Posts by placidharbor7

Susan Kim18 said:if they're crying out in a gloomy fog while stuck in the wrong waiting room for the end

There really isn't any right or wrong way to look at it, because the "exit" is always just the end of the road.

mistybison said:I recently finished reading the Tibetan Book of the Dead. Most people here are likely already familiar with this text, but for those who aren't, it outlines the journey of the soul after death as interpreted by ancient spiritual leaders. Its purpose is twofold: to prepare an individual for the afterlife while they are still living, and to provide guidance for loved ones to assist the deceased by reading specific passages aloud. The book explores existence beyond our physical realm—what many would call the astral plane—which serves as a bridge toward total liberation or reincarnation into the material world. It offers practical advice for navigating encounters with various benevolent or wrathful deities during judgment, ultimately guiding the soul toward choosing its next life if complete liberation isn't achieved.

Reading this book, I have concluded that achieving liberation after death is an incredibly difficult feat, likely reserved only for yogis who have already mastered it during their lifetime. Most people simply drift along, carried by the weight of their good and bad karma, failing to maintain a mind centered in emptiness. For the majority, rebirth serves as the inevitable next step—a second chance to pursue spiritual progress. The Tibetan Book of the Dead suggests that liberation can be achieved (though rarely) in the immediate moments following death if the individual is capable, regardless of their karma. This depends entirely on their ability to recognize that everything encountered while navigating Purgatory is merely a projection of their own mind. Every vision is just a fragment of the deceased's psyche: the peaceful deities represent their divine nature, the wrathful ones reflect their human side, and even "judgment" is nothing more than a dialogue between different aspects of the self. Even suffering is simply a product of a restless conscience. Nothing in the astral realm exists outside the individual's being; the entire experience is shaped by one's karma and personal perception. If the soul cannot realize this, they may attempt to find liberation through prayer and focus on a protective deity. If that fails and they are overwhelmed by the illusions of the external world, their karma will inevitably lead them toward a new birth, whether in human form here on Earth or in some other realm altogether.

What I find most fascinating here is the actual concept of liberation. If everything in the astral realm is just as unreal as the deceased themselves—if it's all merely a mental projection colored by the memories and personality traits of a past life (which arguably applies to our physical reality too, but let's not get sidetracked)—then if the mind is fundamentally formless, void, and uncreated, those memories and inclinations are nothing more than illusions. In that case, who exactly is being liberated, and what is actually gained through such a process? 🤷 That which has always been unborn and uncreated is eternally free. It remains untouched by the shifting shadows and colors of existence—perceptions that are merely illusions destined to dissolve once they recognize their own lack of substance. When these illusions scatter, any perceived cognitive Power dissolves along with them. Everything fades. This isn't an escape into some heavenly realm of bliss (as being reborn into such worlds is just another layer of illusion), which leads me to wonder: is "liberation" even the right word for this process? Perhaps "annihilation" or "vanishing" would be more accurate. If the unborn is inherently free and void, then the illusory self, upon realizing its true nature, simply dissolves in a flash of insight. In reality, nothing truly changes; what was always free remains so, and what was never free never truly existed. The ultimate question remains: to what end?

Doesn't this entire concept seem completely nonsensical? All that spiritual labor, practice, and devotion spanning aeons just to realize we are a "holographic program," living in a "holodeck," and made of uncreated light dust—only to dissolve back into that dust and lose any sense of "self"? It feels a bit absurd, doesn't it?

On an intellectual level, grasping this idea isn't difficult. Modern science provides plenty of support, and beyond that, we have our own personal experiences, intuition acting as a channel to universal knowledge, and the mind's capacity for abstract thought. Actually "achieving" such a state is undoubtedly much harder and requires immense discipline. Perhaps adopting this view of reality could simplify and beautify our lives. But why would anyone set the "annihilation of consciousness" as their ultimate goal? Why would we want to dissolve into the void? Usually, the answer given is to escape the suffering of birth and death. But who is actually escaping it? Once you realize the illusion, the one being born and dying is merely a vanishing act, while that which was never born or died lacks a "self" to begin with. To me, it all looks like a pointless cycle: non-existence, existence, then non-existence again. 🤷

I hope my point comes through clearly in this topic. 😁

Well, I'd argue that absurdity is just like a "rotten tooth"—you've got to pull it out! Once that's gone, you aren't left with some vague "love for death," but rather Death itself: pure, raw, and unadulterated. An enlightened being—someone who has truly transcended the ego—would essentially exist within the Bardo described in Tibetan texts. In that heavy, swirling mist, they don't cry out for some sort of "liberation"; instead, they ache for finality. The absolute end of both body and mind, leaving nothing behind, not even a memory—that is the only true "nirvana."
There’s actually a hidden riddle in the Nazarene's teaching that "the kingdom of heaven belongs to the poor in spirit." Honestly, isn't it true that religions preaching "ecstasy," "liberation," or "eternity" are just fundamentally childish?

Richard Walker79 said:I’ve had a very similar experience, and for a few years now, everything has finally been settling into place. Perhaps I’m navigating similar waters as placidharbor7?
Actually, I was once the one doing all the searching, but then I just gave up—and that's exactly when everything started flowing to me. Right now, though, I'm struggling to fully embrace certain realizations because of old mental programming. One thing I’ve definitely sensed is the presence of God, but if I start bringing that up in spiritual discussions, people might think I'm just some religious fanatic. It’s truly fascinating how that works when discussing spirituality, even with something like Buddhism.
placidharbor7 once mentioned something about Kosmologos, which I'm quite eager to compare with my own insights.

Maybe Osho and the others only achieved a partial kind of enlightenment. How can I explain? You simply feel it, you know it, you recognize it...

Lao Tzu referred to it as the TAO.
placidharbor7 calls it KOSMOLOGOS.
Honestly? It's nothing special—just one more fancy label for the INEFFABLE.

casualtiger2 said:So, that’s exactly what I’m asking you. What did that Equilibrium actually look like?
What was it like, when things were getting "bloody and messy"?
PS
And how can you be so sure that Krishnamurti and Osho were just "thieves who treated Awakening like a Spanish village"?
Does that mean you’ve somehow cornered the absolute truth on this whole subject?
Or are you suggesting the "white man's path" is the only legitimate way to go—and that all those "Vedantic vampires and sorcerers" are just manipulators by default?

When I say "blood," I'm talking about pure intensity. A true Seeker would rather exhaust themselves completely than settle for anything less than total immersion.

casualtiger2 said:So, that’s exactly what I’m asking you. What did that Equilibrium actually look like?
What was it like, when things were getting "bloody and messy"?
PS
And how can you be so sure that Krishnamurti and Osho were just "thieves who treated Awakening like a Spanish village"?
Does that mean you’ve somehow cornered the absolute truth on this whole subject?
Or are you suggesting the "white man's path" is the only legitimate way to go—and that all those "Vedantic vampires and sorcerers" are just manipulators by default?

Look, a truly awakened being can easily see that neither Krishnamurti nor Osho have any clue about the depth of his own personal experience. It took placidharbor7 about ten years just to deconstruct those notorious Indian scams—centuries of indoctrination were his biggest hurdle! Honestly, in all of America, no living soul has ever stepped forward claiming to be enlightened in that specific "Far Eastern" way while actually having significant public support and genuine understanding behind them.

casualtiger2 said:So, that’s exactly what I’m asking you. What did that Equilibrium actually look like?
What was it like, when things were getting "bloody and messy"?
PS
And how can you be so sure that Krishnamurti and Osho were just "thieves who treated Awakening like a Spanish village"?
Does that mean you’ve somehow cornered the absolute truth on this whole subject?
Or are you suggesting the "white man's path" is the only legitimate way to go—and that all those "Vedantic vampires and sorcerers" are just manipulators by default?

Possessing the ultimate Truth naturally includes the answer to this very question, doesn't it?

casualtiger2 said:So, that’s exactly what I’m asking you. What did that Equilibrium actually look like?
What was it like, when things were getting "bloody and messy"?
PS
And how can you be so sure that Krishnamurti and Osho were just "thieves who treated Awakening like a Spanish village"?
Does that mean you’ve somehow cornered the absolute truth on this whole subject?
Or are you suggesting the "white man's path" is the only legitimate way to go—and that all those "Vedantic vampires and sorcerers" are just manipulators by default?

There is no such thing as a "white man's path." However, there is a universal mind that is distributed equally across the entire planet. From within that potential, one should be able to easily bypass the "vampires and witches" peddling every flawed "spiritual" offer under the sun. The first step is dismantling the fame surrounding those Indian enlightenment "clichés." The West is going to overtake the East in self-realization, just as it has already overtaken it in martial arts.

casualtiger2 said:Nice one, Master.
Can you walk us through how you actually reached that state of Equilibrium
and what a practice session even looks like once you've hit it?

"...and all the others who experienced enlightenment naturally and spontaneously were actually working on something just before it happened (of course, it's possible to argue that this work or effort has some causal link to the enlightenment itself, but I think that topic has been covered enough at the Great Master School)."

Everyone, that is, except for placidharbor7—he was the one "working" after the fact, specifically aiming for Equilibrium. And even then, it was because, as an American Seeker, he followed those Indian charlatans who treated Awakening like a cheap roadside attraction: J. Krishnamurti and Shree Rajneesh Bhagwan Osho.
It took blood, sweat, and tears for even the concept of Awakening to break free from centuries of manipulation by Vedantic vampires and witches over the white man. In many ways, that's exactly why the "Great School Enlightenment Western World" carries its name.

casualtiger2 said:This really ought to be one of the most important threads on this spirituality forum.

If we set aside the tiny handful of people who are already enlightened—though I suspect even they have their own routines—and the massive group of people everyone *claims* is already enlightened (where any attempt at effort might actually just pull you away from your true nature, which can happen), then this topic is specifically for those who actually want to work at it, or are already in the middle of doing so.

The basic premise here is that spiritual seekers, if they weren't just born that way, reach certain milestones through some kind of Sadhana.
Even Zen practitioners, who tell stories about sudden insights and satori, spend hours sitting in meditation almost every day (essentially doing nothing). Raman, after his near-death experience, spent years meditating in a temple or a cave. Ramakrishna reached nirvikalpa samadhi through intense devotion to Kali. Even all those others who experienced spontaneous enlightenment were usually doing *something* beforehand—of course, you could argue whether that effort actually caused the enlightenment, but I think we’ve chewed that one enough over at the Great Master School.
Even Jesus went out into the desert for 40 days for some reason, and Buddha is probably the ultimate example of what a person is capable of when they are truly committed to self-realization.

So, this is a space for those engaged in practice. We can discuss—or cite examples regarding—the theoretical foundations, the different types, the effects, the roadblocks, and the practical successes of various "techniques." By techniques, I mean the more classical definitions: meditation, prayer, japa, kirtan, pranayama, asana... but hey, if watering your plants serves the same purpose for you, I'm all for it.

Personally, I’m drawn to the path of yoga; it seems like the most systematic and clear-cut route for self-development (admittedly, I'm not as well-versed in Western systems, but if anyone knows more about them, please, jump in). In his book "Sadhana," Swami Sivananda provides a solid overview of the various types of Sadhana and the conditions needed to practice them, so I'll likely quote from it occasionally—much of it translates pretty easily into the language of Western systems anyway.

And here is what Patanjali says about the practice:

I, 12:
Practice and [spiritual] clarity leading toward that stillness (nirodha) [which was mentioned earlier in YS, I, 2].

I, 13:
The effort to remain [steadfast in that stillness] is what defines [the essence of] "practice" (abhyasa).

placidharbor7 "corrects" Master Patanjali:

I, 12:
Stillness and [spiritual] the clarity of water flowing toward practice (nirodha) [as previously discussed in YS, I, 2].

Of course, Master Patanjali knows this! But does any student actually know or even understand it? It seems to me that Patanjali is simply "adapting" his teachings to fit the students of that specific era.

Brian Foster3 said:Man, everything is right there in section 1.16 ☕

Trust me, you wouldn't believe how easy it is to shut down those Instinctively Unconscious Non-Sense Deniers—they always end up falling apart because they think their own little "private logic" actually matters.☕

The Enforcer of Meaning.🙄

steeleagle13 said:What if it isn't the Virgin? 😁😁

Mary 😁

There are plenty of Virgin devotees around here, so I bet those Kabbalists are getting pretty worked up!😉

steeleagle13 said:And who sits at the top: the Pope 😂?

Or maybe Saint Peter 😂

Madonna, if you aren't throwing stones at the Kabbalists.

Brian Foster3 said:Man, he actually *wants* to talk. I’m not even trying here! You can see how much he loves jumping in to try and "wake up" everyone around him with his latest obsession: "Let's expose those Kabbalah idiots who don't know anything!" He’s honestly having way too much fun with this to ever shut his... well, you know, mouth. Honestly, I'm basically doing him a favor. 😍 He’s found a brand new dopamine hit, and now he’s stuck in this loop where he’s instinctively chasing that high, following these primal urges for validation and excitement, constantly sprinting toward whatever gives him that rush—as long as it feels better than the actual work required on the "path." So, by just ignoring him, I'm actually giving him exactly what he wants.😍

Does the Kabbalah teach that being "awake" provides us with specific motivations for our actions?😁

Brian Foster3 said:Yeah, I felt the exact same vibe coming from Quote: Vertigo m too, honestly. It’s just a perfect little example of the spiritual law of equality of form playing out right before our eyes. ☕

But then again, there's so much inequality when it comes to how our minds and senses work. Just remember, wherever you are, that's where the Kabbalah is.

Brian Foster3 said:Yeah, I finally get what you mean, but honestly, it still feels like a total contradiction to me because at the end of the day, even our subjective ways of speaking are built on nothing but definitions. Think about it—to define something is literally just to limit it, to squeeze it down into some finite shape and draw lines around it, which completely defeats the whole point!

Look, even technical definitions aren't set in stone—language is inherently subjective, period. It’s all just one big, fluid expression.
If someone tries to argue that spirituality can't actually be defined, all they're really doing is proving they don't have the slightest clue how to put it into words! It’s just one big, amorphous, shapeless mess of vague nonsense—completely foggy and totally undefined, like trying to grab a handful of steam.

Bell peppers and cabbage grow for absolutely nothing, so give me one single, halfway decent reason why life even happens—what could possibly be a good enough reason for existence? There isn't one, so it’s all for nothing and completely senseless, because if there actually were a purpose, then having a purpose wouldn't make sense anymore, if you catch my drift. But hey, that's just my subjective take on things, and from where I'm sitting, it looks like you totally missed my point, so there's really no use in us going back and forth about this since it's just a massive waste of both our time and energy.

🙂 It hasn’t been for nothing so far, if you ask me. And trust me, it sure as hell isn't going to be anytime soon either! 🙂

If there’s actually some grand Purpose out there, then I’m officially calling bullshit because that makes absolutely zero sense to me!

That’s exactly why you love playing the relativist game. It’s just easier for you to pretend nothing matters because you're absolutely terrified of what would happen if there actually was One Single Meaning—it would basically wipe out every little scrap of purpose you've tried to manufacture for yourself, both the ones you know about and the ones you haven't even realized yet. Honestly, it’s much less painful to just strip everything of its value and tear it all down so you can have enough empty space to build up your own little DIY meanings, right?

Man, it is truly wild how limited you are—mentally, emotionally, even intuitively! What, are you trying to run the Kabbalah alongside Madonna?

Kenneth Peterson5 said:Hey, placidharbor7,
Since you clearly see I'm struggling to keep up here, why don't you try typing a little slower?

😍Don't worry, the boss loves you, Kenneth Peterson5!🙂👍

Brian Foster3 said:Seeker of Truth, just keep searching. Those who seek are the ones who find. 🤣

There is no such thing as "Truth"—it's all just noise.

"Because if there were an absolute Truth, then nothing would actually have any meaning," if you catch what placidharbor7 is trying to get at here. 🙄

Kenneth Peterson5 said:If that’s how placidharbor7 is playing it, then he isn't actually AWAKENED.
I mean, seriously—it’s just another case of throwing pearls before swine (and yeah, I'm talking about Kenneth Peterson5 here, just so no sensitive little souls out there feel targeted). It is what it is.

But honestly? Neither the pigs nor the pearls even matter when you consider the absolute impossibility of someone who isn't awake being able to recognize someone who IS.

briskraven28 said:@Brian Foster3,
The perceived contradiction between my first and last points suggests you missed the distinction—I was addressing the futility of "defining" things initially, whereas the conclusion concerns the subjective expression of one's own experience through language—think semantic-syntagmatic relationships in any medium, be it verbal, visual, or auditory...
Peppers and cabbage grow for "nothing." Give me one sufficiently compelling reason why life proceeds—a reason that would qualify as a valid justification for existence? There isn't one. It happens for "nothing" and without inherent meaning; because if there were meaning, then there wouldn't be any meaning—if you follow my logic. That is my subjective view, however, and since it seems you haven't grasped my point, further debate is pointless... it’s simply a drain on both our time and energy.

Girl, you clearly have it all figured out! Don't waste your precious time on those little con artists and Kabbalah enthusiasts, unless, of course, you're planning on becoming a Master Teacher yourself.👍

Brian Foster3 said:I'm putting it out there constantly, it's just that you're too blind to see it—you aren't looking at reality, you're just staring at your own selfish desires.

placidharbor7 is searching for the Truth behind those awakened role models of yours, not your own truth. Did you honestly think a Master would be so clueless about the human soul?
Let's bring them out into the light along with those self-proclaimed sons of the Kabbalah—let's see who they really are and listen to all that nonsense they spout!

Kenneth Peterson5 said:Does placidharbor7 ever feel like all this word salad and jumping from nothing to absolutely nothing just leaves him feeling lonely?

Once you're truly Awake, there aren't any qualities or labels left—nothing except for whatever you choose to project onto him, The Seeker of Truth.

briskraven28 said:Since you seem so eager to define terms—would you mind actually defining "spiritual" first?...
Definitions are unnecessary—it is an illusion to think we can define anything when our very tool for definition, language, is what constructs the syntagms of reality as we perceive them... As long as you view life through the lens of language, you will struggle with the need to define. Once the grip of vocabulary finally loosens, perhaps you will stop seeking definitions altogether and simply begin approaching what you subjectively experience as "reality."

Spirituality is composed of various levels—which means, naturally, that levels of awakening can vary quite significantly...

I find myself skeptical regarding your concept of levels—it’s much like claiming the universe is composed of distinct layers; essentially saying it's infinite yet attempting to grasp it by imagining floors... solar systems, galaxies, the Milky Way, micro versus macro... it just doesn't follow.
To my mind, there is no distinction between the spiritual and the non-spiritual—that divide exists only within language itself. It implies a fragmented way of perceiving things, a tendency to categorize... and once you allow that division to take root in your head, you inevitably fall for the illusion of "growth." If something is truly whole, it is indivisible; it simply *is*. There is no room for fragmentation, and therefore, no room for growth—only the growing illusion of progress. One might call this "pure consciousness," or whatever terminology people prefer... personally, I’d just call it "cat's paw." 😳 The only thing that matters—provided we actually understand one another—is that we are on the same page...

The truth is simply whatever the individual perceives spiritually—exactly what they sense. That sensation becomes their spiritual reality, their truth. Anything else... well, that’s just a lie.

If there exists some notion of wholeness, indivisibility, or pure consciousness—whatever one chooses to label it—what part of that is mere fabrication, and what constitutes the truth? Is it even possible to separate the two...

It is an illusion—and frankly, a waste of breath—to sit around philosophizing about what constitutes spiritual truth versus falsehood. One simply needs to show up... once you arrive, everything becomes more than crystal clear. That is the priority. Just get there.

On this PDF, people constantly spout these parrot-like "dogmas" regarding some supposed divine "ineffability"—this idea that "awakening" is also somehow "ineffable"... I suspect this has nothing to do with true ineffability and everything to do with the speaker's own lack of clarity—or perhaps just a mediocre ability to articulate a thought. That isn't inherently a flaw, mind you... but it’s frequently used as a convenient excuse for things they label "sublime," claiming such truths can only be "experienced" rather than spoken.
Anything experienced can be conveyed—provided the messenger possesses the capacity to express it. There is a certain beauty here, from a subjective standpoint, in these shared experiences... It isn't some illusory discount when someone successfully transmits their reality; it’s merely a "template" for those who lack either the experience or the ability to articulate it.

If you personally feel that a "messenger had sufficient ability to express THAT," then the only logical conclusion is that you yourself are enlightened.
If you aren't, then unfortunately, THAT remains nothing more than a mere hint.

Brian Foster3 said:Look, we have to actually define what awakening even means first. It’s nothing more than the direct perception of the spiritual realm. And since the spiritual world is made up of different levels, there are obviously different levels of being awakened.

The truth is simply whatever the person perceiving the spiritual is actually experiencing. That’s how they feel the spiritual reality—as the absolute truth. Compared to that, everything else is just a total lie.

And let's get one thing straight: both lie and truth still exist as categories (they don't just vanish) after that initial awakening and while you're climbing those spiritual rungs all the way back to the Source.

Honestly, arguing and philosophizing about what counts as truth versus a lie from a spiritual standpoint is just useless, empty work. You just have to get there, and once you do, everything becomes more than crystal clear. That’s the only thing that matters. Just get there.

The so-called "spiritual" "idiots."