Posts by bluemason3

Roger Fowler said:There’s a heavy emphasis on the women here, isn't there? I mean, looking at women like that might just give you an immediate... physical reaction. 😳 Meanwhile, the government seems to be pushing everyone toward military recruitment, which I can only assume is a response to all this tension involving Russ?

And maybe they're using those girls to bait Russ into attacking sooner rather than later. 🙂 😬

The wealthy, the women, and the ballerinas... where on earth is this world heading? 🧐 😁

hiddenpuma75 said:Concepts like definitions and domains or even overlapping sets are all incredibly hazy, fluid, and constantly shifting things...

I remember well when I was diving deep into Gnosticism and came across that famous global symposium of Gnostic scholars. The entire result of their seminar ended up being

they couldn't even reach a consensus on what Gnosticism actually is. 🤣

So, just to save face, they released a joint statement offering

both a broad and a narrow definition of Gnosticism, though not everyone actually signed off on it. 🤣

In short, don't be quite so certain about what constitutes Tantra versus Mantra, or where Bob or Pop fit into the mix.

After all, even Christianity has about 800 different major denominations, sects, and theological branches—so watch out, or you might end up running into the Seventh-day Adventists of Tantra or the Jehovah's Witnesses of Tantra. 🤣

And here I am, acting as a grand Druid representing my small brotherhood of Reformed Druids in America.

That’s my point. These spheres are all so foggy and fantastical that nobody truly knows what they’re dealing with.🤣

Regarding Tantra, it depends on whether we're talking about Neo-Tantra or the Indian spiritual traditions that were "tantra-ized" over the last century or two. You could dig into the deep past to show how definitions have always been relative, but in today's context, only two categories really matter: Indian and Neo-Tantric (even if that's a simplification to keep this post from getting too long; even within Indian traditions, academia and religious practitioners often split into different groups)).

There are essentially two camps regarding whether Neo-Tantra counts as Tantra at all. One side argues that the definition of Tantra has evolved enough through history that rejecting modern usage makes no sense. The other side claims it's just a misuse of the term to label phenomena that are fundamentally different and unrelated.

Both sides have valid points, so... my issue with Neo-Tantra isn't necessarily that it's different, but that it lies about being the same. It uses aesthetics, language, and distorted references to Indian sources to try and present itself as more traditional than it actually is.

As for India and Tibetan Buddhism, Tantra is precisely the source of guruism and the emphasis on teacher lineage and devotion. So, questioning whether there's much individualism there is fair; if anything, it's the opposite.

In reality, it's quite hard to find truly individualistic movements in the East. Most of those are just modern Western projections (like Hesse's Siddhartha).

Of everything I've encountered, the most individualism is found in non-Tantric Buddhism (since Hinduism has pretty much become entirely tantra-ized anyway), but even then, take that with a grain of salt.

hiddenpuma75 said:Let me try to translate that for you...

What is COMPLETELY (and I mean 100%) shared by Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, and even slaves (for instance, back in ancient Rome or generally speaking) is the simple FACT that the ideal believer or the ideal slave is expected to be submissive to a set of rules imposed by SOMEONE ELSE.
These rules and theologies are often vague, contradictory, demeaning, or even "impossible"... but their goal is to weaken or dismantle the ego we all possess, aiming to harmonize the individual with "something greater than themselves."

When a follower of the Left-Hand Path realizes this fact (whether consciously or not), they decide—either intentionally or instinctively—not to follow anyone else's rules. Instead, they choose to follow themselves, their own principles, and their own independent journey.

In my view, both paths are valid and achievable, but both are incredibly demanding. The Right-Hand Path is difficult because it requires total self-denial, while the Left-Hand Path is tough because you end up "standing apart" from the crowd. You're essentially alone, and being in the minority makes it hard to navigate the standards others have set.

Both paths offer plenty of examples of massive successes and inspirations, as well as huge failures, tragedies, and sheer absurdity.

It’s also easy to see how those on the Left and those on the Right generally fail to understand one another. They tend to despise each other, convinced that their own path is the only viable one, while viewing the other as "evil," bizarre, or pathetic.

Beyond that, there are internal differences within "each hand." For example, Buddhism stands out from other religions because it "has no God," yet a Buddhist still submits to dharma, sangha, and "
Buddha.
On the Left-Hand Path side, we have both atheistic and theistic versions of the way.
Essentially, every atheist is a follower of the Left-Hand Path by default, even if they've never heard the term. It isn't because an atheist does what Christians *think* they do (like sacrificing children 🙄), but simply because they refuse to be "obedient" to a narrative that feels untruthful or externally forced upon them.

(Of course, all of this is incredibly brief and superficial to someone who has no clue about the subject.

And Amy Bennett, you don't really know anything about the "Left-Hand Path," so to you, it's just "Satanism"—basically the caricature that mainstream Christianity created.

But if we acknowledge the fact that Jesus followed a Left-Hand Path in relation to Judaism, then it becomes foolish to claim he was a Satanist.
To the Pharisees, he *was* a Satanist, which is exactly why they executed him.

Similarly, Buddha was considered a heretic by Hindus, yet it would be just as ridiculous to call Buddha a Satanist.

This is a fascinating topic because every single one of us has been, at various times, a "Left-Hander" and a "Right-Hander."

So, by that logic, Tantra doesn't really fall under the Left Hand Path anymore, does it?😁

Ryan Wilson2, why are you picking on the kids?😁

analogbear5 said:Moving past the clichés and pop-philosophy—how would you actually define LHP?

In Christianity, any deviation from God—even by just one degree—is a path toward hell. To me, hell is basically just the inability to see yourself in your neighbor, let alone reflecting the divine image. It’s a common critique of Christians, too—if they hate someone, their God hates them right along with them.

So, where does mysticism fit into the path of the left hand? Are we talking actual supernatural forces here, or is all the ritual stuff just high-stakes psychodrama?

Nothing. Or rather, whatever happens when a specific author or their supposed authority gets mocked, along with all the other empty, airy nonsense found in religious and spiritual circles.😉

For instance, some early Hindu texts list Kaula and Tantra as separate paths, even though today people treat Kaula as a textbook example of Tantra, and Tantra itself as the Left-Hand Path.

Then you have the way early Orientalists tried to redefine Tantra entirely.

Then there are attempts to rewrite definitions for nationalist reasons, often constrained by Victorian morality during those late-colonial Hindu nationalist movements and reforms.

Then you have the early Western occultists who just picked up pieces of that messy narrative.

Then you have neo-tantrics like Osh, who cook up their own stories by mixing things with humanistic psychotherapy and various cultish nonsense.

And then you have the Satanists and similar kids.

Basically, once the hype dies down, everyone is left convinced they have a clear view of the spiritual world, while they’re actually just trapped inside their own heads—living through projections and fantasies (some shared by the group) that can be manufactured by anyone and never have any actual basis in reality.

LHP, RHP, upper, lower, middle path... it’s all just noise.

Psychology isn't a crystal ball; you can't just predict how people will act.

Even seasoned experts don't hand out diagnoses lightly. They know that over years of working with a patient, a diagnosis can shift regardless of their experience, education, or the massive diagnostic toolkit at their disposal (things like formal psychological assessments, medical screenings, and deep dives into specific symptoms). Beyond that, a diagnosis doesn't offer a perfect forecast of future behavior—it only provides statistical probabilities. For instance, psychopathic traits show up at higher rates among criminals, yes, but also among CEOs and surgeons. Just because someone displays those tendencies (which, by the way, isn't even an official standalone diagnosis in the manuals) doesn't mean you can predict they'll turn to crime. There are too many variables in play.

Furthermore, there’s no real logic in suggesting that a certain amount of psychology would suddenly make someone a great clinician (which is actually a specialized field pursued after a psychology degree, meaning it requires significantly more training than what's being proposed). You could use that same argument for pretty much any field. It would probably be just as useful if doctors knew more about economics, or law, or just about everything else.

The reality is that the US doesn't have enough psychiatrists or clinical psychologists to serve patients in treatment centers, let alone the entire population. On top of that, there are ethical concerns to consider. If a person isn't genuinely invested in participating in testing for therapeutic purposes, they can easily fake their answers. The built-in safeguards in personality tests (basically redundant, slightly rephrased questions) are often too obvious and easy to bypass.

casualtiger2 said:Just another fog salesman having some hallucinations:
"“I looked at the jail that secluded me from men and it was no longer by its high walls that I was imprisoned; no, it was Vasudeva who surrounded me. I walked under the branches of the tree in front of my cell but it was not the tree, I knew it was Vasudeva, it was Sri Krishna whom I saw standing there and holding over me his shade. I looked at the bars of my cell, the very grating that did duty for a door and again I saw Vasudeva. It was Narayana who was guarding and standing sentry over me. Or I lay on the coarse blankets that were given me for a couch and felt the arms of Sri Krishna around me, The arms of my friend and Lover. this was The First Use of The deeper Vision He gave me. I looked at the prisoners in the jail, the thieves, the murderers, the swindlers, and as I looked at them I saw Vasudeva, it was Narayana whom I found in these darkened souls and misused bodies. Amongst these thieves and dacoits there were many who put me to shame by their sympathy, their kindness, the humanity triumphant over such adverse circumstances.”"


Sri Aurobindo

His collaborator Mirar Alfass -The Mother,


the founder of auroviti, an alternative community where about 2,800 people live right now.

True.

There are plenty of people like that. In hypnosis studies, maybe 20% are just highly suggestible "somnambulists." You don't necessarily have to be mentally ill for it to happen.

It's foolish, sure, but definitely better than dealing with pure narcissistic frauds like that 😁
one you mentioned.

The first one was clearly struggling with some mental issues, while the second was just a naive fanatic.

ironowl68 said:did anyone actually understand what the Germans wrote...
the Pope has nothing to do with arbitrating this...

did anyone actually understand what the Germans wrote...
the Pope has nothing to do with arbitrating this...
I mean, Mass is being held in their "house," so they have to let it happen (not necessarily defend it, but you can't hold it without permission).
It seems unlikely that Vatican City would just meddle in a diocese's jurisdiction without a much more significant reason (plus, I'm not entirely sure how legally feasible that even is).

ruggedraven36 said:To Native Americans—they’ve always been my blueprint for what actual human beings should look like. I’ll never forgive the pale crowd for wiping them out.

Just curious—how much do you actually know about them, and which tribe did you live with?

I’m not sure if those terms are even interchangeable. In tantric or guru-led traditions—which are fundamentally about mystical initiation—the guru isn't just passing on information; they act as an active "agent of salvation."

When you assign a specific role to a single individual—the kind of role the Church or Jesus holds in Christianity—you create some pretty fertile ground for all sorts of complicated relationships...

Why would she provoke him when it actually works in his favor? Honestly, he’d be a psychopath if he reacted to it "conscientiously."
Also, being obsessed with God can just be a symptom of various mental health fluctuations.

At the same time, there are plenty of guru-centric paths that aren't devotional at all. Guruism is (late) a Tantric phenomenon, and all paths infused with Tantra (including yours, even if you claim they're Vedic) are guru-centric—that goes for Tibetan Buddhist Tantrics too, and Buddhism isn't even theistic to begin with.

On the other hand, you'll find "fallen" gurus in every single sect, regardless of how much they talk about God.

In short, we can easily toss this definition aside as baseless propaganda from theistic ideology rather than a useful, fact-based way to tell things apart.

We should probably reject guruism with the same energy, especially alongside the caste system—the worst disease in Indian culture. Unlike the castes themselves (with a few extreme exceptions), guruism has managed to infect certain naive, ill-adjusted members of our much more developed Western culture.

A guru often thrives on having a student who stays dependent on them, fostering a regressive mindset. Plus, there aren't any ethical oversight boards or formal mechanisms in place to prevent someone from abusing their authority. It makes you wonder how much of the role is actually therapeutic and how much is just manipulation—the lines are incredibly blurry.

Gurus don't actually exist to pass on wisdom; most of them are just small-time hustlers playing at being parental figures in some weird, tribal social hierarchy. A book can't pull off that kind of performance.

You don't need to take offense just to justify cutting someone off. Sometimes you just realize there’s no point in continuing the conversation.

AU, this forum has really gone downhill. Back in my day, we used to send a whole delegation right to your doorstep with a box of chocolates 😳

Honestly, I think they’re all just a bunch of oversized truckers 🧐 😬

Jesse Barnes5 said:Before you hit 60, everything is still young
k

Now I'm actually bummed you aren't an American woman😒

😁

Maria Johnson said:Look who's flooding us. Exhausted yet? 😬

The pay is just too low. 🧐 😁

Henry Evans10 said:Just realized you were a guy.
Waste of keystrokes... :kadva:

😬

Exactly. 😬

ironcobra13 said:🙄

🙄

Jesse Barnes5 said:My high school buddies laugh at me because I'm active on this Reddit forum

Now I'm feeling old. 😳 😁

Between the migraines, back pain, leg aches, and stomach issues... 🤣

Put some cleavage in your avatar and change your handle to "thirsty parties." 😁