Posts by steeleagle13

Edward Flores4 said:From where I'm sitting, it looks like you've hung a bunch of expectations on the universe, almost like you have this deep-seated need to believe that "something, somewhere" just keeps going once you pass away. And, in a way, you're right—the world is definitely going to keep spinning without us. Honestly, with over 8 billion people on this planet, hardly anyone is even going to notice you're gone.

I also can't help but notice all the winking emojis and how you're using ALL CAPS for the core parts of your beliefs. If you don't mind me saying, that feels a bit like self-suggestion—it's like you're trying to convince yourself because there's a flicker of doubt underneath. See, once a tiny seed of doubt enters a belief, the certainty is already gone. You already know there isn't an afterlife; you just haven't quite come to terms with it yet.

Maybe I'm totally off base here... and if I am, just toss everything I just said into the trash.

A "state" where there is no one left to experience that state CANNOT be called a state... in other words, death in the full sense of the word cannot exist (no matter how much Tibetans might want it to). There is only some other "kind" of existence, like the astral plane or whatever comes next.

Look, it's pretty simple: just as someone who doesn't exist can't experience death, someone who doesn't exist can't experience an "afterward," either. There's no "astral plane" or "whatever follows" for them. When you aren't there, there is NOTHING following!

Once you're gone, that's it—there won't be any more "you" to experience anything ever again.😉

SO, am I the one doubting, or are YOU?😉 😁

Just like someone who isn't there practically doesn't exist—for someone who isn't there, there is practically no "afterward," and for God's sake, no "astral plane" or "whatever comes next." For those who aren't there, NOTHING follows!

Once someone is gone—there will never be anything again for them.

WHO DOES ANYTHING FOLLOW IF NOBODY IS THERE? 😲 🙄 😂

In other words, DEATH IS IMPOSSIBLE, and your illusory physical shell is ETERNAL!!!

Death in the true sense of the word (assuming there's a "stage" involved, or if there's no astral body outside of the physical—death of the physical being the "end," or the astral body dying, it doesn't matter) can't be anything other than a DEEP DREAMLESS SLEEP... eventually, you'll wake up again, just like you woke up once at birth, and just like you wake up EVERY DAY when you get out of bed in the morning...

placidharbor7 said: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?

BUT AN END ISN'T EVEN POSSIBLE 🙄😉

Isn't the whole point of an "enlightened being" to scream FOREVER!?!?

The end of the physical and mental stuff—that void where thoughts and memories vanish—is just the "potential" for the enlightened being itself... the universe can't just delete its own existence...

mistybison said:Regarding the Tibetan Book of the Dead, Jung isn't actually discussing a divide between Eastern and Western minds, but rather different methods of exploring the psyche. The mind is fundamentally the same for everyone—it is layered. People in the East simply don't place as much emphasis on the things Americans focus on, such as the subconscious or the collective unconscious, because they view all of that as Maya, just as much as our material existence and individual ego. Jung is merely pointing out that, according to the Tibetan Book of the Dead, the process works in reverse at the moment of death: the mind encounters "pure consciousness" or "non-consciousness." If one fails to let go at that moment, they begin to sink back into Maya—first confronting the deepest layers of the human psyche before slowly ascending toward rebirth, physical existence, and individual consciousness. The Tibetan Book of the Dead essentially provides a highly detailed map of the human psyche, moving from the deepest depths to the surface. 🙂

However, it is important to remember that this book explains what happens spontaneously after death. I believe Jung is simply emphasizing that attempting to consciously trigger this reverse process can be extremely dangerous. In an attempt to dive into the deeper layers of the mind hoping to reach the "source," a person might become trapped in mental states they cannot handle, potentially leading to psychosis or schizophrenia. Eastern traditions don't dig through the contents of the mind in that manner; instead, they discard the mind as Maya and focus immediately on the highest state—pure spirit, pure consciousness, emptiness, or non-existence. This is precisely what the Tibetan Book of the Dead advises throughout: turning attention toward non-existence, practicing meditation, or praying to a supreme Deity—regardless of whatever sensations, sights, or sounds are being experienced in that moment.

And so we arrive back at what I mentioned in my opening post: either existence with all its infinite contents, or the total annihilation of everything. Why should the latter be considered the ultimate spiritual goal?

There is ANOTHER option!!!😁
WHAT if they weren't talking about losing consciousness in the final sense, but moving into some other dimension ABOVE the astral plane? Like, above this entire "framework"—life on the physical level, then astral, then back to physical!!😉

Edward Flores4 said:I have to start by saying that, in my view, Carl Gustav Jung’s contribution to how we understand different cultures—specifically through his work on archetypal collective and personal unconsciousness—is easily one of the most massive achievements in the entire field of psychology and comparative mythology. It’s foundational stuff. And while he’s the heavyweight here, you really can't talk about this without bringing Joseph Campbell into the conversation. Campbell took everything Jung started and pushed comparative mythology into a whole new realm, even stepping in to refine or correct some of Jung’s ideas in ways that were honestly pretty vital for the field to move forward.

Now that we’ve finally cleared the air on that, I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that when it comes to the supposed divide between the Easterner and the Westerner mindsets—I absolutely cannot get behind what Carl Gustav Jung was saying.

It’s funny how history repeats itself—even in the minds of geniuses. Take Carl Gustav Jung, for instance. Much like a lot of people do today, he ran headfirst into Hindu philosophy and that whole Eastern style of archetypal mythology, and he fell into a bit of a naive trap. He essentially assumed that Easterners were inherently more advanced than Westerners—that, as a collective, they were sitting at a higher "developmental level" psychologically speaking. He spent a good deal of time experimenting with their meditative techniques, too, but he ended up walking away with this somewhat skewed conclusion: that these practices were actually dangerous for Westerners. In his view, they just led to pure frustration because we seemingly lacked that specific "developmental level" that Easterners supposedly possessed. It was a classic case of looking through a lens that didn't quite account for the full picture.

In those circumstances, his perspective was only right to the extent that it would have been incredibly arrogant of him to assume his own struggle to master those techniques meant the methods themselves were flawed. He wasn't trying to undermine their credibility—mostly because the underlying cosmology actually makes a lot of sense—but rather, Carl Gustav Jung suggested that Americans just aren't quite "ready" for them yet. It’s like trying to run a marathon before you've even learned to walk; if we ignore that gap in readiness, we’re just setting ourselves up for failure. If you jump into it too soon, all you end up with is a massive amount of frustration from the sheer inability to control your mind the way those practices claim you should.

I think what Carl Gustav Jung missed back then was this fundamental point—these methods aren't actually "techniques" in the way we usually think of them. They aren't just tools you pick up and use to get a specific result. Instead, they’re more like a continuous dialogue. It reminds me of that line from William Blake: "The fool who persists in his folly will become wise." That’s really where the magic happens. These practices exist to force a confrontation with the reality that you simply cannot control your own mind. Once you hit that wall and realize how futile that struggle is, you start to see things differently. You begin to understand that "fate" isn't some external force crashing into your life from out of nowhere—it’s actually something we build for ourselves, brick by brick, through our own actions and patterns.

In other words, coming from that typical academic background we see in the West, Carl Gustav Jung wasn't exactly expecting to run into a completely different philosophy of "learning" once he encountered the traditions of the East. Where those Eastern perspectives really had the upper hand—and this is a subtle but massive distinction—was in their understanding that you can memorize every single doctrine and dogma in the book, yet still walk away with your old, biased way of seeing the world completely intact. It’s a bit like memorizing a cookbook without ever actually tasting the food; you have all the data, but zero actual nourishment. Because of that, he missed the chance to really question whether the techniques being offered were even valid, mostly because he was operating under the assumption that, just like back home in the States, education is always supposed to provide concrete, tangible answers. But the teachings from the East operate on a different wavelength entirely—they’re based, as William Blake would put it, "on the straight guidance of a fool."

If someone truly believes the world is flat, just send them out for a walk toward the edge—and make sure they stay in a perfectly straight line. Once they eventually loop right back to where they started, they’ll have to admit, at the very least, that the earth has a cylindrical shape. 🙂

Look, Carl Gustav Jung reached some incredible conclusions; he kicked open so many doors and handed us a toolkit that is still indispensable today. But even he tripped up occasionally—and honestly, we can't hold that against him. If he had claimed to be infallible, well, that would have just been pure arrogance on his part.

Quincy:

If this uncreated, unborn, infinite, and free void is indeed the only true reality, there's probably a reason why its surface gave rise to this illusion of "me" and "the world." Whether it’s a cosmic game or just the inherent nature of that reality—creating diverse forms out of mist and foam only to dissolve them with a single breath—why wouldn't that very form be the greatest treasure of all? Why devalue it, or feel this urge to destroy it and melt it back into the nothingness? Why isn't existence celebrated simply because it manifests in some form? Instead, we tend to view it as mere "suffering" or a "punishment," acting as if the ultimate goal for every conscious being is to unravel back into non-existence.

Now, I can only speak for myself here. For me, life is something to celebrate. I try to soak up as much of it as possible, fully aware that it's fleeting and, from my perspective, ultimately quite nonsensical. Life is basically a "function" or a "characteristic" of the universe—a way for the cosmos to create the variety and complexity it clearly craves. In that sense, life is a disruption of equilibrium; while it lasts, it drives the dynamics of conflict, violence, fragmentation, and isolation. Life IS a problem, with a capital "P."

But because I understand what that "function" actually is, I manage to embrace whatever comes my way with equal enthusiasm... whether it's pain or pleasure. That enthusiasm comes from the simple fact that, sooner or later, I'll return to a state of "equality," and my specific little bubble of consciousness—with all its built-up frustrations, memories, hopes, and philosophies—will finally be released from that pressure.

In a way... this IS a dream that will one day end, and all of this is just a temporary illusion—but while the dream is happening, it is my one and only reality.

Anyway... trying to read ancient texts without a deep understanding of the specific culture and cosmology of the era they were written in usually leads to some pretty massive misinterpretations.

Besides, you shouldn't take even verified, world-class authorities like Carl Gustav Jung for granted. Everyone misses the mark somewhere. Whenever I read a book and can't find at least one point where I disagree with the author, I KNOW I haven't actually grasped what they were really trying to say.

It's the same with me—if you can't find at least one thing to disagree with me on, it means you didn't really understand me. Because I definitely get things wrong sometimes, and I'd actually prefer if people pointed those flaws out. 🙂

YOU SURE ABOUT THAT? 😉

Edward Flores4 said:Some really bright thinkers have suggested that there’s basically only one major philosophical question left to ask:
Whether or not to commit suicide?

And honestly, that’s where the whole irony of spirituality lies... people tend to look at it as a path toward a "good and happy life," chasing those states of consciousness you see laid out in myths and sacred texts. But if you look closer, spirituality actually suggests that life itself is the singular problem we have to solve—and death is, quite frankly, the ultimate solution to the problem of living, which is described in a pretty prosaic way throughout various scriptures and legends.

Is that a "love" for death...? I don't know... personally, I don't think so. But there is a certain level of comfort to be found when I sit and think about it. I'm starting to realize that the point of life isn't necessarily waiting for it to slowly fade away from you, but rather dying for a great idea at exactly the right moment... Maybe a Buddhist would call that meditating on "impermanence"... I usually just call it thinking, but I definitely find some solace in the fact that at least death is a certainty. 🙂

EVERY DEATH means a birth. One thing dies, another is born. Dying implies being born and vice versa...
You've been trying to kill yourself through 5156654654 reincarnations—you're NEVER going to succeed. 😈😉😁

A "state" where there is no one left to experience that state CANNOT be called a state... basically, death in the absolute sense can't exist (regardless of what the Americans might want it to)—there's only some other "kind" of existence, like an astral plane or whatever comes next.

mistybison said:The absurdity lies in the fact that the pain only ceases when the person experiencing it vanishes into a void—a nothingness where neither the person nor the tooth exists. If we follow the Tibetan Book of the Dead, there is only "annihilation," rather than a realization of illusion that leads to happiness. This is because even happiness (much like suffering) is just another layer of deception. This implies that the experiential realization that everything is an illusion leads automatically to total annihilation, rather than a joyful life free from toothaches. 😁 Ultimately, we are left with only two options: 1) a person in pain, or 2) neither the person nor the tooth.

Isn't this view of spirituality based on the belief that existence is inherently suffering and that self-annihilation is preferable to working through that suffering? Doesn't that essentially harbor a love for death?

Then you become a magician, and suddenly you "are or aren't"? 😁

What kind of "plot" are we even talking about when you realize it's IMPOSSIBLE to exist outside of physical life? There’s nobody in the void to actually experience anything... so the ONLY existence that exists is the very one those Tibetan Book of the Dead types are trying to ESCAPE.

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. 😁

Of course it looks absurd. Honestly, teachings like that don't even align with how the universe works.
Because consciousness *is* the manifest universe... that's its very NATURE, all that diversity that sits on the edge of "peace" (the stuff people try to reach in the Tibetan Book of the Dead)
You could meditate for a trillion years and you aren't going to DESTROY THE NATURE of the universe....
The nature of the universe is BIRTH and death!!!!
If you use basic logic, if you "numb" consciousness (which is impossible anyway)—and thereby numb the illusory world—there wouldn't be anyone left to actually "experience" that numbness....
Your existence as a limited collection of flesh and bone🙂 called Annie is the very nature of the universe itself.😁

Things look a bit different when you switch perspectives to see that the MIND IS ONE and everything stems from it (this manifest reality, and even the essence itself). When you make that switch, briefly forget about all those other manifest people you're talking to....
The ONE MIND is the "enlightened being" BEYOND the manifest world—the core of existence.
I'm not talking about some distant concept of Mind, I mean the "I AM": everything that exists.

driftingraven122🙂 would say that this "I AM" starts to "glow" during deep meditation, but then again, it also glows in the guy sitting in the meditative pose and in the "head of lettuce," haha.

Ryan Wilson2 said:It is truly remarkable how people obsess over the specifics of who is or isn't "doing the work."

Heaven forbid you suggest to anyone that they should commit to an hour of meditation; suddenly, everyone becomes an expert, spinning these elaborate, sophisticated theories about why such a practice is entirely unnecessary.

Am I being the only one seeing the early signs of this chaotic, eclectic Zen movement emerging? 😁

Why would anyone even bother meditating? What’s the payoff?
Cash, happiness, a wife, kids, a vacation to the Kariba?

Work gets you those things 😁 not meditation. 😁

There’s this old Judo film that’s actually worth checking out—it features both Morihei Ueshiba and Minoru Tohei. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuuhW9t11e0

Robin Rodriguez5 said:Dragonfly, when Ueshiba passed away without clearly outlining the succession plan—who would represent the art, who would evolve it, or who would lead the charge—it left a massive power vacuum. It’s a classic scenario; you see this kind of messy transition in royal bloodlines all the time, so it shouldn't be any surprise in a martial art. Following strict tradition, the mantle fell to his son. The problem? He wasn't the top student, nor was he the most skilled, nor was he the right-hand man. That role belonged to Tohei for years. Honestly, if we're talking about who actually preserved the legacy, it's debatable whether the son kept the flame alive at all. At that stage, his grasp of the art was shallow compared to Tohei, who was miles ahead in terms of raw knowledge, experience, and pure mastery.

Minoru Tohei
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FE5jN0rqMtM

looks like he turned into a bit of a snake at the end there, haha 😁😍

Mark Torres14 said:I started training Aikido over thirty years ago. Somewhere between 1972 and 1974, if I remember correctly. I think I was testing for belts back then—green or brown, I can't be sure anymore. In our small town, a Canadian instructor showed up and opened an Aikido and Kendo course, so we all signed up. Later, Krešo came back from the USA, and my whole generation ended up pivoting to basketball instead, which became my main sport for the next twenty years.
What drew me to Aikido was the elegance of the movements, though Kendo was definitely more exciting. I remember we were all obsessed with those blind swordmasters you see in Japanese movies who could master a blade perfectly.
Nowadays, a journalist friend of mine runs an Aikido club in San Diego.
I still think about getting back into it, even if the fact that I'm just too big and heavy now (110 kg) holds me back. But honestly, in Aikido, age and weight don't even matter.

Doesn't matter to you, maybe, but it sure as hell matters to your opponent.😛

Eric Lopez2 said:Telema!
There are enlightened people out there—let's call them Love Masters—who have reached a level of awareness where they finally realize that everything is actually one. They understand that whatever you do to someone else, you’re doing to yourself. They live within the collective consciousness; they are one with everything, and everything is one with them. They... I can't work with just a single letter. Give me something to actually write...vetog A...I don't know what you're getting at... ČThey absorb everything around them. They fuse themselves so intensely with every single part of their environment because SAČ is nothing more than a reflection of who they are. To them, all of space is just one big lover, and every star is merely another facet of their passion...

The Orient is essentially one of the main sources of magical sex; you can find its elevated lyricism everywhere from "One Thousand and One Nights" to the poetry of Sufism...

Magical sex is basically built on this idea that you should idealize your partner during intimacy. You visualize them, feel them, touch them, smell them, taste them, hear them, and see them as the physical vessel for your SAČ...

The relationship between SAČ and their protege is built entirely on love...

They took the truths of the Orient and used them as the foundation for their entire culture, science, and art...

High priests and priestesses were trained in the art of love; their entire service was dedicated solely to God, because God is Love...

The exact same thing played out in India, China, and Egypt, as well as in several countries surrounding the Himalayas; back in the day, the entire human race was well aware of that fact...

Best regards...

Eric Lopez2

Agape!

😂

So where does everyone else live? 😁
And how can someone be "one" with you if you aren't one with them?

placidharbor7 said: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.

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.

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

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.

As for martial arts involving competition—let's be real—most of that is just physical brawling.😉

Basically, most martial arts originate from the East (well, most of them anyway).
But the real question is: can we even call those ancient eras "the East"? Back in the Pre-Vedic Age, there was no "East" or "West" like we define it today...

There was this one American author—actually, several books by him—that nobody talks about. You won't find much mention of him in spiritual circles, and hardly anyone has heard his name, yet his work could make every Eastern mystic and Western Scientist look foolish at the same time.

He never bothered organizing schools or anything like that. Instead, back in 1927, he mailed out about a hundred copies of his book to the most prominent minds of the era—actual scientists—via mail. Not a single person ever wrote back or even acknowledged they'd read it.
His name was Walter Russell, and he called it the "universal mind."

casualtiger2 said:@ steeleagle13 and Helel, last warning regarding off-topic posts—I really don't want to spend my entire evening cleaning up after you two.

@ Enchantress - thanks 🙂

@ Donna 😂

@ normall - look, I’m gonna have to ask you to change that avatar. Violence just doesn't fit the vibe we're going for here—and before you jump in asking why we can't include violence, let's start with ourselves; if we change, maybe the world around us will follow suit.

I’m a fan of public polls, and most of mine will stay that way. We’re all hiding behind nicknames here, anyway—and honestly, if someone is too afraid to stand by their opinion even behind a screen, what are they even doing in a community focused on spirituality?

@ Benjamin Long, I still maintain you have no business critiquing the state of the philosophy or spirituality forums—especially not the moderators, who have put in thousands of times more work to make these spaces decent. If I'm wrong, please, enlighten me with your actual contributions to those boards (you know, specific threads you started or solid essays/debates you led).

@ I agree with steelridge58 that nobody actually asked the philosophers if they wanted spirituality shoved into their space. On the flip side, in that poll with the massive turnout, the spiritual crowd voted for independence—which is what I think would be best—but that was basically ignored.
At the end of the day, I couldn't care less where the spirituality section is "physically" located. As long as it’s one click away, it’s fine. What matters is who is writing the content and how they do it.

Up until a few months ago, philosophy was my gold standard—the perfect forum, perfectly moderated. Good people, good conversations—even when things got heated.
Spirituality was pretty much okay, too. steelridge58, remind me again what the actual issue was with the old spirituality board (aside from the lack of a permanent moderator)?
Then the "yellows" showed up and chased off the "reds." One guy with a mission ended up pulling a few others down with him; one argument led to another, and before long, nobody knew who was running the show. Unfortunately, that same guy—using the exact same tactics—came back to shake things up in philosophy, too (exactly what Alexis seems to be rooting for). Threads became personal, petty, non-philosophical, and just plain mundane. It kind of wrecked the philosophy board.
In my opinion, the spirituality forum was torn apart out of the best intentions. When everything moved, topics were shuffled and "sold off." Things that naturally belonged together were scattered across the internet.

That’s just my take on how things went down, and I might be wrong. But regardless, it’s in the past. Here we are now—the spiritual folks over at spirituality, the thinkers at philosophy, and all of us together with two goals: to learn something and have a good time.
So, it’s on all of us to make sure this place stays decent for everyone.

How the hell is this allowed? How can a post from normal stay up when he’s clearly being violent toward another user?🙄

placidharbor7 said:Madonna, if you aren't throwing stones at the Kabbalists.

What if it isn't the Virgin? 😁😁

Mary 😁

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.

And who sits at the top: the Pope 😂?

Or maybe Saint Peter 😂

Look, if everyone’s going to keep yapping about this, then someone actually needs to step up—recommend some books, drop some links, or at least lay out the techniques... 😁

mistybison said:Just a few thoughts...

If "spirituality" is defined as self-discovery, then believing in God isn't strictly necessary. In fact, you don't even need to believe in a "soul" or any other concept we can't verify with absolute certainty. It seems to me that when embarking on this journey, one is better off traveling light—stripping away everything that might clutter the mind or lead us astray through preconceived patterns of thought. Nothing more than self-belief is required, and most of us are quite certain of our own existence. 😉

On the other hand, if "spirituality" is a search for God, then faith in God becomes the prerequisite for the journey. Typically, we look for God in the external world first before turning our gaze inward. While the process of self-discovery involves searching for the source of our being and our purpose, seeking God means looking for the entity we believe to be our ultimate origin and meaning. Have you ever noticed how reality seems to reshape itself to align with our convictions? Once we commit to a belief, we suddenly encounter endless evidence supporting it, almost as if the universe is conspiring to confirm we are right, making it incredibly easy to convince ourselves that we have found the absolute TRUTH. However, just as nothing in this world is permanent, our beliefs shift as well. Throughout my life, my understanding of "God" has evolved many times, mirroring my own internal growth.

Who are you searching for—yourself or God?

There are countless paths toward self-knowledge and infinite ways to seek God. Some follow the well-trodden trails left by those before us, while others choose to blaze their own unique path.

Are you still walking the spiritual path, or have you reached its end? Have you truly grasped the essence of yourself or God? Is such a feat even possible? Or is it more practical to simply let go? How can you be sure that what you claim to KNOW isn't merely FAITH in ideas that happen to suit your current stage of personal development? How do we distinguish between FAITH and KNOWLEDGE in a spiritual context?

Man, look at how you view God:

God is a product of the mind
or
God is the mind

Brenda Cook4 said:There is definitely a bit of a hurdle here, mostly because spirituality has traditionally been framed through this dualistic lens of the natural versus the supernatural. It’s that classic split between spirit and body—a divided existence.

But, if we redefine "spirituality" as our emotional response to simply *being* in this world—that sense of wonder and active exploration of our surroundings, without needing to summon any divine entities—then the answer to your question is a resounding yes.

When we ask those big questions—who are we, where did we come from, where are we headed, what is our purpose, what can we actually know, or what is the true nature of reality?—anyone asking them will inevitably run into God, angels, demons, past lives, adepts, forces, nature, emptiness... everything. Every single answer is just an attempt to transcend the limitations of daily life; it's a search for meaning.

In my spare time, I dabble in amateur astronomy. I’m often out at night with my telescope, observing the stars and jotting down some notes... and honestly, more than once, I've found myself tearing up just from the privilege of being able to witness it all. I am in deep awe. It's that feeling of oneness, that concept in Zen where every new moment is dependent on everything else. Nothing exists in a vacuum. Everything that appears arises because of something else. In those moments, it isn't even about my perspective or my angle of observation—it's just that intuitive connection to nature... to the universe... a state of total openness. It feels like coming home.

aha, sure... and which part of the US are you living in where you can actually see a clear sky for stargazing?

😁

Richard Walker79, you
really need to clear your head of all that "master" nonsense—since we're already talking about clearing heads 😁