Posts by placidharbor7

placidharbor7 said:Heh, wait a second! If that external change is happening, then it's an OBJECT, my dear Truth-Seeker. And on the flip side, you can really only call that thing of yours a SUBJECT if there's actual self-awareness involved. And that’s where things get messy! See, self-awareness is simultaneously about judging and being judged; it's about personalization and that whole "ego" concept—which is really just one big, heavy word for MAYER. Now, if you want to believe we can escape from MAYER in little bits and pieces here and there, then sure, you'll be a beginner forever!

But progress toward what, exactly?

The distinction between "active" and "passive" is really just a wash. A subject is always defined by its own inherent principles, even when those principles aren't being loudly or aggressively acted upon. Besides, isn't "passive" observation an impossibility? The "self" never truly goes to sleep!

Because of that, trying to "lose duality" on your own terms is just a non-starter. That kind of dissolution only happens when external forces take over, wouldn't you agree, truth seeker?

Michael Anderson2 said:As far as I can tell, this isn't actually about trying to control someone else or observing an outside object. It’s really about self-mastery—controlling yourself and observing your own inner workings, your own consciousness. If that isn't the case, then you can just disregard my entire argument.

I’m not going to get bogged down in debating what counts as an action versus a reaction—it’s honestly beside the point. The real issue is that when you try to step into the role of a controller or even just an observer, you still remain a subject. And a subject is only truly a subject if they possess self-awareness, or as placidharbor7 would put it:

Moving from being the one in control to simply being an observer is where you actually make progress—you aren't actively meddling in the process anymore, yet you still remain a subject with all those qualities placidharbor7 pointed out. The ultimate goal is to become the thing being observed; to dissolve that duality between the observer and the observed. I'm curious if Krishnamurti was the one who originally wrote that. I think I'll dig through some of his texts to find out.

placidharbor7 — I’m taking this opportunity to speak up. I’ve been reading through quite a few of your posts lately, and honestly? I’m pretty disappointed. If you really are some enlightened being—as you seem to suggest—then you certainly picked a terrible spokesperson. Your delivery is uninspired, your expression lacks any real depth, and ultimately, it feels incredibly immature—hardly the mark of true mastery. You clearly have potential, in my humble opinion, but then again, who am I to judge? Still, I suppose there’s actually something to be learned from Edward Flores4...😁

Haha! "Who am I to judge?"🙄And that's, if I do say so myself, "based on my own humble estimation!"🤣But still!😁

Don't even sweat it when it comes to placidharbor7—if he’s actually telling the truth, you probably wouldn't even recognize it if it hit you in the face! But if he isn't? Well, then you can just stick with Edward Flores4 and the rest of that crowd.

Jeffrey Gray4 said:Shouldn't placidharbor7 be some calm figure who actually respects us for who we are... instead of forcing his teachings on us when he should just wait for us to come to him?
Because, in my opinion, a master should know there’s no point in trying to teach someone who doesn't even want to learn. If you don't respect the people you're trying to mentor, then don't go calling yourself a master. Who are you going to teach peace and freedom to if you don't possess them yourself? It doesn't matter how "correct" your truth might be.

What kind of "force" are we talking about here? placidharbor7 is simply standing up for the Truth with everything he's got! He has to share what he knows—I mean, if you were in his shoes, wouldn't you do the exact same thing?

Edward Flores4 said:Listen, you pint-sized spiritual guru with a nasty streak... if you haven't managed to come up with a single coherent point by now, there’s really no need to start puffing out your chest just to prove something to me—trying to peddle your brand of mysticism like some street psychic reading palms at a carnival.

External change is indeed an object, sure, but you didn't create it—unlike that "controlled" entity, which is nothing more than a figment of your own imagination. Being able to witness change simply means being perceptive, but thinking you can actually "control" someone else is pure schizophrenia, and from the looks of it, you've got plenty of experience with that. External changes just reflect back on us; we don't manufacture them for our own amusement, unlike how you amuse yourself playing the "Jack of all trades."

And this is where your overblown spiritual fog starts to turn into a total mess, because you're tossing out concepts that fall way outside your own field of understanding—all while being deeply convinced that nobody will notice. You’re insanely persistent, repeating the exact same patterns unconsciously, hoping against hope that maybe, just this once, the outcome will somehow turn out better than usual. 🙄

On the other hand, you can only call that thing a SUBJECT if it possesses self-awareness.

Oh, so you'll be the one to tell me when I'm allowed to call the subject of control a "subject"? And what exactly does the subject of our actions need to have—aside from actually being the subject of our actions—to earn that title? 🤣

one BIG word—MAYER.

wow... I have never heard that bit about MAYER before!!! That is a completely new concept to me... thanks for introducing me to such a rare and absolutely fascinating construct.

Got any more "revelations" for us, Inspector Sherlock? ☕

I truly believe that any "external change"—and I mean any external shift at all—is created and made possible solely by your own "self." If you find yourself doubting what placidharbor7 is saying, then why not try to debunk his claim? Go ahead, try to prove the existence of an objective reality! (Yes, really!)😂

Edward Flores4 said:Listen, you pint-sized spiritual guru with a nasty streak... if you haven't managed to come up with a single coherent point by now, there’s really no need to start puffing out your chest just to prove something to me—trying to peddle your brand of mysticism like some street psychic reading palms at a carnival.

External change is indeed an object, sure, but you didn't create it—unlike that "controlled" entity, which is nothing more than a figment of your own imagination. Being able to witness change simply means being perceptive, but thinking you can actually "control" someone else is pure schizophrenia, and from the looks of it, you've got plenty of experience with that. External changes just reflect back on us; we don't manufacture them for our own amusement, unlike how you amuse yourself playing the "Jack of all trades."

And this is where your overblown spiritual fog starts to turn into a total mess, because you're tossing out concepts that fall way outside your own field of understanding—all while being deeply convinced that nobody will notice. You’re insanely persistent, repeating the exact same patterns unconsciously, hoping against hope that maybe, just this once, the outcome will somehow turn out better than usual. 🙄

On the other hand, you can only call that thing a SUBJECT if it possesses self-awareness.

Oh, so you'll be the one to tell me when I'm allowed to call the subject of control a "subject"? And what exactly does the subject of our actions need to have—aside from actually being the subject of our actions—to earn that title? 🤣

one BIG word—MAYER.

wow... I have never heard that bit about MAYER before!!! That is a completely new concept to me... thanks for introducing me to such a rare and absolutely fascinating construct.

Got any more "revelations" for us, Inspector Sherlock? ☕

Just what kind of wild entity is your imagination actually building all this stuff from?🤣

Edward Flores4 said:Listen, you pint-sized spiritual guru with a nasty streak... if you haven't managed to come up with a single coherent point by now, there’s really no need to start puffing out your chest just to prove something to me—trying to peddle your brand of mysticism like some street psychic reading palms at a carnival.

External change is indeed an object, sure, but you didn't create it—unlike that "controlled" entity, which is nothing more than a figment of your own imagination. Being able to witness change simply means being perceptive, but thinking you can actually "control" someone else is pure schizophrenia, and from the looks of it, you've got plenty of experience with that. External changes just reflect back on us; we don't manufacture them for our own amusement, unlike how you amuse yourself playing the "Jack of all trades."

And this is where your overblown spiritual fog starts to turn into a total mess, because you're tossing out concepts that fall way outside your own field of understanding—all while being deeply convinced that nobody will notice. You’re insanely persistent, repeating the exact same patterns unconsciously, hoping against hope that maybe, just this once, the outcome will somehow turn out better than usual. 🙄

On the other hand, you can only call that thing a SUBJECT if it possesses self-awareness.

Oh, so you'll be the one to tell me when I'm allowed to call the subject of control a "subject"? And what exactly does the subject of our actions need to have—aside from actually being the subject of our actions—to earn that title? 🤣

one BIG word—MAYER.

wow... I have never heard that bit about MAYER before!!! That is a completely new concept to me... thanks for introducing me to such a rare and absolutely fascinating construct.

Got any more "revelations" for us, Inspector Sherlock? ☕

Is "perceptive" anything more than just my own personal point of view? Honestly, can the "self" ever truly be objective? I mean, what’s even the point of relying on your own subjective "perception" if it's always filtered through your own lens?😍

What are you even getting so worked up about? Seriously, why all the drama?😠 You came here ready to learn, and trust me—you’re going to walk away with plenty!😁
So, placidharbor7 showed up here acting like he’s some kind of ultimate expert, even going so far as to introduce himself that way! Meanwhile, you went ahead and called yourself Edward Flores4. Honestly, it feels a little shady—it really makes you wonder about your sense of self, doesn't it?🤷🤣😲

Edward Flores4 said:Look... control is essentially manipulation—it's this conscious process where you try to steer some subject around.

Observation, on the other hand, isn't this forced, manipulative effort. It's more like a physical reaction to a change in your environment—something that happens naturally without us having to step in and force it.

So, observing and controlling are two completely different animals. Control is an action, while observation is a reaction. An action requires a subject, which means you end up with two subjects: the one doing the controlling and the one being controlled! Observation is just you—the single subject—reacting to an external shift (which isn't a subject at all).

Which brings me to this... honestly, your question doesn't really hold water, and it seems like you haven't quite grasped what the actual issue with the "controller" is.

Trying to "control yourself" is a bit like practicing voluntary schizophrenia. People with schizophrenia don't choose their state, but "controllers" do it intentionally—they actually believe they're doing something productive, thinking they're "working on themselves." 🙂

Heh, wait a second! If that external change is happening, then it's an OBJECT, my dear Truth-Seeker. And on the flip side, you can really only call that thing of yours a SUBJECT if there's actual self-awareness involved. And that’s where things get messy! See, self-awareness is simultaneously about judging and being judged; it's about personalization and that whole "ego" concept—which is really just one big, heavy word for MAYER. Now, if you want to believe we can escape from MAYER in little bits and pieces here and there, then sure, you'll be a beginner forever!

Jeffrey Gray4 said:Wisdom isn't found by playing the controller, nor is it hidden in some struggle to master our emotions...
In our tribe, there is no hierarchy of who controls whom.
There is only one single consciousness within us all... what matters is how deeply we know ourselves and whether we understand what actually brings us joy versus what brings us misery...
Everything we wish we could hand over to a "controller" is just our own emotions...
Feelings don't come in neat, pre-measured doses, and you can't summon them on command.
They demand to be seen so they don't just sit there festering inside us.
A wise person knows how to vent them—letting them out constantly and without any shame
instead of letting them pile up... if you do that, they won't hit you quite as hard.
The "controller" doesn't exist because we have zero power over how emotions are created or how much of them we feel.
All we can do is let them out... and there’s no control in that process, only release.

P.S. placidharbor7, you're getting way too tangled up in this web of consciousness.

Jeffrey Gray4 said:Wisdom isn't found by playing the controller, nor is it hidden in some struggle to master our emotions...
In our tribe, there is no hierarchy of who controls whom.
There is only one single consciousness within us all... what matters is how deeply we know ourselves and whether we understand what actually brings us joy versus what brings us misery...
Everything we wish we could hand over to a "controller" is just our own emotions...
Feelings don't come in neat, pre-measured doses, and you can't summon them on command.
They demand to be seen so they don't just sit there festering inside us.
A wise person knows how to vent them—letting them out constantly and without any shame
instead of letting them pile up... if you do that, they won't hit you quite as hard.
The "controller" doesn't exist because we have zero power over how emotions are created or how much of them we feel.
All we can do is let them out... and there’s no control in that process, only release.

P.S. placidharbor7, you're getting way too tangled up in this web of consciousness.

😕🙄🙂

Edward Flores4 said:You wouldn't recognize sarcasm even if it knocked on your front door and introduced itself with a formal handshake 🙄 Hmmm... ☕

Clumsiness is just one thing, but being this oblivious? That’s a whole different level of mess.

Edward Flores4 said:I’m pretty convinced that human stupidity is basically infinite—though, to be fair, I can't say for certain if it's always been this way since I wasn't around to witness the beginning of time.

In that same vein, more or less 🙄

So, it's "infinite," but you aren't quite sure if it's always existed, huh!?

Jacob Jackson50 said:Yeah, exactly like that.

So, if that's the case, what role does consciousness actually play?

casualmaker13 said:You're never going to be a "master."😍
Awareness isn't about overthinking, daydreaming, or running your brain ragged—it doesn't cause stress or tension.
Having more awareness actually means having more perception, more observation, or being more alert, which I guess should make life a bit easier for any wise person.
Besides, nobody can help someone who's just stuck in the dust.😉

But look, if we're going to have a real, deep conversation about this, first explain to the master here whether these three things are actually different or if they're just different ways of saying the same thing.

Peter Phillips32 said:Look, let's break this down. Why on earth would having more awareness be a bad thing? Isn't being more aware just giving you a better grip on reality?
And seriously, why are you talking about yourself in the third person? Plus, why the one-sentence answers? It’s getting weird.

What people call "increased awareness" is really just an increase in thoughts, imagination, and endless overthinking. It’s just more tension, more stress, and more mental clutter...
Sure, you see more, but does that mean you see any *better*? At the end of the day, your life remains exactly the same as it was before you started overanalyzing everything.

Awareness is nothing more than simple observation without ever actually rising above the mundane, everyday grind.

ironsailor10 said:Exactly.
Because just having "more awareness" doesn't lead to bloating your ego, whereas aiming for "higher consciousness" usually just ends up with someone acting like they're some kind of superior being.

But really, who on earth gets to claim they possess a "higher consciousness"?

Jacob Jackson50 said:It’s really more about having the humility to just let go and surrender to the flow of life. In those massive corporate networks, everything is already programmed.

And then there's this whole idea of "consciously surrendering to life."

Peter Phillips32 said:I don't get why having more awareness is supposed to be a bad thing? Isn't being aware just having better knowledge about stuff you used to be clueless about?

placidharbor7 was actually saying "for more awareness," not "with higher consciousness."

casualmaker13 said:What do you think the word "impartial" actually means?
The observer observes (they're aware), they don't judge, so they stay impartial.
But once the observer takes a side, they lose that neutrality.
And at that point, they aren't really an observer anymore—they've just become a fan.😍

Here’s the thing: consciousness can’t actually be NEUTRAL, because if it isn't, it isn't really consciousness at all!
I mean, what kind of CONSCIOUSNESS exists without an "I"?
The "I" is inherently BIASED, because that very bias is exactly what constitutes the "I."
Even if you try to go out of your way to pick a side, it doesn't change the underlying BIAS—it's been there all along, running in the background.

You guys keep crying out for more "consciousness," but don't you realize you're actually just asking for more sweat and blood? You're asking for more judgment, more condemnation, and more heartache and struggle in your own lives!

Anyway, has anyone seen shamantrixx lately? Where did they disappear to?

A little clarification here:

TRUE impartiality would essentially mean having zero self-awareness. If you're looking at things strictly from the perspective of pure existence, then trying to claim actual objectivity is just impossible. I mean, how could there be any kind of non-judgmental stance within your own being if the "I" isn't even present to experience it?

Peter Phillips32 said:Look, ladies, of course it's possible, because those were just declarative statements in the first post.

What we’re really looking at here is Jiddu Krishnamurti’s whole observation about how trying to micromanage yourself—your thoughts, your moods, all that stuff—isn't actually the way to go; instead, you're supposed to just be this impartial observer. See, when you start trying to police your own brain, you run straight into that old dilemma: "Who watches the watchmen". When he was reading sections of his books, he’d toss that question out at his audience, and since they couldn't wrap their heads around an answer, they just swallowed his ideas whole as if they were absolute gospel. Instead of nudging people toward their own deep dives and independent thinking, he basically pushes his own perspectives as these untouchable truths.

Since everyone knows there isn't just one single road to reaching a destination, I’m going to take a crack at answering his question myself, and I'm honestly curious if anyone else has some different takes on it so maybe we can collectively stumble upon some alternative answers.

Honestly, I think Krishnamurti is being a bit superficial here; being a truly "impartial observer" is a total impossibility. Think about it: if you are the observer, you can't be impartial. But if you are actually impartial, then you aren't really observing anything!

For an observer to function, they have to maintain awareness of both themselves and the phenomenon they are watching. But true self-awareness requires stepping outside of the EGO. And since the EGO is built entirely on the act of JUDGING, being impartial is fundamentally impossible.

In reality, being "impartial" would just mean being UNCONSCIOUS OF ONESELF. When you factor in the nature of the EGO, any talk about achieving IMPARTIALITY just doesn't hold water.

Edward Flores4 said:Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that you're constantly talking about yourself in the third person. It’s a weird little habit, and honestly, you're sharing that rare "virtue" with guys like Ljub Česić Rojs, the headman, and that one local political figure. 😁

By the way, I think it’s pretty obvious to everyone here how transparent you're being—trying to dodge criticism by pivoting the conversation and throwing out half-baked arguments.

Give my best to Ljub Česić Rojs if you run into him... though I'm sure you'll talk about him in the third person too. 🤣

Actually, isn't it a stroke of luck for placidharbor7 that they don't speak in the first person, Truth seeker? You know, even legendary figures like Sitting Bull, the Jain leader Mahavir, and the German mage Albertus Magnus used the third person to express themselves—and they were all incredibly sophisticated conversationalists! Having a bit of a hot head from the States shouldn't take away from the virtue of speaking about oneself in the third person, right?

wearymason36 said:I probably haven't, but since it clearly didn't work for you, I couldn't care less. You’ve twisted the concept of meditation to fit your own ego, so naturally, you're the only one who holds the "secrets." They say a person is their own greatest obstacle to spirituality. If that's the case, you're basically Mount Denali.

It’s pretty funny how you claim to have found enlightenment through some obscure guy like Jim Jones,
who was basically living on a heavy diet of narcotics before he ultimately decided to take his own life.

The principles of the inner life don't bend to satisfy anyone's ego, Truth Seeker. The inner life is a science where every single fact aligns perfectly with everything else. To actually grasp that, you really have to commit yourself to the inner journey with some actual seriousness.

wearymason36 said:Dear "expert,"

It’s unfortunate to see you spiraling into such an inferiority complex. Your posts suggest you're clinging to that tired "I'm enlightened while you're all mere mortals" trope just to mask a desperate need for validation. It’s classic ego-stroking—a psychological crutch used by people who lack genuine confidence. You hide behind this facade of "mystical insight" to pretend you've transcended life's struggles, when really, it’s just a defense mechanism against being an outcast. Like a cornered animal puffing itself up to look bigger than it is, you use this pathetic rhetoric to shield your fragility. I’d suggest popping this bubble before reality hits you hard enough to shatter that monument you've built to yourself.

I'm being blunt here: if you don't snap out of this, you're headed for a massive reality check. I'm not calling you an idiot, a narcissist, or any other label; I'm simply offering some honest advice.

The topic here is the debate over meditation, truth seeker. I mean, shouldn't someone calling themselves an "expert" be the most knowledgeable person in the room when it comes to meditation, right? Well, before you jump in, why don't you first figure out if you actually know more or less about this stuff than our friend placidharbor7? Once you've done that, feel free to try and analyze his "expert" psychological profile.

To kick things off, placidharbor7 will tell you straight up: you personally haven't even come close to experiencing what he truly understands and defines as meditation.