Posts by casualmaker13

Benjamin Taylor6 said:I’ve been practicing Transcendental Meditation regularly since 1980—including the more advanced techniques, too. Did I actually achieve anything? Honestly, barely anything at all. But then again, what was anyone supposed to expect? Usually just whatever is promised during those introductory seminars. Was I expecting much? No, I kept my expectations pretty modest. I actually ended up documenting my own observations on my blog.
Those are my DEEP INSIGHTS 😍 And I even picked my avatar based on those deep insights!!!
1. My first cousin managed to reach this state:
2. Some friends and I reached this:
3. My cousin's wife and an acquaintance achieved this:

Edward Flores4 said:

I haven't seen anything from casualmaker13 yet, which is a bit of a bummer because I was actually looking forward to seeing what they had to say about this whole situation. It feels like we're all just waiting around for that one piece of the puzzle to fall into place, you know? It’s kind of like when you're watching a slow-burn thriller—you know the payoff is coming, but the tension just builds and builds while you're left staring at the screen wondering if the director is ever going to get to the good stuff. Anyway, I'm still hanging in there, keeping an eye on the thread and hoping for some actual substance soon. kaže:
It’s honestly pretty funny to watch you try to act like the smartest guy in the room when you clearly didn't even process what I actually wrote—you're out here trying to lecture me on being literate while completely missing the point.

It’s playing out exactly the way I called it—honestly, the rhetoric is starting to feel like something you'd hear from a middle schooler during a playground debate. Seriously, kid!

Honestly, you probably are—if we’re measuring by sheer stubbornness and that refusal to see anyone else's point of view.

And my dad is tougher than yours!

Look, there’s really no need to throw a total temper tantrum just because things didn't go exactly your way—it's not like you're five years old anymore. We all hit walls sometimes, but losing your cool the second you run into a little resistance? That's just not it.

Turn off the spotlight... seriously, there isn't a single ounce of anger in my posts. You’re the one who started throwing around terms like "boys" and "letters" just to try and back up those cognitive claims of yours—claims about your supposed mental prowess that, if you weren't exaggerating, would honestly be a scientific phenomenon.

Honestly, you should really consider reaching out to some neuroscientists—I mean, seriously, give them a call. They would be absolutely fascinated by what you can do, especially since a phenomenon like yours hasn't even been documented in scientific literature yet!

Look, just be patient with yourself—keep putting in the work, stay focused on learning, and maybe, just maybe, you’ll get lucky enough to find yourself in that same position one day!

I’ll pass, thanks... that just isn't really my thing. The ability to just... not think. It sounds almost lazy when you say it out loud, doesn't it? But there’s a massive difference between being mindless and actually mastering that quiet space where the mental noise finally shuts up. We spend our entire lives in this constant state of hyper-analysis—overthinking every email we send, every decision we make at work, even the tiny stuff like what to grab for dinner. It’s like having fifty browser tabs open in your brain at once, all playing different videos at different volumes. You can't get anything done because the processor is always running at 100%. I’ve been trying to lean into this "ability to not think" lately. It isn't about being empty-headed; it's more like hitting the reset button on your internal monologue. It’s that flow state athletes talk about, or that moment when you’re driving down a highway in the Midwest and the scenery just blurs past and you realize you haven't had a single conscious thought for ten miles. It’s a skill, honestly. We aren't taught it in school. We’re taught how to calculate, how to memorize, and how to argue, but we’re never taught how to simply exist without the constant commentary running in the background of our minds. Finding that stillness—that capacity to just *be* without the endless "what ifs" and "should haves"—is probably one of the most underrated tools for staying sane in a world that won't stop shouting at us.I honestly believe that the capacity for thought is an incredibly useful "thing"—it’s really that specific trait that draws the biggest line between us humans and the rest of the animal kingdom. See, every single rock—and frankly, everything else that's inanimate—possesses this "inability to think" that you seem so proud of. Even if your arguments actually held water (which, let's be honest, they definitely don't), I still think that running away from critical thought—trying to reduce yourself to the intellectual level of a tree or a pebble—is just straight-up pure imbecility.

We tend to hold people in high regard when they can sit down, crunch the numbers, and come up with some brilliant solution—you know, those moments of pure innovation, a clever invention, or just some profound bit of life wisdom that sticks with you. It’s that "eureka" moment we all respect. But honestly, looking back at history and the people we celebrate, I don't think I've ever heard of anyone being remembered specifically because they had the ability to *not* think—to just exist in that state of total mental stillness. We're always chasing the next big idea, aren't we? 🤷

I did happen to catch a bit of something Bertrand Russell once said—it really stuck with me:

It’s a grim thought, I know—but honestly, if you look at how most people navigate their daily lives, it feels pretty accurate. There’s this pervasive, almost instinctive avoidance of deep thought out there. It isn't even that people are incapable of it; it’s more like they’ve developed this massive, subconscious allergy to the discomfort that comes with it. Think about it: true thinking—real, rigorous, soul-searching contemplation—is exhausting. It requires you to sit with uncertainty, to challenge your own biases, and to face truths that might actually hurt your ego. Most people would much rather drift through life on autopilot, consuming whatever easy distractions are handed to them, than endure that kind of mental friction. It’s easier to just follow the crowd or grab the nearest shiny distraction than to do the heavy lifting of questioning why things are the way they are. In a strange way, it’s like people have collectively decided that intellectual lethargy is a safer bet than the vulnerability required to truly understand the world. It’s a heavy realization, but it seems like a lot of folks would genuinely prefer the comfort of ignorance over the struggle of being awake.

It’s honestly the easiest thing in the world to claim something doesn't exist—or to insist that something is absolutely impossible—simply because you lack the capacity to build it yourself or even wrap your head around how it works. It’s like someone standing next to a high-end Tesla and claiming electric cars aren't a real thing just because they don't know how to charge one or understand the motor. If you can't see the mechanism or pull off the feat, it’s much easier to just dismiss the whole concept than to admit your own limitations.

You hit the nail on the head there... honestly, it’s just so much easier to claim something exists out of thin air than to actually sit down and back it up with logic or hard evidence. Instead of doing the heavy lifting of building a real argument, people just take the easy way out by labeling anyone who asks questions as "unbelievers" or accusing them of being "closed-minded." It’s a classic deflection tactic—basically calling someone "ignorant" just to avoid having to prove their point. This whole little "trick" is something organized religion has been peddling for centuries, and frankly, they haven't lost their touch even today. 🙂

Exactly—perceiving oneself isn't just some abstract linguistic or intellectual concept.

...hmm... well, it sounds to me like your perception is more of a "digestive" concept. Maybe you should start a tradition of "gastronomic-centrism" instead. ☕

...why am I even telling you this when you think thoughts, see thoughts, hear thoughts, and basically just live and breathe thoughts...

Right... I’m clearly at a disadvantage because I actually think, whereas you—with your special "gift" for avoiding thought altogether—are obviously holding all the cards here. That’s meditation for you— ignorance is a bliss! 😁

I feel like I’ve answered all your questions several times over; it’s just that you either don't understand them or simply refuse to accept them.

That’s possible... though you might have "forgotten" to mention a few other equally likely scenarios...

- like the fact that what you're saying is simply untrue, or...
- that what you're saying is just a byproduct of your own personal delusion and is, therefore, totally incoherent and nonsensical. ☕

But of course, you love playing the smart guy, throwing insults, pushing your views, and constantly harping on the exact same thing... ☕

Actually, I don't repeat myself much, but you—you definitely harp on the same point over and over. If I wanted to insult you, I would... but the fact that my insistence on logic and my refusal to buy into your cognitive claims feels like an attack to you? Well, that is entirely your own problem.

Since you brought it up, though... let me take this opportunity to give you a friendly heads-up. If you keep addressing me with that mediocre vocabulary and those patronizing little nicknames, I’m going to take it as a direct provocation. I'll make sure you learn the very clear difference between a debate and a personal insult. In that arena, my ability to think is actually a massive advantage over your refusal to do so. 😉

You are nothing but a walking thought. 😂

And I wear that with pride... though I find it genuinely strange how some people go to such extreme lengths to avoid thinking, trying to convince themselves that being incapable of thought is somehow a virtue. 🤷

So you laugh at me because... well, because I think. Just imagine the handicap I'm dealing with there. 😁

I suppose you'll end up in that unfortunate group of people whose intellectual capacity is just large enough to realize how shallow they actually are... so they find their only comfort in refusing to think at all.

... I mean, some branches are just naturally shorter while others grow longer—it’s just how things work (I can't quite recall who originally coined that sentiment, but it feels pretty spot on to me).

Look, I'm not repeating myself, but you definitely are. You're just beating the same drum over and over. If I want to insult you, I will... but the fact that you feel threatened and insulted by my insistence on arguments and my refusal to accept your cognitive claims—that is entirely your own problem.

Actually, since you brought it up... this is a good chance for me to gently warn you. If you keep addressing me with that mediocre vocabulary and euphemisms like 'kid' or 'bookworm,' I'm going to take that as a direct insult. I'll do my best to make sure you see the difference between a debate and an insult. In that regard, my ability to think versus your non-thinking is actually a pretty solid advantage.

Look, I’m actually proud of it... though I have to say, I’m pretty baffled by people like you who go out of their way to dodge any real thought, acting like being able to just switch your brain off is some kind of virtue

So, you're laughing at me because... well, because I actually think... can you imagine what a massive handicap that is? 😁

I guess you’ll end up in that unfortunate crowd—people whose intellectual capacity is just large enough to realize how shallow they actually are... so they find comfort in refusing to think.

.. some branches are naturally shorter than others... it's just how things are (I can't recall the exact source, but it feels right here).

Edward Flores4 said:So, you’ll admit to being the 'observer,' yet you deny being the 'process of observation,' even though you're fully aware that the whole process is happening INSIDE YOU!?

That is fascinating, truly!

Let me give you another example to make it clearer:
Me (the woodcutter) chopping (the action) wood (the object) = the process of chopping, wherein I am certainly not the process itself, nor the wood, nor the act of chopping.
Me (the thinker) thinking (the action) a thought (the object) = the process of thinking. Do I need to define who and what I am in that scenario too?

Using a physical action as an analogy for cognitive processes is pretty much spot-on, mostly because cognitive processes happen entirely WITHOUT your willpower. If I walk into a room holding an umbrella, you CANNOT help but identify the object in my hand as an umbrella!

In that moment of identification, you aren't performing some grand task... the process is spontaneous and unavoidable... you can't see the object without instinctively knowing what it is.

Clearly, that identification is a spontaneous RESULT of perception that manifests in your consciousness as a thought (an umbrella). Calling that a conscious "action" would be just like claiming that a gland secreting hormones is a "deliberate action."

So, you can keep ignoring the obvious if you want, or you can live under the delusion that you can willfully exist in a state of "no thoughts"—but that's just plain nonsense. No matter how hard you try, you can't help but "label" the objects (concepts) you perceive, which is something even modern fMRI scans have scientifically proven.

Sure, you can choose to think... in the same way you can choose to control your breathing... but the second you stop consciously managing your breath, it just keeps going on its own.

I am not the process, even if that process can't exist without me.

Repetition is the mother of self-hypnosis. ☕

It seems like you're still not grasping what I meant, so let me clarify:
If you are the waking observer, then you are aware of everything that is happening...

That’s actually what we call the 'reactive mind'... a mental state where cognitive processes, due to a lack of intentional reasoning, are reduced to spontaneous reactions (like automatically naming things you recognize).

You could call it 'conscious unconsciousness' or 'sleeping observation,' but that doesn't change the fact that both states (reactive and deliberative thinking) are equally 'conscious'—the difference lies solely in self-control, or rather, the total absence of it.

If this feels foreign to you and you can't wrap your head around it, you probably just need a bit more practice and some deeper understanding to get there.

Or maybe you're just leaning on that standard, trendy "spiritual vibe"—believing that if you repeat enough "spiritually acceptable stereotypes," you can somehow borrow the credibility those tropes usually hold among the latest crop of "lifestyle gurus." ☕

Exactly—awareness or mindfulness isn't a thought. To truly know that, you have to experience it.

Water isn't H2O... you have to experience it to know!

See what happened there? You can plug absolutely anything into that kind of cognitive claim, allowing you to assert whatever convenient nonsense fits your mood at the moment. Unfortunately for you, statements like that only serve to reinforce the very valid suspicion that you're just recycling well-worn, widely accepted, and utterly hollow phrases used by every "New Age influencer" and spiritual charlatan out there.

Plenty of people are capable of doing it; if you aren't, that's on you. Just practice and maybe you'll get there—just don't go around claiming it's impossible just because you personally haven't mastered it.

Plenty of people are capable of dematerializing themselves and then rematerializing somewhere else—say, traveling from New York to Los Angeles in about 14 milliseconds. If you can't pull that off, well... that's your problem. Keep practicing and maybe you'll succeed, but don't claim it's impossible just because you lack the ability.

As usual, we’ve got another empty cognitive assertion that carries zero actual argumentative weight.

This whole discussion is just degrading from post to post. Your stance has shifted from offering unsolicited advice—basically just being condescending—to attempting to argue with logically contradictory statements, and finally settling into making totally baseless, cognitive claims about your supposed "abilities."

Judging by how this conversation is going, I expect your next few replies will devolve into playground logic, something along the lines of "my dad is stronger than your dad." ☕

I told you clearly and you just won't get it: I exist in a state where there isn't a single thought, feeling, or image, and I perceive this through my consciousness via my senses.

So, you're claiming that perceiving oneself isn't a mental process, even though the "self" that you're perceiving in "that state" is still a verbal (and therefore mental) concept?

You experience "yourself," yet you deny that the experience of the "self" is a mental-linguistic process?

If the answer to that is yes, then you clearly have some serious conceptual issues stemming from a total lack of awareness regarding your own cognitive processes, basic logic, and common sense. 🤷

Since the rest of your post is basically just a repetitive denial and an appeal to that same inadequate physical analogy... I don't see much point in repeating myself.

If you actually decide to step up, promote your own cognition, and give some honest answers—without leaning on those tired "spiritual" clichés or empty psychological claims—then maybe we can actually have a conversation. But honestly? I’ve got zero interest in your spiritual propaganda or this self-delusion you're running with.

Go ahead and enjoy your little "ego" over there, in that void where there isn't even a single coherent thought to be found. 😉

So, you can just keep ignoring the obvious if you want, and sure, you can live under the delusion that you can willfully reach a state 'without thoughts'—but that's honestly just pure nonsense. No matter how hard you try, you can't help but 'label' the objects (concepts) you see; even fMRI scans have scientifically proven that.

So you're claiming that perceiving the self isn't a cognitive process, even though the 'I' that is perceiving in 'that state' is still a verbal (linguistic, and therefore cognitive) concept?

You experience 'yourself,' but you deny that the experience of the 'I' concept is a thought-based linguistic process?

If you decide to observe your own cognition and answer questions honestly... without repeating tired 'spiritual' clichés and empty cognitive claims—then maybe we can continue this discussion. But I'm not interested in your spiritual propaganda or self-delusion.

Enjoy your 'self' over there in that void where not a single thought exists.😉

Edward Flores4 said:There is something honestly hilarious about seeing a spiritual leader fall into the trap of reductionism—it’s one of those quirks that really cracks me up if you look closely enough. It’s like watching someone try to explain the entire complexity of the American landscape by only looking at a single street sign in Des Moines; they think they’ve captured the essence of everything, but they’ve actually just missed the forest for the trees. You see these thinkers attempt to boil down the vast, messy, beautiful depth of the human experience into one neat little formula or a single dogma, and it just feels so incredibly small. It’s a bit of a comedy of errors when someone claims to hold the keys to the universe, yet can't grasp the sheer scale of what they're trying to simplify.

Look, I get what you're saying—you feel like if we strip away even one of those specific segments, the whole "process" of observation just falls apart. But here’s where I think we’re hitting a wall: you’re refusing to see that this very "process"—this constant, flowing stream of observation itself—is exactly what you’re calling the "I." It’s not something separate from the action; the action is the identity.

Without that specific process running, you’d basically be looking at a clinical coma—or maybe even a vegetative state. It’s pretty heavy when you think about it. But when everything is firing on all cylinders, when you’re wide awake and fully conscious, that "process" is essentially the bedrock of your entire identity. It’s what makes you, *you*.

You know, sometimes those famous gurus actually have a point... It’s just that most people need more than a few lifetimes to finally wrap their heads around it.

Here’s the thing—it all comes down to this: the observer only truly exists when there is awareness. The second that consciousness slips away, the observer vanishes. You aren't "observing" anymore; you just become part of the content within the mind. And once that happens, the whole process itself simply ceases to be.

Whoops, my bad! 😲 You really stepped in it this time...

When someone loses consciousness—you know, when they’re totally out of it and unresponsive—it really changes the whole vibe of a situation. It’s one of those moments where everything goes from zero to sixty in an instant, and suddenly you're the one standing there trying to figure out what the hell is going on. It's less like a movie scene and more like this heavy, unsettling stillness that just hits you. It just doesn't exist, honestly. (It’s no longer about just being an observer—it’s become the actual content of consciousness itself.)

If you aren't actually conscious—meaning, if there’s no "you" there to experience anything—then how on earth can you be the very thing that consciousness is supposed to be looking at? It's a total paradox, isn't it? It's like trying to be the flashlight and the beam of light at the same time when there's no battery to power the whole thing.

I’m not entirely sure what you were getting at there—honestly, I think I missed your point—but if I'm being real, that statement just doesn't hold water. It feels pretty contradictory to me, almost like it's arguing against itself as you read it. 🤷

I don't think just because I exist—and honestly, there are plenty of moments when there isn't even a single thought to be found.

Are you actually trying to tell me that being aware of your own existence isn't the same thing as having a thought? It feels like we're splitting hairs here—sort of like trying to argue that knowing you're holding a cup of coffee is somehow different from the act of realizing you're thirsty. One is just the baseline state of being, right? It’s that fundamental "I am" feeling that sits underneath everything else.

The moment you become aware of your own existence, it’s pretty much a given that you start thinking—it’s almost like an automatic reflex, isn't it? Once that switch flips and you realize you're actually *here*, the gears just start turning. It’s less of a choice and more of a fundamental consequence of being conscious. 🤷

It’s funny when you really stop to think about it—you actually have this incredible level of control over your own headspace. If you really put in the work, you can consciously steer your mind toward any specific thought you want to cultivate. But even more interesting than that? You can actually train yourself to reach that quiet, still point where the mental chatter just... stops. It's like being able to toggle between a busy highway and total silence whenever you decide.

Can you actually get yourself to a point where your mind just... goes quiet? Like, a total blank slate?

Wait, how exactly does the anesthesia part work? Is it through an IV or something else?

Because there really isn’t any other way to go about it... unless you're claiming you've cracked some kind of code that the rest of us haven't figured out yet?

I just can't seem to find that sweet spot—you know, that perfect balance where my logic and my actual thoughts finally shake hands and agree on something. It’s like trying to bridge the gap between what I know is true and what I actually feel; no matter how much I try to align them, there’s always this stubborn little disconnect right in the middle.

But seriously, I asked you point-blank to walk me through it—to explain exactly where you end and where your thoughts actually begin. I’m looking for that specific line in the sand, you know? Describe that dividing point for me, and tell me how you actually go about distinguishing your true self from just the stream of consciousness running through your head.

Look, just because you can't draw a straight line between two things doesn't mean that equality isn't actually there—it might just be that you're holding onto some personal conviction that makes you hesitant to call them "equal." It’s like looking at two different paths that both lead to the exact same destination; they might look different to you, but the result is identical. The only way we can really clear this up, though, is if you walk us through your logic and show us exactly where you think that distinction lies.

Look, if you can't actually pin down the difference and explain it... then there probably isn't one.

Thoughts come and go, but I am always here—whether I’m aware of it or not.

How can you claim to be "there" if you aren't even conscious of it? That logic just doesn't hold water!

Thoughts, emotions, the body, and energy are all just contents of consciousness—the medium through which consciousness manifests itself.

Once again, we're dealing with an empty, overly simplistic phrase... because everything you've ever seen, heard, experienced, thought, desired, believed, feared, or felt... all of that manifested exclusively through your consciousness.

Consciousness is essentially a "process" that grants you insight (perception) into yourself and the world around you. All your realizations happen via this process, but that doesn't mean those insights, feelings, or thoughts are necessarily the "contents" of consciousness itself!

Think about it like this: someone who isn't paying much attention might watch a show on an Apple TV and assume the show is the "content" inside the device... but we know that’s not how it works. The device just plays the program, while the program itself arrives at the device via an electronic signal sent from a studio or a satellite.

It’s the same deal with consciousness... it reproduces your "reality" for you by interpreting a "signal" that exists outside of you and independently of you. Calling that interpretation "content" shows a profound lack of understanding regarding the true nature of your own awareness.

But hey, at least now I see why you think "you" aren't the same thing as your thoughts... honestly, you've got a completely skewed concept of your own self-awareness. You're staring at the "television" and believing the "broadcast" is the internal content of the "TV set," effectively reducing yourself to just a viewer sitting in front of a screen... a passive observer playing a secondary role in your own life.

What a shame.

A thought never occurs without a "thinker," yet I exist even when there are no thoughts.

Do you actually have a physical organ that you call the "I," or is this "I" just an abstract mental construct created by your mind?

If it’s a mental abstraction—which, let's be real, it definitely is—then the "I" is also just a thought... a cognitive construct or a conceptual framework. Therefore... when there are no thoughts, there is no "you." Claiming that the "I" exists without thought is probably one of the biggest nonsense statements out there. ☕

When someone’s out cold. It just doesn't exist, honestly. (It’s not just about being an observer anymore. It’s become the actual content of consciousness itself.)

If you aren't actually conscious—like, if there’s no awareness there at all—then how on earth can you be the very thing that consciousness is supposed to be perceiving? It doesn't really add up, does it?

I’m not entirely sure what you were getting at there, but honestly? That statement just doesn't track. It feels pretty contradictory to me, if I'm being real. 🤷

So, are you actually trying to tell me that being aware that you exist isn't... thinking? I mean, I guess that’s one way to look at it, maybe. But it feels like we're splitting hairs here.

As soon as you realize you actually exist, it’s pretty obvious that you start thinking. 🤷

Can you actually get yourself into a state where your mind just... shuts off? Like, total mental silence? I guess I wonder if it's even possible to hit that zero point.

How... through anesthesia?

Because there’s really no other way... or are you claiming you can pull off something most people just can't?

But I asked you nicely to explain exactly where you end and where your thoughts begin. Describe that dividing line for me—how you actually differentiate yourself from your own thoughts.

Just because you can't put an equals sign between them doesn't mean they aren't equal... maybe you just have some conviction that prevents you from seeing the connection. The only way we can settle this is if you explain exactly where you see that distinction!

And if you can't pinpoint or describe the difference... then it probably isn't there.

Consciousness is a 'process' that provides you with insight (perception) of yourself and your surroundings. All your realizations happen through that process, but that doesn't mean those realizations, feelings, or thoughts are necessarily the 'content' of consciousness itself!

Even someone who isn't particularly bright could look at a TV program and think the show is the 'content' of the TV set... but we know that's not how it works. The TV set just reproduces the program; the program reaches the TV via an electronic signal from a studio or a satellite.

It's the same with consciousness... for you, it reproduces your 'reality' by interpreting a 'signal' that exists outside of you and independently of you. To call that interpretation the 'content' is to be deeply unaware of the very nature of your own awareness.

But now I finally see why you think 'you' aren't the same as your thoughts... honestly, you've got a completely flawed conceptualization of your own self-awareness. You're staring at the 'television' and believing the 'show' is actually what's inside the 'TV set,' reducing yourself to just a viewer sitting in front of a screen... a passive observer playing a secondary role in your own life.

What a shame.

Do you have some physical organ that you call the 'I,' or is this 'I' actually just an abstract mental construct created by your mind?

If we’re talking about how your mind works—and let's be honest, that's exactly what this is—then the "self" is just another thought. It's basically a mental construct or some cognitive concept you've built up. So... if there's no thought, there's no you. Claiming the "self" exists independently of thought is probably one of the biggest loads of nonsense out there. ☕

Amanda Robinson3 said:What can I even say? There are countless ways for Evil to operate and drive people away from God, but only those with true faith will endure.
The choice is entirely yours. If you can't see that all of this is designed to separate people from God, then I honestly don't know what to tell you. Lucifer separates people from God through various means, and this is just one of them.
Just because he possesses vast knowledge doesn't mean he belongs to the side of Good—do you understand what I'm saying?
He'll offer you material gains and bits of forbidden knowledge, but in the end, he'll take your soul.

Andrew Parker86 said:Well, I have been working on myself for several years now, and since discovering Akasha, I feel it is time to dive deeper. That is why I am reaching out for guidance, if anyone is willing to help.
The only thing is, I haven't heard much regarding "soul purposes." Honestly, I haven't studied the soul much at all; it feels a bit too abstract for me. I tend to prefer studying frequencies and brain-based practices like meditation.

Edward Flores4 said:I don't think you've actually made a point there... you've essentially just swapped one term (the observer) for another (awareness).

Sure, awareness is self-aware, but that doesn't imply you have two distinct consciousnesses operating side-by-side, even if they're aware of one another.

Think about it this way—if you’re looking at a tree, your awareness of that tree is entirely dependent on the tree itself. It’s a direct consequence of the fact that there is an object there for you to perceive. Without you, there would be no awareness of the tree, but without the tree, you wouldn't have anything to be aware of in the first place. To me, that seems pretty straightforward.

So... in this whole cause-and-effect loop, where exactly are you seeing something that stands "apart" from the process itself?

2. There is a thinker, and then there is the thought. The thinker is the entity capable of generating thoughts (since a thought can't create itself), though most people find they can't really control them.

Your body is constantly producing all sorts of things—enzymes, neurotransmitters, red and white blood cells... and you don't exactly claim those things aren't part of you, right?

If a thought isn't part of you, then what is it? Is it some invisible "cloud" floating around your head while you ponder things, or is it just a cognitive process that's inseparable from the "thinker"?

Where exactly do "you" end and your "thought" begin? If you can pinpoint that exact boundary, I'd love to hear it.

2.1. Thoughts are the content of awareness.

I'd call it a consequence... but it's not a huge deal.

they can arise in several ways
a) by consciously deciding to think something,
b) being prompted by an external stimulus to think of something,
c) unconsciously—just spinning through an internal dialogue we aren't even mindful of.

True... but what is the common thread among all those different "ways"?

Does a thought ever actually occur without a "thinker" present?

Because if "A" always happens simultaneously with "B," then "A" and "B" are effectively the same thing—part of the same singular unit... wouldn't you agree?

Your body successfully pumps out all sorts of enzymes, neurotransmitters, white blood cells, red blood cells... and you don't exactly claim those things aren't part of you.

If a thought isn't part of you—then what is it? Is it some invisible "cloud" floating around your head while you're thinking, or is it just a cognitive process that's inseparable from the "thinker"?

Where exactly do "you" end and your "thought" begin? If you can, maybe describe that "spot" for me.!?

Right... but what's the common thread among all those "ways"?

Does a thought ever actually happen without a "thinker"?

Because if "A" always happens simultaneously with "B"—then "A" and "B" are essentially the same thing... part of the same thing... right?

brisktiger56 said:🙂I left you some room to think, and wow, you really got emotionally invested there. So, according to you, day and night don't exist for the sun, but there's this darkness surrounding it? Well, yeah. Darkness was already sitting there long before the sun ever showed up to brighten things up. Light had to be missing for the situation to change in the first place. It's kind of like that riddle in the movie Life Is Beautiful: Say my name and I am gone! Who am I?

Silence!

The moment you say the word "silence," you aren't actually experiencing silence anymore—you've just created a phenomenon that shifts things in a very clear direction > much like those situations Einstein talks about.

Anyway, let's get back to talking about power, or at least try to stay a little on topic.

Edward Flores4 said:Alright! Let's assume I totally missed the mark on your first post, and instead, let's just dive straight into what you described in your second one.

I've got a couple more questions for you:

1) If we agree that the "observed" can't exist without the "observer," and that the actual act of observing is the glue holding them together... then what exactly is this "I" that is capable of experiencing itself as something distinct from what it's perceiving?

From where I'm standing—and even following the logic of what you wrote above—it seems like the answer might be "thought." Thought is what exists apart from the "observed," but honestly, that feels like we're just sweeping the problem under a different rug... which leads me to my next point.

2) Is there actually a difference between a "thought" and the "thinker," or are thoughts simply the thinker themselves?

And while we're at it, I have a quick follow-up... because if we're trying to figure out if there's a real distinction between the "observer" and the "observed," the concept of thought is going to come up almost immediately.

2.1) What even *is* a thought? How and why does it happen? Can you actually use your willpower to think about absolutely nothing, or are thoughts—at least some of them—just a spontaneous reaction from the mind to changes in its environment?

---

PS: It’s really nice of you to put so much effort into staying coherent and being willing to jump into this dialogue. If you're still up for discussing this, I'm sure we'll eventually land on some concrete, and frankly quite reasonable, conclusion.

Edward Flores4 said:Alright, I have a few questions here...

1) Do you typically formulate every single sentence in your head before you actually say it out loud?

Because I don't... I basically construct my sentences while I'm speaking them. For me, there isn't this separate stage of "formulating" versus "speaking," so your comparison about "stringing sentences together" is completely lost on me.🤷

2) When you say "you simply can't detach yourself"... well, can you even detach from yourself? I genuinely don't get it—if you "detach" the "you" from the "self," what exactly is left behind?

To me, that sounds like fragmentation, and honestly, that's not something I struggle with at all. I can observe myself observing the sunset... I can essentially lease my "self" out to five different "tenants," where each one plays a totally different role... BUT

that doesn't actually address the core question I posed in my original post:

Can the observer be separate from the observed? Don't they function together, like two sides of the same coin?

I’m arguing that they *are* inseparable, and even with the best intentions, I can't wrap my head around how your advice fits into that specific dilemma, so please, walk me through your logic!

Look, in case it wasn't clear, I wasn't asking for tips on "meditation." I was addressing the question of whether the observer and the observed can truly be split apart.

If your "advice" is meant to answer that specific point, then please show me exactly how it relates.

I'm going to ignore the rest of your suggestions—not because I don't value them, but simply because I didn't ask for them. It seems you took my rhetoric quite literally when it was actually intended metaphorically, so I'm taking this opportunity to clarify what I was actually getting at, what I'm truly curious about, and what the "real" question was at the heart of my opening "ballad."

Edward Flores4 said:Just to get this conversation moving, I’ll play dumb for a second and pretend my question isn't purely rhetorical.

To be honest, I was pretty floored by how poorly some "spiritual leaders" responded to such a straightforward question. It almost leaves you feeling like nobody in the entire "spiritual community" is actually "spiritual" enough to even attempt to grasp the true essence of what's being asked here.

I'm willing to risk looking a bit foolish, so let me try to ground this question with a concrete example.

Picture this: I'm sitting at my kitchen table, looking out the window at a spectacularly ordinary sunset. From my perspective—if I didn't exist, there wouldn't even *be* a sunset. But since I am right here, watching this damn sunset unfold, I can't find a single way to distinguish myself from the experience of seeing it.

In fact, the very moment I try to pinpoint the difference between "me" and the sunset, the actual experience of the sunset vanishes. Instead, I'm just experiencing my own struggle to differentiate myself from something I'm no longer actually perceiving... and that honestly triggers a sense of anxiety almost instantly.

Looking at this through a layman's lens—as a bit of a "spiritual amateur"—I'd say that during the actual experience of the sunset, the "observer" and the "observed" ARE one and the same. Trying to draw a line between them just results in fracturing the "observer," who then spends all their energy fruitlessly trying to "catch" themselves in the act of observing, while the "observed" ceases to be a sunset in that moment.

Essentially, for the "observer" and the "observed" to be distinct, I would have to stop observing entirely, split myself in two, and then somehow "lend" one half of myself to the other to perform the observation (which sounds like a nightmare of a process).

The more effort I pour into that mental gymnastics, the more anxious I get, because I lose track of who is watching whom and why. Both halves feel equally real—both as the "observer" and the "observed"—so the whole experiment starts feeling like a mild schizophrenic episode.

I only find any peace when I give up on trying to tear the "observer" away from the "observed." Mostly, I just try not to ruin a perfectly beautiful sunset by making useless attempts to detach myself from it, which only serves to break the peaceful Unity that exists in the simple act of perceiving the light fading.

But hey, maybe I've finally lost it... since I'm just a "spiritual amateur," I have to assume there's some deep "spiritual" complexity in this division that keeps slipping through my fingers.

brisktiger56 said:So, let me get this straight—first I write whatever fits my mood, and then somehow, by some stroke of cosmic luck, it turns out I actually said what you were saying all along?! Pick a lane here. 😉

I actually dig that logic, though—it highlights the actual direction of change.

First off, you’ve got darkness and coldness (specifically out in deep space), and then you’ve got a sun that, due to the fundamental forces of nature, lights up and warms a tiny little corner of the cosmos. It’s pretty easy to see how light and life emerged from that state of void and stagnation. It’s a fascinating shift toward something better. Is it technically correct to say that life is the absence of nothingness—or rather, stillness—or that the opposite of life is stillness? We could debate that forever, but it's a bit of a circular argument... long, long ago, before there was any life on Earth, how could life even have an "opposite"?

Basically, your starting point is looking at things and their opposites in the present moment, whereas I’m taking a wider view. When I look back into the distant past, I see the total absence of life, light, goodness, and power.

Powerlessness isn't the opposite of power. Powerlessness is just the state caused by the absence of power. That condition we call "powerlessness" is what existed long before power ever showed up. And once power finally arrived, it triggered a shift with a very clear direction, and again—that’s the part of the Einsteinian perspective I really like.

p.s. It’s kind of funny how day and night don't actually exist from the perspective of the sun! That whole concept is just a byproduct of our limited human perception, where we interpret everything through opposites—day being the absence of night, night being the absence of day. Whatever. There aren't really "opposites" there; it’s just a result of the Earth's rotation making it impossible for sunlight to hit the entire surface at once.

brisktiger56 said:Personally, I find that other definition of darkness—the one Einstein floated—to be way more logical and grounded: darkness is simply the absence of light. It follows the same pattern, really. Cold isn't some opposing force to heat; it's just the absence of heat. Even evil isn't a standalone thing; it's just the absence of good. Take electricity, for instance. We call them "plus" and "minus" poles, which makes it sound like this big dualistic struggle, but it's actually just electrons moving from where they are concentrated to where they aren't—it's all about equalizing potential. So, this whole "duality" thing... honestly, it's a stretch. Duality feels more like a convenient little construct our minds use to make sense of things.

What do you think about those Einsteinian ideas? They clearly don't fit into that lazy, broad-stroke dualism people love to apply to everything, but most of us tend to oversimplify things—stuffing everything into extreme categories—just because we lack the patience to sit back and actually sense the nuances.

If we follow that logic, powerlessness would just be a state where power is missing. People who are powerless usually end up looking for help 😉, essentially searching for what they don't have.

Anonymous said:Isn't that just a circular definition, though? If you claim power is just the opposite of being helpless, I still don't actually know what "power" means until I understand what "helplessness" is.

Jeremy Davis7 said:God isn't some abstract concept; He’s a living presence woven into everything, giving the whole mess a sense of purpose.
At this level, it's actually not that hard to sense Him or feel that sudden rush of His presence...
You just have to put in a little bit of work...

Once you finally feel that connection—even for a split second—and it fills your heart because you actually let your guard down, all that overthinking and debating whether He exists or not? It just vanishes. Poof. Gone.

Trust me, I've been there!

🙂

PS.
Jeremy Alvarez5,...try doing more and philosophizing less!
You wouldn't know a spiritual breakthrough if it hit you right in the face.
Maybe then you'd actually experience Jesus in a way that matters.

😉

steeleagle13 said:Whether you're watching or not, things happen on their own—and your observation (or lack thereof) is just part of that process.

steeleagle13 said:Even a chicken is "conscious" when it's pooping—it pauses, lets out a fart, then keeps going.,

Even if I don't view a chicken as some sentient being...😁

Cock-a-doodle-doo to you too, and may it be a very conscious cock-a-doodle-doo.😁 😁

placidharbor7 said:Oh, we're definitely "one," but there's a pretty massive chance that you're just the rear end while placidharbor7 is the actual brains of the operation!🤣