It’s not quite the same thing—and even if it were, like I said, it isn't really about what’s being said. 😉 Anyway, I’ll try to take your advice and dig up at least one de Mello book as soon as I get home... then I'll let you know my thoughts.
I used to be all about Oshoa, but then I stumbled upon some stuff regarding his behavior—which is why I made that comment earlier (basically, "looks polished on the outside, total wreck on the inside"). His way of expressing things is incredibly impactful, and honestly, his books really hit home for me. But if we’re talking about who actually embodies an authentic spiritual being, Eckhart Tolle takes the top spot for me—*The Power of Now* is pretty much my manual for how to live. For the intellectual side of things, Ken Wilber is brilliant; his book *Doctors Without Borders* offers such a killer deep dive into consciousness theory. I've read plenty of other stuff too, but I can't recall it all right now... I'm not exactly a spring chicken anymore. 🙂 Fine, I won't even bring up Buddha... he's in a league of his own and paved the way for everything else.
In my book, it’s not really about WHAT someone is saying. You meet people who sound incredibly smart and rational—but honestly? That’s often just an ego mask hiding a consciousness that doesn't actually align with their words. It would be great if I could just read someone's aura to instantly spot if they're being authentic, but hey, that’s just sci-fi.
Besides—the 70s and 80s were basically the golden era for the New Age movement. You had all these Eastern teachers, including the well-known Osho, making huge waves in the West. So, I really don't buy the idea that people weren't interested back then. If anything, it was a total craze...
Looking back at it now, nothing about it really jumps out at me—nothing special, really. I just don't see any authenticity there... though maybe I'm wrong.
brisksailor96 said:I consider myself lucky, mostly because I’ve actually learned how to appreciate what I have. It’s not like I’ve conquered the world or built some massive empire yet. But I have an amazing boyfriend, my grades at NYU are decent (even if I don't exactly love the coursework), I’ve got my freelance gigs, I stay active, I make art, volunteer, hang out with friends... I find my happiness in those little things, which is why I’m actually quite content with my life. Of course, there are bad days—highs and lows, obviously—nothing is ever perfect. Sometimes a win is just finally cleaning my apartment or nailing a new recipe. It’s a mistake to say happiness lives *only* in the small stuff; it’s more about having a balanced perspective on both the tiny wins and the big goals. You take it step by step toward something major, and the satisfaction grows naturally. Big ambitions are endless, and so is the fulfillment they bring. So, you have to find that equilibrium: making progress every day, accepting that you don't know everything despite being surrounded by an infinite flood of information and experience... The glass always looks better half-full rather than half-empty 🙂
Honestly, though? Most of what you just listed aren't even "little things" 🙂
It’s perfectly normal to have desires—you can't exactly exist without them—but you shouldn't get too caught up in the obsession. Even someone retreating to a monastery in rural Montana to meditate still has the desire to reach enlightenment...
My question boils down to this: people who can say—without any hesitation—that they’re actually happy. I want to know if there are more of them from the first group or the second... that's all.
do you think it’s because you actually checked off all your big life goals—or is it just because you don't need much to stay satisfied (you know, finding joy in the little things and not letting every minor setback ruin your week)?
Morgan Rodriguez57 said:Right... criminals, the mob, heists—most of the runtime is just characters overthinking things and dealing with personal baggage that dictates their choices and fates... yeah, totally different. It’s "different" because Tarantino knows what he’s doing, whereas this movie just missed the mark...
Look, this movie is actually a serious sociological and political critique. If you view everything through that lens, then every single mob flick filled with dialogue would seem Tarantino-esque to you—including 😛The Godfather . As for the director, someone who helmed Jesse James is clearly a massive talent... even if they're still in the process of proving it. Dominic is an auteur, which makes his two-film run with Pitt way more interesting to watch.
The movie is great—it’s just highly intellectual, whereas most people were probably expecting your run-of-the-mill action flick. It actually has some depth, plus the acting is top-tier. I'm giving it an 8/10.
Honestly, there’s nothing wrong with that moral gray area 🙂 And the character played by Brad Pitt feels real enough—that little monologue he delivers fits his persona perfectly (no pseudo-intellectual nonsense involved), so I'd say it actually lands.
This is one of those rare new crime flicks that actually landed for me. If you're the type who prefers a plot that actually makes you think—and values sharp dialogue over mindless explosions—I’d highly recommend giving this a shot. It’s got some political undertones, too. Honestly, I'm not sure if Steven Spielberg produced this under a Hollywood banner or what, but it definitely isn't your typical Hollywood garbage. What did you guys think?
It’s nice if some of you have heard of Zigon too. Word is he was a tough nut to crack—and apparently, he was obsessed with Dostoevsky. As for him being into porn? Yeah, I highly doubt that; in one broadcast, he absolutely tore into it.
(Let me jump the gun a bit here) Of course there are plenty of good movies out there, and sure, you might see yourself reflected in their setting, but... sometimes you just find yourself in a movie—it’s like reading your own definition of life. Plus, she only asked for one title right off the bat, not a top 5 or 10 list.
That’s exactly the point—if she’d asked for a top 10, fine. But sometimes you love a film simply because of the concept. For instance, I’m a huge fan of Truman's Show—assuming, obviously, that the acting and technical side are at least decent. But claiming you only have *one* film to your name? That just suggests you haven't watched much.
Then again, even my own watchlist isn't enough—it's tough to dig up the actual classics, and 90% of what I've seen isn't worth much.