Right now, the current system is labeled "best" only because everyone gets a vote, which feeds that individual sense of being "important," even if it comes at the expense of competence, efficiency, ethics, and actual long-term survival.

In other words... the question doesn't really land. It's a bit like asking which animal is the "best," or which internal organ is the most important. Either everything functions perfectly, or the moment one part fails, the whole process of dying begins. If your heart "breaks," you die pretty quickly; if it's a kidney, you might manage to limp along for a while. But looking at the big picture, the universe only sustains systems based on mutual, reciprocal responsibility among all their parts. Anything else is just caught in some stage of its own extinction.

stormystag16 said:honestly, I feel like an aristocracy would be a much better call, but then again, the whole idea of being ruled by the "best and brightest" seems pretty impossible to pull off in reality☕

Look, the issue isn't about "discovering" a superior way of doing things—we actually figured out exactly what a better system would look like pretty quickly and without much trouble. It’s always been clear. The real bottleneck, the actual hurdle we keep hitting, is simply whether there's any genuine will to actually step up and put that system into motion.

I honestly think there’s some truth to what Henry Ford was getting at when he said that every nation gets the kind of government it deserves. It’s a heavy thought, I know—and maybe a little blunt—but if you look at how things play out in America, it really makes you stop and think. It’s like when you see a neighborhood where nobody bothers to maintain their yard; eventually, the whole street starts to look a bit rough, right? A government isn't just this abstract thing floating above us—it’s essentially a reflection of the collective mindset, the habits, and even the apathy of the people living under it. If a society stops valuing accountability or loses its sense of civic duty, you can't really act surprised when the leadership reflects that exact same lack of integrity. It’s all connected. ☕

stormystag16 said:and who’s to say democracy was handed down by God or anything?
(look, don't get me wrong, I'm not some anti-democracy nutjob, but maybe some other setup would actually work better for everyone involved)

honestly, even Churchill said democracy is flawed, but it's the best thing we've got right now, so we might as well stick with it.... he and I are on the same page there...☕

Exactly. I'm talking about a system where your "vote" carries weight proportional to your actual IQ—you know, meritocracy meets logic—and where "democratic decisions" stay local. Instead of one massive, sweeping set of mandates dictated from D.C. that applies to the whole country, decisions would only affect the specific community that actually made them.

Beyond that, we need a political structure driven by genuine enthusiasm rather than raw ambition. In my experience, ambition tends to move in inverse proportion to actual ability—it’s almost a rule. Ambition itself usually stems from some kind of inferiority complex, which, let's face it, has a devastatingly corrosive effect on anyone caught in its orbit.

actually, even Churchill said democracy is imperfect, but it's the best we've got right now, so we should stick with it... he and I see eye to eye on this...☕

Actually, Churchill's point was:
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

...which is a pretty significant departure from how you're interpreting it 🙄

At its core, democracy is just a system where every four years you get to pick which group of politicians is going to fleece you, and where you have the right to an opinion even if you haven't put a single thought into it.

steeleagle13 said:No, you just don't get what kind of "trapped" we're actually talking about here. 😉😁

Just show me who’s got you held captive, and I’ll set you free!

casualmoose82 said:@Edward Flores4, look, when you quote someone, just quote the whole thing instead of cherry-picking bits out of context. And calling me schizophrenic? Honestly, you'll have to answer for that—not to me, and not even to God, however you view Him—but to yourself. I guess all that outside knowledge you've gathered, whatever form it takes, is useful and might actually help you on your Path. That’s basically what freedom of choice is about. As for whether the soul and body are one and the same, that’s your own mental construct; I wouldn't even bother commenting on it, I'll just say—it's your call.

A wise person knows better than to judge others, because in doing so, they've already judged themselves....

Honestly, I’m struggling to see how the idea of "becoming more aware of your Higher Self" could be anything other than schizophrenic in this context.🤷

The fact that you labeled me a schizophrenic—well, you'll have to answer for that. Not to me, and not even to God, regardless of how you perceive or don't perceive Him, but to yourself.

Schizophrenia is really just a byproduct of being literate, so we’re all a little bit schizophrenic in our own way... some more than others. There’s really no need to get all worked up about it.

Any external knowledge, in whatever form it takes, is useful and can assist you on your Path. That’s what freedom of choice is all about.

See, all knowledge is just the past, and making choices through the lens of the past is nothing more than a meaningless loop of repeating that same past. Besides... having a choice isn't actually freedom. Real freedom is when there is no choice left to make.

Whether the soul and the body are one and the same is your own mental construct—I wouldn't even bother commenting on it, I'll just say: You say.

How sharp-witted.🙄
Of course I say it... just like everything you say—you say it. And just like everything I say—I say it.☕

A wise man knows it isn't right to judge another, because by doing so, he has already judged himself...

What exactly is so "wise" about a sentiment that anyone can boil down into such a shallow generalization?

If that were true, everyone would be a sage. A truly wise person is someone who knows how to judge correctly, and a brave, wise person is the one who actually does it when they feel it's necessary.

Refraining from judgment is just postmodern relativism—it's cowardice and a lack of critical thinking wrapped up in a mutual expectation of staying quiet.

So yes—I say.🤣

jademarlin26 said:How can you say that? 😉 Those who view life as a burden feel an inherent need to be liberated from it. Most holy books conveniently manufacture a crisis at the beginning just so they can offer a solution at the end, convincing you that it's exactly what you need.

It’s honestly no surprise that satori is often described as "dropping the burden," and why it’s frequently accompanied by laughter. I mean, it really is kind of hilarious once you realize that everything was perfectly fine from the jump—the only actual issue was believing you had a problem in the first place, a problem that someone else, or some "holy book," promised could fix for you.

casualmoose82 said:I wouldn't say holy books are the problem, per se. They can actually be pretty useful up to a certain point. I mean, if you look at them as symbolism to help you find freedom—or, I guess, to pull everything from the outside into your inner self—then they can work. It’s about becoming more aware of your higher Self, which is who you actually are. I agree with you, though, that they don't just hand you the answers. The actual solution for finding that freedom, or doing that internal shift, lies within the person. Not the physical body, but the one inhabiting it. The part of you tucked away inside. Some people call it the spirit, the soul, or whatever else.

Look, there’s a perfect example right there where the language itself reveals the flaw... "the one who carries the body"... it sounds like some poor soul "trapped" inside their own sack of bones and meat, dragging it around like it's a punishment... as if the body and the soul aren't one and the same. It’s like treating them as two separate entities that are constantly bothering one another. It's pure schizophrenia.🙂

hiddenhound3 said:I find myself unable to agree with your perspective; I believe that Jung delved incredibly deep, perhaps even profoundly so, as his observations were born from his own lived experiences. He was never a mere theorist who simply organized information and paraphrased existing ideas; his books were not compiled through study, but rather through direct experience. This distinguishes him fundamentally from the theorists you mention, which is why Jung remains my absolute cornerstone in these matters. While I do not intend to diminish the validity of your sources, my primary source is actually the very origin of your authorities, making it both more immediate and more essential.

Furthermore, there are other scholars who have engaged quite seriously with symbolism, imagery, and visions, such as Mircea Eliade.

But how can you be sure you haven't just been reading Carl Jung? On what basis are you deciding he's more "direct," when (maybe) you aren't even aware
of what everyone else was actually researching and writing back then?

plus, there are plenty of other thinkers who took symbolism, imagery, and visions very seriously—take Mircea Eliade, for example.

What I’m talking about are the people who dedicated their entire lives to rigorous, systematic study—exactly like Carl Jung or Joseph Campbell did.

hiddenhound3 said:We will see, though I am not entirely certain if such distinctions even matter; I write as the thought carries me, without any specific agenda. My only aim while spending my time here is to clarify the subject matter—though, for the record, I have mastered the material and completed my assignments quite thoroughly, even if it seems we have been drawing from different sources. Those who feel inspired should certainly write or read as they please, and besides, wiredbear2 and Jeremy Palmer have already contributed some rather insightful points..

Is that a request or a demand...? I find myself somewhat undecided 🤷

Interpret it however you wish; it would be best for both you and the rest of us if you simply acted according to your own inclinations 😉

Regardless... those "minor details" are actually known as semiotics and linguistics, and I consider them to be quite significant. It felt unnecessary to withhold my perspective when the topic was already being discussed. Please do not take this personally, as there are no actual individuals on this forum... there is only a collection of ideas and various opinions. [

Semiotics and linguistics are by no means subjects to be overlooked, but in this instance, you were simply misinformed. I intentionally cited Jung to demonstrate that these concepts are not merely my own inventions—heaven forbid I should attempt to use my own brain 🤣—but even that remains entirely irrelevant to the point you were attempting to make regarding whether Krist is an icon.

Exactly. For some people, Carl Jung is the ultimate starting point for everything, while for others, he’s just one piece of a much larger puzzle. I'm not entirely sure which specific texts you're looking at that don't include someone like Joseph Campbell—whose work builds directly on Jung's foundation, but actually dives much deeper into the subject matter after spending a lifetime expanding on things Jung only scratched the surface of.

Anyway... now that you're interested in the symbolism tied to religion, mysticism, mythology, and history, at least you know the name of the one author who has tackled this seriously and successfully over the last fifty years. Because, honestly, there aren't many other sources quite like him... regardless of what anyone else might say. Of course... feel free to try and prove me wrong by listing your own sources... maybe you've stumbled upon something I completely missed, and if that's the case, I'd genuinely love to know what it is.

take it however you want; it'll be best for you and all of us if you just do what you want to do.

That’s what I thought too... which is why I was so thrown off by your attempt to lecture me on what, how, and why I should write, or even how exactly I should communicate with you.

semiotics and linguistics aren't things to be ignored—not at all—but in this instance, you were simply uninformed. That's why I intentionally cited Jung, just to show you that I wasn't making stuff up on the fly (heaven forbid I actually use my 🤣), but even that has nothing to do with what you were trying to convince me of—that Christ is an icon.

I'll be polite and skip over that part because I have no desire to insult or belittle you... even though a comment like that almost deserves it. Look, if you can reflect on the past and just acknowledge that little lapse in judgment, we can probably avoid some awkward exchanges.

And if that doesn't happen... I'll be more than happy to dive into your "intentional" use of Jung, and the fact that since his time, the sheer volume of knowledge and our models for understanding it have expanded significantly. We don't just treat every single thing Jung wrote as the absolute final word anymore. Especially considering that Jung's work actually PRECEDED the formalization of semiotics as a discipline—the field that systematically studies symbols, icons, and indices and draws clear distinctions between those three categories. The reality that symbols and icons can switch roles led to the development of parallel analyses of the syntagm and the paradigm; basically, when we talk about symbolic meaning, we're establishing the syntagm, whereas iconographic meaning falls under the paradigm.

Unfortunately, Jung didn't live to see those disciplines evolve, which is why his writings don't cover them. However, thinkers like Noam Chomsky, Joseph Campbell, Marshall McLuhan, and others certainly do.

hiddenhound3 said:I disagree; dreams and phobias speak the symbolic language of the subconscious, and the subconscious remains a deeply fascinating realm for anyone on a spiritual path.😉

An icon does not necessitate that the subject was a real or unreal person. The "my Computer" icon on your desktop was never a living being, yet it is still referred to as an icon. You, unlike "my Computer," are a living individual, but your photograph serves as your icon regardless.

Symbolism is a complex field, and without a foundational understanding of semiotics, one will find it difficult to navigate.

Anything can serve as a symbol. I am not merely discussing the figure of Christ, but rather his ontological significance (as we all know, language can sometimes clarify and at other times obscure). It is not solely Jesus Christ who represents the self; there is also Buddha, and the Sun (along with all other solar deities). Beyond that, the intellectual level alone will never suffice to grasp the true nature of symbols. You possess a very strong capacity for intellectualization, but that is simply not enough and as a result, I find myself unable to convey my thoughts to you, or perhaps you are unable to grasp what I am attempting to explain.

Therefore, if you wish to contribute to this thread, please do so; I have no objection, and perhaps it might provide me with a clearer insight into your concept. However, let us not bicker over trivialities or insignificant details regarding whether Christ is a symbol or an icon, when to the entire American Christian population, Christ stands as the symbol of the way, the truth, and the life... so, shall we proceed? 😉

So, we'll just have to wait and see how people react... no need to play guessing games here.🙂

Everything can function as a symbol. I’m not talking about the physical figure of Christ, but rather his ontological significance.

Whatever.

But let's not get bogged down in nitpicking trivialities—like whether Christ is a symbol or an icon right now.

Is that a polite request or more of a demand...? I'm having a hard time deciding.🤷

Anyway... those "trivialities" are actually what we call semiotics and linguistics, and personally, I find them pretty vital to the conversation. It feels a bit off to me when people skip over those details, especially since the topic is already on the table. Don't take this the wrong way, though—on a forum like this, there aren't really "people"... it's just a massive collection of ideas and perspectives floating around.

I’m honestly just really glad you’ve got him in your corner 🙂

coppertrucker3 said:The Cross might be standard practice in the Catholic Church today, but let's be honest: it’s a pagan custom that clashes directly with the teachings of the Bible. It goes against one of God's most fundamental commandments. Symbolism is strictly forbidden in both the Bible and the Quran. I know enough about other faiths to recognize the pattern—symbolic worship is just a leftover from paganism and polytheism.

Christianity is essentially built upon pagan rituals, pagan beliefs, pagan holidays, and pagan iconography.

If you look at the whole thing, Christianity functions as a covert sun cult where Jesus represents the Sun, and the twelve apostles correspond to the twelve signs of the zodiac. Even the crucifixion of Jesus and his three days hanging on the cross before the Resurrection aligns perfectly with the solar solstice—that period when the Sun appears to hang motionless just above the horizon at its lowest point.

hiddenhound3 said:Fair enough, but perhaps you could greet this discussion by helping me fill in the gaps that have emerged in my own understanding.

The Swastika is a SPIRAL... not a cross.

Indeed, you make a valid point; the Swastika is more accurately interpreted as a 'wheel,' specifically the wheel of fortune.

Another error lies in your conflation of icons and symbols.

I am not conflating them. When I referenced Ganesha, I was speaking of him as a figure with whom the Swastika is intimately linked, often depicted right there upon his palm.

As for Christ, he does not necessarily have to be viewed strictly as an icon; many theorists do not perceive him merely as a historical figure, and accordingly, they interpret him as a symbol of the Self (the Sun, the Cross), implying that the Christ resides within each of us.

In other words, symbolism is something I would also be hesitant to attempt to explain to someone else, so please be careful not to inadvertently misinform forum members, even with the best of intentions.😉

On the contrary, I would very much welcome hearing your specific perspective on this matter.🙂

The topic itself feels a bit too broad to just patch up like this—honestly, I doubt most spiritual seekers would find this approach very engaging.

I'm not confused.

An icon (derived from the Greek εἰκών, eikōn) is a sacred piece of art, typically a painting, rooted in Eastern Orthodoxy. More broadly, the term is applied across various fields to mean an Image, a picture, or a representation; it acts as a sign or a likeness that stands in for an object by signifying it either through direct resemblance or by analogy—kind of like how we use semiotics; furthermore, in our modern world, "icon" is often used more generally to describe a symbol—think of a famous name, a face, a landmark, or even a person who is instantly recognizable because they embody specific qualities: essentially, it's one thing—a visual or conceptual depiction—that represents something much deeper through literal or metaphorical meaning, often tied to religious, cultural, political, or economic importance.

As you can see... your definition is describing exactly what an icon is. 🙂

And as for Christ, he doesn't necessarily have to be an icon. Many theorists don't view him strictly as a historical figure, interpreting him instead as a symbol of the self (like the Sun or the cross), which implies that each of us carries that Christ within.

An icon doesn't require the subject to be a real or even a fictional person. The "My Computer" icon on your desktop was never a living breathing being, yet it's still called an icon. You, unlike "my Computer," are a living person, but a photograph of you is still your icon.

Symbolism is incredibly layered, and without a basic grasp of semiotics, it's going to be pretty tough to navigate this.

I’m happy to welcome this topic, but honestly, I think you might be skipping a few steps here!

If you’re actually interested in symbols, you first have to figure out what they truly *are*—how they affect people, why they work the way they do, and specifically why certain shapes trigger certain responses instead of others.

Just cataloging symbols without answering those fundamental questions isn't going to get you very far... at that point, it just becomes a hobby, kind of like collecting postage stamps where the designs are basically arbitrary.

Until you understand why some road signs use an inverted triangle, others use a square, some are circular, and others are octagonal... trying to interpret symbols is pretty much meaningless.

Plus, you tripped up on a mistake right at the start... maybe even two. 🙂

hiddenhound3 said:Swastika also functions as one of the many variations of the Cross = Sun.



It appears most frequently within Hindu traditions and maintains an incredibly close connection to the deity Ganesha.



Ganesha is revered as the God of wisdom, righteousness, and prosperity, serving as the divine protector of all beginnings.

He is honored at the commencement of all ceremonies, prayers, weddings, or any other significant life events. It is believed that he was the scribe for the epic Mahabharata, which was dictated to him by the great sage Ved Vyasa. The image of Mr. Ganesh graces the entrances of many homes because it is believed to invite good fortune and robust health. Devout followers pray to Ganeshi with deep faith and dedication, asking him to clear all obstacles from their path. They offer him sweets and observe fasts in his honor. There are numerous fascinating legends surrounding his birth; here is one:

Ganesha was born from the divine essence of Shiva and Parvati. Parvati fashioned him out of clay and breathed life into him. At that time, Shiva was deep in meditation, and upon emerging, he intended to enter Parvati’s private chambers. However, she was bathing at the moment and instructed Ganesha to permit no one entry. Shiva remained quite persistent, yet Ganesha would not yield. A conflict ensued, resulting in Shiva severing Ganesha's head. Upon witnessing this, Parvati implored Shiva to restore him to life. Shiva complied by placing upon him the head of the first creature he encountered, which happened to be an elephant. Seeing this, Parvati promised Ganesha that he would be the first to be worshipped, and granted him the power to remove all impediments.

Ganesha is regarded as a benevolent being who delights in assisting those who call upon him. He brings both spiritual and worldly success. His iconography depicts him in standing, seated, or reclining positions, always facing directly forward. On his elephantine head, there is a missing portion of the trunk, which he sometimes holds in one of his four hands. In another hand, he may hold an axe, symbolizing the cutting away of illusion and false teachings. A third hand holds a small whip, much like those used by mahouts, representing the logic used to puncture illusion. He invariably holds sweets—which he is fond of—in one hand, while another hand is typically held in the mudra of strength. Around his waist, he holds a serpent. Beside him sits a mouse, his vehicle. Just as a mouse can squeeze through any crevice, Ganesha removes all obstacles, no matter how insurmountable they may seem.

Ganesha holds immense significance, and his birthday is celebrated in August. He is married to Siddha (success) and Buddhi (intellect). Furthermore, he is the father of two sons, Ksem (prosperity) and Labh (gain). In traditional art, he is often depicted sitting between Siddha and Buddhi.

His massive physical form represents the Universe, and his trunk symbolizes Om, the symbol of the unmanifested God. The elephant head signifies superior intelligence, while the serpent around his waist represents cosmic energy. The sheer scale of his body teaches us that outward appearance is not linked to inner beauty or spiritual perfection. The noose in his hand symbolizes worldly attachments, whereas the hook serves as the tool to guide humanity toward the path of righteous action. The beads of a rosary emphasize the vital importance of prayer, and his broken tusk stands as a symbol of wisdom, as it is believed he used it to write the Mahabharata. The sweet in his hand serves as a reminder of the sweetness of the inner self. By riding upon his vehicle, the mouse, he demonstrates that in the eyes of God, the smallest creature is just as important as the greatest.

The Swastika is a SPIRAL... it's not a cross. A Swastika represents dynamic energy, whereas a Cross is the complete opposite... it symbolizes stasis, literally "fixing" things in place. Think about it—gravestones were being marked with crosses long before Christianity took hold, because the dead don't move anymore—so their resting places are marked with a "non-dynamic" symbol.

The second mistake is that you're blurring the line between icons and symbols. Sure, icons can carry symbolic weight, but their primary purpose is to carry specific connotations. Ganesh and Jesus on the Cross are ICONS, not just symbols. What you described were essentially the connotations associated with those two figures—Ganesh and Jesus. There is a massive difference there, and failing to see it is a major pitfall.

In other words, symbolism is something I’d be pretty hesitant to try and explain to someone else, so just be careful that you aren't accidentally spreading misinformation to other members of the forum, even with the best intentions. 😉

mistybison said:That applies to all claims and "knowledge" out there. 😉

Are you describing a focus on psychology rather than spirituality? I wonder if you truly believe this path can lead us toward the liberation we discuss here.

You can label it however you like, but when it comes down to actual "spiritual work," dealing with your own psyche is really the first—and honestly, the only—thing you can do to "develop" the spirit.

And sure, that path can absolutely lead to "liberation"... I’d go so far as to say there isn't really any other way around it. You see spiritualists constantly bashing the mind, often using their own lack of understanding as an excuse by claiming spirituality is somehow "beyond rationalization"... but unfortunately, that couldn't be further from the truth.

People tend to memorize metaphors and pieces of wisdom, yet they can't say anything meaningful about them other than repeating them verbatim while rambling about how the mind is simply incapable of grasping the spiritual. As long as that's the case, it's pretty obvious the person hasn't actually integrated those "sacred" insights into their perception—because once you truly grasp a concept, you can talk about it until you're blue in the face.

The only things that feel "incomprehensible" are the things we don't have the slightest clue about, but that doesn't stop certain spiritual "experts" from practically bragging about their confusion. They act as if being spiritual means you shouldn't think at all, just accepting everything blindly... without any thought, integration, or genuine understanding.

Besides... the "path of unification" is known (as I'm sure you know) as Yoga. And as far as I'm aware, one of the specific paths within yoga is Self-actualization, or "The yoga of knowledge."

It used to be called the "royal yoga," mostly because only a king could afford to spend all day in contemplation without having to actually *do* anything. It was a similar story with philosophy back in the day—hardly anyone could afford to sit around philosophizing before the Industrial Revolution hit.

And you've probably heard of a guy named Nagarjun... he wasn't exactly a fan of meditation as a substitute for "self-work." He believed all spiritual concepts are quite easy to grasp once you stop making excuses and decide to actually turn your brain on. They say he could "enlighten" someone in a single conversation—provided, of course, the person actually wanted to figure out what their problem was in the first place.

Most people actually cling to their problems... it makes them feel special, unique... it gives them an identity that others recognize and judge by. It's like saying, "You know... his dad was an alcoholic and used to beat him when he was a kid... he turned out to be a pretty good guy despite all that"... stuff like that.🙄

mistybison said:Eventually, you will encounter "evidence" everywhere suggesting that the belief you currently hold as absolute truth is indeed reality. 🙂 This continues until the idea inevitably fades, making room for a new one, at which point the entire Universe seems to realign itself just to "confirm" your new perspective once again. It is a constant cycle. 😉

"Spiritual progress" doesn't necessarily mean repairing something broken; it can also mean upgrading, evolving, expanding, liberating, or any other transformation one might imagine. 🙂

The only thing you can really try to do is remain open to all this new information. As far as I can see, that’s the only way anyone could actually "work" on an "upgrade." But even then, it’s often not much of a game-changer.

A lot of people "know" deep down that everything is just an "illusion," but when they step out into a busy street in Chicago, they still make sure they don't get flattened by some "illusory" semi-truck. When you talk to people... nobody is being selfish or malicious, because everyone knows exactly what the "right" thing to say is when discussing spiritual topics... yet so few people actually integrate that info and live their lives in alignment with it.

Integrating new insights into your perceptual "model" is really the only "work" we can actually perform "on ourselves," and let's be honest—hardly anyone does it. People would much rather sit in a lotus position, go on a pilgrimage, or curl up with some spiritual bestseller... very few people actually want to sit there and interrogate their own actions, desires, opinions, and core beliefs. Most folks spend their energy protecting their existing convictions and behavioral patterns, and they tend to panic at the mere suggestion of change.

placidharbor7 said:Above all else, it really comes down to the state of our own individual consciousness, doesn't it?

But honestly, I think the bigger issue isn't even the quality of that consciousness—it's the fact that most people don't even have a solid concept of "self" to begin with.

I try to explain it to them... spiritual growth is really just a mental descriptor. It's—well, if you were actually "fixed," you wouldn't be broken to start with, right? But hey... plenty of people claim they're working on themselves and insist they're making progress...

...and then you get those looks, like, "Who are you to judge?"—as if they're some kind of ultimate authority on their own enlightenment.

mistybison said:Don't you also believe in eternal life through your own lens—viewing the Universe or the mind as something constant that flows from dream to waking, from waking to dream, from life to death, and from death back to life?

I assume the book offers concrete instructions, but not just for the deceased, rather for the living as well.

It is believed that liberation exists, which is what The Tibetan Book of the Dead discusses and what we are debating here. 🙂

That kind of assumption is basically the root of every mistake we make. 🙂

wiredcanyon6 said:@Edward Flores4
Good to see you back at it with the wordplay and dodging the point. Honestly, I don't even feel the need to reply to your post anymore because it's clearly just about feeding your ego.
Bdw, don't sweat it... I won't be thinking about this conversation later since I didn't learn anything new or encounter anything I haven't seen before.
Best.

Well, you’re commenting on it right now... which makes it pretty obvious you felt the need to, even if you’re trying to paint this "image" of yourself where you don't. Now, I have to wonder—where exactly are you seeing ego here, and whose ego are you actually looking at? Honestly, even the FBI couldn't untangle that logic.😁

unknown. Don't sweat it... I won't be dwelling on this conversation down the road since I haven't learned anything new or encountered anything I haven't seen a thousand times before.

I'm not sweating it... but you clearly are! Are you trying to convince me, or are you just trying to talk yourself into believing it?

It's a rhetorical question, really, because I'm assuming (just like you said) that you aren't going to keep this discussion going...

So, cheers to you, my friend. 😉