Posts by feralheron17

Patrick Sullivan3 said:I find myself part of a group that defaults to "I don't know" whenever the question comes up: "Does God exist?" Even though I grew up in a very strict, deeply religious household, my answer today remains "I don't know." Growing up, I was told that saying "I don't know" is actually worse than just saying "no." They claimed that if you can't give a definitive answer, you aren't a stable, strong, or wise person. But isn't "I don't know" actually the most objective response? Especially when you've weighed both sides and all the subjective evidence out there.

Why is it that we never experience anything concrete enough to be absolutely certain—even though our religious ancestors claim they were? And what if being certain isn't even necessary? Why this desperate need to pick a side right now, while we're still alive? Do those people who swear their faith is unshakable ever, deep down, admit to themselves, "I'm just not sure"?

And do you know why you are exactly who you are: because you either have total control over your own (r)evolution?!
By the way, the answer I don't know: falls under a huge umbrella: anti-theism, agnosticism, and so on. There are plenty of people like that in the world.
Tolle (a citizen of Canada) constantly repeats that he doesn't know, and it seems like he's channeled so much energy into that that he has no need for levitation or bilocation or any of that stuff.
It's always good to know who you aren't. Saying "I don't know" lets you keep what you actually are and what you might actually know.
For me: I always experience God as the unknown, as the thing that cannot be known.
😉

It’s an inescapable fact that people possess a certain higher average level of consciousness and spatial awareness. But where a human can cardinally regress into animalistic behavior, an actual animal won't even blink. A human collapse triggers a massive chain reaction—one driven largely by primary social implications.
A long time ago, I used to believe humans were vastly superior to the animal kingdom. And look, that’s technically true: science, technology, consciousness, politics, even humanism (which, to do good, must inevitably involve doing some evil—let's not be malicious and link that solely to the mass destruction of WWII)...
But observing things today, I’d say a huge chunk of humanity has lost its way on a planetary scale. My intuition hasn't failed me yet: I have to apply what I previously said about cardinality quite successfully to Titus 😁. Wounded soldiers aren't left behind. Similarly, animals and nature itself operate under specific laws—there is a bottom level you simply cannot descend below. People love to pretend they are wise. Just look at suicide rates globally over the last five decades. These individuals were often energetic parasites on their surroundings before they reached that point. It isn't just the behavioralist idea of a constant alignment with others; it is what is known as breaking the fundamental socio-interactive frequency code.
Let me give you an example from another forum: a person who intentionally presents themselves as someone ready to help, then in one single burst of forum-inspired passion and zeal 😁 (whether justified or not, that's irrelevant here), joins a group of users who are unhappy with a moderator's work (again, whether justified or not, it doesn't matter). Despite having previously acted as the pinnacle of tolerance and democracy, this person shatters the collective frequency code by bringing up things that have absolutely nothing to do with the moderator's performance: nationality, religion, language. The group eagerly jumps in to start a lynch mob: targeting the moderator as a thick-skinned target doesn't bother them, but that isn't a real-life situation, and that is the entire point.
1. If you expect someone else to lead—someone you've already handed the baton to—in a natural environment or a challenging life situation (we don't need to say "rescue" us), you are either insane (because you aren't looking out for your own survival) or your level of consciousness is too low (the aura 😁 doesn't matter here at all) and you are undermining the very group you belong to. It’s similar to what happened 😁 with certain transition economies in Eastern Europe recently, when the recession finally collected the debt from years of living dishonestly on the black market.
2. If you dislike how someone works, you can be rude or you can be honest, but once provoked, do not meddle in the fundamental rules of someone's private life, which is inextricably linked to universal humanity.
3. When you act like a genius somewhere while you aren't actually sitting at your computer, everyone expects you to take the helm. Are you actually ready? It might destroy you. There are many animal species that can navigate radically changed environments entirely on their own.
4. Just because you are voicing the opinions of multiple individuals—which is the main task during periods of major life changes—doesn't mean you are right. In fact, if those views turn out to be negative, you could face massive losses when you are eventually forced to handle things on your own.
I am not writing this ironically. I respect different viewpoints. I am writing this because someone else might read this thread through the lens of non-absolute solutions.
👍

frozenangler9 said:It isn't hard to be compassionate if you have the right gear—sort of like having "empathy antennas." 😁

But you know what? I think you can be both compassionate and selfish at the same time. Who says feeling for someone or putting yourself in their shoes is supposed to drive you to act humanely? There are people out there who actually enjoy suffering—their own, other people's... you know? 😉

Still, it seems tough to empathize with anything inhuman—basically anything that's too far removed from your own lived experience.

So maybe the safer route to selflessness is just trying to understand someone else's situation, regardless of how you actually feel about it. 🙂

To me, loving your neighbor seems doable only as a mindset, something born from understanding that everyone is equal. But actively loving humanity—all billions of us? That doesn't seem realistic to me.

Regarding spirituality, whatever you go through becomes your experience. The more empathy you have, the richer those experiences get. Maybe that speeds up the journey toward the ultimate goal (whatever that actually is 😉), by letting you "live" parts of other people's lives.

👍

wiredbear2 said:Buddhism in America. Zen in America. I find myself wondering how any of this actually works when you consider that most people interested in it aren't living in monasteries or having nothing to do but contemplate all day long. Does it even make sense, or is it absolutely necessary to withdraw from society entirely to truly enter into Zen?
On one hand, you have the busy American professional, and on the other, someone living in a temple with a completely different way of structuring their life...
How does one reconcile the demands of both worlds?
Well, this isn't just an issue for Buddhism or Zen, but rather for anyone trying to commit to spirituality in general...
Everything feels wonderful while we're reading the texts—we get lost in them, we understand them, they provide a sense of validation—but how do we actually move into practice? How do you discipline yourself and truly begin to meditate when you're standing before a day packed tight with the endless obligations of this world? 🤷

I want to point out that Americans are in a very specific position here, because even though meditation and various mental techniques have become quite popular, they didn't "grow" natively in this part of the world, and there's still this lingering sense that it's all somewhat of a passing fad...

Thanks for taking the time to reply after jademarlin26, even if it took a bit of a break.
It seems like he shows up by default, or maybe I'm wrong...
Perhaps it's mainly because I don't even bother engaging in deeper discussions about spiritual matters.
Great people are pretty simple. They don't argue much. They give a lot, ask for very little in return, and usually don't fit the concept we expect of them.
The self-proclaimed types, though? They usually fall below my level of intuition.
So, I wouldn't know how to answer you.
I read books. I haven't met anyone in person yet, and I feel enlightened whenever I see someone online write that Zen isn't just zazen.
I think Gandhi once said, if I recall correctly, that the idea of the West sounded good to him.
This note of yours, and the other notes I stumble upon regarding Žižek online, look like apologetics to me: either someone is sending them via DM, or people are sitting in front of screens transcribing directly from an author's books, or they're just typing nonsense without knowing what they're saying.
The West is better off, as someone wisely once suggested, leaving the East alone: lest it receives something far worse than the samurai.
The samurai had an honorable code, which just fits into my earlier point that everyone was a warrior—even Tibetan Buddhists.
But we are talking about the philosophy of spirituality here, even in terms of the samurai code, let alone Zen.
☕

It always cracks me up when some all-encompassing type, who clearly presents themselves as a supermarket Christian or just a convenience store Christian, whatever, starts rambling about nothingness and love.
A little intuition, a bit of bullshit, a slightly stronger aura, and suddenly they're a guru.
You can tell exactly how far someone has traveled by looking at them, and naturally, by the spiritual work they’ve actually done along the way. 😉
Spirituality isn't for everyone. Neither is meditation.
Žižek should probably stick to his own lane, because the further he wanders: the more he spouts nonsense.
If his legacy ends up being even a tenth of what people say about Suzuki, he's doing alright.
Let me be clear: Suzuki isn't some self-proclaimed Western classic or a guru who descended upon the West to enlighten the masses.
He wasn't Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, who loved claiming he came to the West to calm down bad energies—as if things were worse here than in the East, though some Easterners would argue he could have calmed those energies from the East just as easily...
Buddhism is a massive science, a philosophy, a way of life.
Setting aside the fact that Christianity is totally irrelevant and the Bible is basically just a pile of accumulated, hybrid-stitched junk, Buddhism possesses a deep heritage and various lineages; not to mention there are texts over a thousand years old from Tibetan Buddhism.
Don't even get me started on the divisions between Mahayana, Theravada, and all the rest.
The only person where you could actually find "meditating on nothing" was Osho: he used to force his students to meditate on nothingness.
Tibetan Buddhism has an entire pantheon of deities: saints, adepts, lamas, travelers, sadhanists (there are plenty of names for them) within Buddhism, plus rituals dedicated to them—it's so much that the three major monotheistic religions couldn't catch up with all their holidays combined.
Maybe that's why Buddhism leans toward discarding mental concepts.
On the surface, it seems simple enough, but even highly realized lamas struggle to discard mental concepts.
Not everyone is cut out for the same Buddhist practices.
Even in the East, not everyone is ready for the path of Zen, or Mahayana, or Theravada, though these paths can be blended and practiced as dominant elements of one's life research.
If we're talking about conquests, Tibetan Buddhism isn't exempt: there isn't a single nation on Earth that hasn't had an aggressive war in its history.
But that's not the point of Zen.
To practice Buddhism, you obviously need to encounter authentic people; it develops incredible willpower, self-control, and discipline, along with concentration (which is minor compared to the other stuff).
Then there's Buddhist Tantra and Buddhist Kriya: I was personally surprised to find that Buddhism inherits such a wide array of practices that are predominantly Hindu.
And don't even get me started on the philosophy: in the US, there's no need to talk about Veljačić.
Anyway, back to Zen.
Zen, Chan, Dhyana, whatever you call it—it isn't meditating on nothing. It is: a) presence here (specifically *here*, not just "now" as Westerners reinterpret it, since Eastern cultures view here as having the connotation of now) in the external world; b) dedicated internal meditation—not on nothing or anything, but staying present externally while simultaneously not withdrawing the senses, but rather maintaining presence internally despite all external distractions, because sensory withdrawal isn't the goal: Buddhists withdraw all senses, so they can feel the blood flowing through their bodies during meditation; c) various other practices that can be, or not be, combined with Zen, such as Vipassana (which might imply concentration or breath focus, though traditionally it doesn't), Anapana (focus, attention, or concentration on the breath), mantra meditation, Tantric rituals, Kriya, certain Asanas (though Buddhism keeps this part pretty simple), etc., etc.
Zen will draw you in, especially once you live it in a temple.
You can't just be some internet fraud playing guru—scouring tarot cards, obsessing over the stars, and praying to angels—and then expect to walk into a Zen temple here in the States like Leonard Cohen did. It doesn't work that way. These places maintain a serious tradition of waking up at 4 a.m. and upholding everything inherited from those Japanese or Chinese Zen temples.
😉

James Allen2 said:Kimberly Evans, feralheron17, thanks for the cynicism, and I apologize for crashing so aggressively into your space. To mistybison and the rest of you, I appreciate the replies. In principle, I was hoping to find someone who operates like I do—someone driven by the philosophy of manifesting their own reality through the law of attraction, mastering their thoughts and desires to shape their lives, so that I might receive an answer rooted in actual lived experience. But it seems most people on this forum view spirituality through the lens of religious dogma, a concept I discarded long ago, which means I’ll likely have to look for answers elsewhere. One thing is certain: I won't be finding them under 'Lonely Hearts'.👎

You sure are polite and sensitive, aren't you? Just like a princess sitting on a pea.
Look, my name isn't Bond, James Bond. And just because I believe in certain things doesn't mean they're public knowledge. My beliefs are private. They don't have much to do with this "general spirituality" nonsense.
How much of an alcoholic [I don't recall anyone mentioning alcoholism here?!] or how desperate for love you actually were when you decided to post in the spirituality section is something you should figure out for yourself.
And don't even get me started on the cynicism and that fake sense of humor.
😂

David Ortiz26 said:I wouldn't go that far. As they say, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."😁

You need balance, which is the hardest part to nail. Like Buddha said, "if the string is too loose, it won't play; if it's too tight, it snaps."

mistybison made an excellent point. My response—which you probably could have gathered—wasn't an attempt to push back against her observation at all. It was just advice for the lady, or miss, or whatever, who actually started this thread.
That whole "road to hell" thing might apply to my own life, but when I'm giving someone else advice, it doesn't. 😉
First off, mistybison was doing a great job trying to give this topic some spiritual breathing room. She let a decent moderator like casualtiger2 allow a thread about an alcoholic looking for love to drift into spirituality, even though there isn't any actual connection there.
Second, whether this confession is real or fiction, it would drive anyone crazy if they kept going down this path: if an alcoholic doesn't make the first move: a) there's a chance they've already been written off because people found out—directly or indirectly—that their behavior isn't exactly normal; b) if the alcoholic doesn't approach someone, they'll never know if that person is also an alcoholic, recovering or not. They might stumble onto someone similar and actually build something from that shared experience; c) studies show that long-term, heavy-duty alcoholics—specifically men—create a parallel world where they are often way more timid than women, whether those women are sober or not; d) approaching someone isn't the end of the world. Your "string" won't snap, nor will theirs, provided you're polite, pleasant, and don't stomp on anyone else's freedom; e) maybe you'll run into a spiritual person who can actually show you the way out of this mess. 😉
Why don't people who engage in extreme sports, lead insane cults, or live with chronic vices snap under tension?
One answer is that life moves faster now than it used to, but that's a cliché. Let's just say everyone gets their karma, as the indijac would say.
So, stop playing philosopher and start contributing constructively to the discussion.
Like how mistybison did...
🙂
That's where the line between imagination and reality sits: my insignificance might allow me to start a forum thread about spirituality to get better answers, but if the topic has nothing to do with spirituality, getting a real answer is going to be damn near impossible.
👍

You have to take that first step toward the things you actually care about. Just do it. Even if everything falls apart, at least you won't be sitting there blaming yourself.

casualtiger2 said:Why the hope for better answers here than in Psychology, Relationships, or Single Life?
What does spirituality actually mean to you?

PS
Just asking—this isn't exactly your typical topic for the Spirituality board.

👍

casualtiger2 said:Enky, the best I can do for you right now is leave your take on Comer right here on this thread—that way everyone can draw their own conclusions. Honestly, dragging people behind your back and spreading lies by acting like pedophilia is just standard practice in Comer is incredibly low. You didn't cite a single source for such a heavy accusation. As for everything else you have regarding this subject, please take it to the appropriate thread—the one Mandragora specifically moved from Philosophy and Mysticism—instead of us all chasing each other around the forum.

I never claimed that someone who hasn't posted here is any less spiritually advanced.
And I'm not blaming the newer users.
As for the "old guard"? That’s a bit of a cliché that every forum freak deals with—but then again, some of them actually used to be excellent (even if they don't show it on the forum anymore).
If Parsifal, Nemruth, Dragonfly, Lame Deer, Enchantress, Fish, Belki, Baphomet, Mano, Fazlija, Jivan Mukta, Jimmy Jazz, Witch, Crazy Person, Slavko, Planinar, and several other names I can't recall right now became active again—paired with support from the newer crowd—this forum would be paradise. 😁
But I guess even in spirituality, you get "burnout." Especially on forums like this one.

I agree—the insults and ego trips are an embarrassment to a spiritual forum... and I'm working on fixing that (even if some people keep throwing wrenches in my gears). I don't have anything against cliques, as long as they aren't used to disrupt how the forum runs.

Look, I value my biases. Like I said before, they'll remain a constant part of my moderation—subjective objectivity, essentially—and a preference for those who actually try to make this forum high-quality through their writing. And like I mentioned, that favor is fluid; you have to earn it.

Take Alexis, for example.
Since joining on July 11th, she hasn't started a single spiritual thread (just one about digital photography and one complaint about moderation).
I don't recall a single meaningful contribution from her regarding spirituality, either. And now she wants to come in and fix the "wrong" Mississippi on the Philosophy and Spirituality board? And I'm supposed to answer to her? It's funny how her entire body of work lately has just been supporting Enky in criticizing n&n, myself, and the whole administration. Not to mention the tone she uses while doing it.
So, feel free to think I'm biased when it comes to her. 😍
That doesn't mean it's set in stone forever, though.

I voted that this sub-forum is pure horror: meaning the absolute lowest tier. But look, I'm stepping in because ever since you arrived, I've found you to be a rare, truly authentic, and balanced person (those are hard to find these days), and I believe you can offer your perspective here.
It is incredibly low to attack someone's spiritual background: especially when that background hasn't been established by them as an individual member or as a current moderator within the bounds of natural and moral communication.
You use an Aurobindov avatar, yet Comer forbids drug use.
I like Dustin's posts; he's honest.
I couldn't care less about these "degree holders" who spent years posting creepy things on American forums: some of whom are still acting out or making fools of themselves.They’re out there pushing this idea of public or group-cultural morality. Some people are probably happy about it, sitting back and reading the room without saying a word, glad they aren't the ones on the hook. Personally, I don't work in that field, so if anyone wants to talk about procedural rules, they should have the guts to take it up with those specific people directly.
Richard Walker79 can have his drug-related threads; those exist on pretty much every forum from New York to Los Angeles. Besides, he doesn't actually have to, and I haven't seen him posting about it anyway.
Some people treated the former moderator absolutely terribly, and now they're trying to carry that toxic behavior forward.
The end result? We'll lose casualtiger2, and then whatever moderator is left can be whoever they want to be for all I care.

casualtiger2 said:Just being honest, direct, "insider," constructive, and coming from a good place... 👍

I want more posts like this—from anyone on the forum. 😍

First off, I don't care if a Satanist is running moderation here. Within any sane moderation system, they wouldn't be able to push their specific agenda anyway.
Comer has a bit too much of an ego, acting like he's Christ or some ultimate yoga expert, but honestly, I don't mind people like that as long as they're useful to those they help. Besides, he stepped up and helped his people back in California during the last war, so he’s proven himself to be a humanist.
As for Richard Walker79, let him write. It’ll be interesting to watch how his posts evolve—assuming drugs haven't totally wrecked his brain. Though, looking at his syntax lately, it doesn't seem like he's lost his grip on reality just yet.
The first issue is moving spirituality over to a subforum called philosophy.
Personally, I find it fascinating how Enky, who used to hold such liberal, avant-garde views on almost everything, has suddenly turned into a total churchgoer.
Comer lost a legal battle against KC in America.
If certain inappropriate things get encouraged, fine. But I didn't see a single shred of immorality or spiritual imposition in the posts by Draganov that I followed closely enough.
This is the second term for this moderator, and since Comer leads an American movement, where else would you go for better promotion of a new, limitless spirituality?
At the end of the day, people post all kinds of nonsense on forums, so a little censorship is inevitable.
Whoever is posting here needs to decide what actually deserves being discussed under the umbrella of spirituality.
I don't do drugs, but I have nothing against even deviant sexuality; I've experienced plenty of it myself. You should look elsewhere on this forum, specifically where people write about love. I haven't visited that section in years because they describe things that have absolutely nothing to do with sex or love—it's enough to make you sick.
I don't see why modern spirituality should be ashamed of anything.
It's not like nobody has sex or watches porn; we aren't all just sitting in pews all day.
Regarding drugs, let there be open threads for it. People can talk there. There's no need to drag it into other discussions.
😉

casualtiger2 said:Hey everyone,
It’s been a minute since I’ve been active here—and now, out of nowhere, I’ve been tapped as a moderator. So, I’m asking you all to jump into this poll so I can get a decent pulse on where we actually stand right now.
I want to hear from the old guard—the "seasoned veterans" who probably use this place as their digital fountain of youth 😉—as well as the newcomers who just joined the party.
The site changes every single day, obviously, and I know "quality" is a pretty hard thing to pin down—especially on a Spirituality Forum—but I think it’s worth taking a snapshot of where we are in this little corner of the internet.

So, here are some prompts to get us started (feel free to throw in your own thoughts too):
- What do you think of the forum over the last few weeks or months?
- What are you actually enjoying?
- What’s getting on your nerves?
- How could we make this better (if it even needs it)? Basically, what’s missing?
(Just trying to make sure everyone stays happy while reading or posting. 🙂)

Look, I know everyone’s going to have subjective takes—some might even be total opposites—so please, let’s avoid any heated arguments over whose opinion is "right." A cool, civil dialogue is always welcome, though.

Since I’ve posted quite a bit myself, here’s my quick, telegraphic take on how things feel to me.

I’ve only really been active here for about two years—even though I registered ages ago for one specific post, then basically went ghost. For a while, this felt like a great spot, both for the community and the topics. But lately, it feels like things have slipped a bit. Part of that was the chaos regarding where we'd host the site, part was the struggle to find permanent moderators—even though, honestly, every mod I've worked with so far has done a killer job—and part was losing some core members who really made this place what it was. It led to this weird illusion that there's some massive drama happening in real life outside of these threads. 😁 Plus, at one point, it felt like a bunch of argumentative personalities were starting to take over.

That said, over the last week or two, it feels like the spiral is finally turning back upward—both in terms of how people talk and the actual content being shared. I’d love to do whatever I can in my capacity to keep that momentum going.

I’ll be opening a dedicated thread soon specifically for moderation and direct communication.

First off, good luck with the mod gig. I wish the same to your new team.
By the way, I think the philosophy sub-forum is in a serious crisis.
And yeah, you might remember me from a few posts: I think you're a solid choice for moderator.
I've been on plenty of forums (many offered me mod roles, but I turned them down—I don't have the heart to lecture or ban people), and there's no debating taste: personally, I believe the more rules and bans there are based on the principle that unprovoked insults from any side are punished, the calmer the atmosphere stays.
As you get older, you stop judging people by how they present themselves and start watching how they react. In places like the American South, you only have to scratch the surface to see people sink much lower than anyone would ever dream.
If someone crosses me, I give it right back to them. I have to be honest about that, even if it means I cut off any chance of ever speaking to that person again. They usually end up going to the mods or...alive parents seeking to return to their primal state: I think the vibe on American forums has shifted radically for the better since the late '90s. I’m seeing moderators on certain boards who actually do an incredible job at policing the chaos.
You’re still chasing shadows, Epure.
I haven't spent much time hanging out in those spaces, especially regarding philosophy topics. I took a quick look at alim's profile: nothing irritating there. He writes in that cryptic, gnomic style. If you want to read it and find value, go ahead. If not, just skip it. It’s easy to know exactly what you’re getting into without having to be cynical about it.
The American Internet has everything. With all due respect to opposing views, I have to distance myself from the idea of harmlessness: there are losers, people with massive inferiority complexes, thugs, hunters of all kinds, and female masturbators who are far worse than the men—mostly because it’s beneath them, especially when they start joining the guys: I believe I have every right to say that. The Internet played a vital role in my life: chatting with the opposite sex, finding information, exchanging views with mature people ready for actual discussion...
This spirituality-religion forum doesn't have to be bad. Whenever I have the time, I’ll post something useful, which most of my previous posts here already prove.
Regardless, I think this subforum, with casualtiger2, his associates, and the regulars here, offers its own unique perspective.
🙂