"Pray and work" is an old adage rooted in the Catholic monastic tradition. It’s a staple for most cloistered contemplative orders—those following the Benedictine rule—though you see it among mendicant orders too. From what I've observed, there's always some level of activity in these monasteries, though I'm not sure if it's actually enough to make them self-sufficient. I don't recall hearing of outside communities supporting them; how would they even manage that?
It’s a similar story in Mahajan Buddhism, where monks often worked their own agricultural lands. Hindus and those following Catholicism tend to rely much more heavily on the local community.
But looking at it from another angle, that historically turned them into de facto feudal lords, deeply entangled in political maneuvering. That leaves us with a real question: can you truly stay out of those power games if you're sustaining yourself through your own private property?
I’m not entirely sure, but they don't typically receive direct funding from the diocesan budget unless they’re performing duties similar to a parish priest—which happens sometimes with active orders like the Franciscans, though rarely with the contemplative ones.
From what I can see, some of them run little side businesses, selling things like artisanal cheese, craft beer, or woodwork... others make a bit on the tourism side by renting out rooms within the monasteries. Beyond that, I honestly don't know much. But money doesn't just grow on trees, and I highly doubt their parents are footing the bill.🤷
Ryan Wilson2 said:As long as you have a roof over your head, a comfortable bed, and a steady supply of food provided by others, you aren't living some sort of ascetic, hermit-like existence. It is incredibly easy to sit around philosophizing about the deep meaning of life when you have zero responsibilities and everyone else is handling your meals and your wardrobe.
I fail to see any distinction between Edita Majić and these self-proclaimed "minimalists," much like I see no difference between them and those teenage spiritual seekers who still rely on their parents for every single necessity.
If I recall correctly, Catholic monasteries generally try to be financially self-sufficient. Who exactly do you think is paying the bills there?
It was just a massive waste of time that left huge gaps in my resume—not exactly great for getting hired. I could’ve been out fooling around in Thailand if I was going to be lazy anyway. Honestly, catching an STD feels more tangible than those hollow, self-serving "spiritual awakenings." And if I really wanted to opt out of society, there are better ways to go about it; at least working in a morgue pays the bills.
graniteridge31 said:If a 300-ton boulder actually dropped on him—well, the illusion would just be over. He’d find himself back in reality. In paradise, I suppose. I mean, we've all heard those stories about mothers suddenly finding the strength to lift a truck off their child—it's such a wild demonstration of our potential, which isn't really limited by anything except maybe the mental blocks we build for ourselves here. And instances like that suggest those barriers aren't quite as solid as they seem.
That’s really just biological adaptation to extreme stress, assuming those stories are even accurate (which is mostly anecdotal).
Obviously, there are limits. No "supermom" is going to bench press a skyscraper unless she’s a Marvel character. Plus, that sudden surge in strength and endurance likely comes with side effects, similar to how performance enhancers work. The body essentially overrides its own regulatory systems—systems that exist for good reason—but it still can't bypass the fundamental laws of physics.
It isn't some mystical energy; it’s just biochemistry.
wearyrider16 said:I’m curious—is there a specific term for what happens when "indigo children" grow up with all those traits? And how do you actually navigate life being one of them?
Anyone else feeling this way?
I’m starting to see these patterns in myself more and more now that I'm an adult, though I didn't notice much of it back when I was a kid.
Or maybe I just haven't fully grown up yet? Hard to say.
I just feel pretty lost lately.
It honestly feels like I'm carrying the weight of the entire world on my shoulders.
Gregory Jackson said:I feel like once you truly wrap your head around how karma works, you'll finally get what I'm talking about, especially regarding that whole connection between karma and free will.
But, honestly, I think it’s probably just a waste of energy to try and hash this out with an atheist who hasn't had even a single moment of spiritual insight or an open mind. I don't mean to be rude or anything, I really don't, but our perspectives are just so incredibly far apart that there isn't much ground to cover here, which is just a reality of life. Anyway, have a nice life! 🙂
When an idealistic system hits a dead end, it tends to introduce unprovable "X-factors" to bridge the gap. It's like saying someone will finally get it once they acknowledge the influence of a cosmic unicorn. These ideas act as placeholders, using fantasy to resolve the friction between reality and flawed models used to describe it. Of course, that's a simplification. Those models likely serve their own psychological and sociological purposes, regardless of whether they actually hold water.
Talking to believers who haven't developed a critical lens through spiritual experience is a lost cause. Without some kind of mediating filter, they tend to overvalue their perceptions while assuming everyone else is just missing something. It's a classic psychological loop—claiming something unsubstantiated as proof, then dismissing anyone with a different view just to protect that shaky logic.
It’s a pretty solid comparison. Physics doesn't claim nothing exists—if it did, we wouldn't be wasting time on things like string theory. Besides, people were claiming a century ago that physics had already hit its limit and there was nothing left to discover.
Most of those arguments are either built on shaky ground or just plain wrong.
Science has done a pretty decent job of mapping out what happened from the immediate moments after the Big Bang onward, but we’re still in the dark about what came before. To maintain some sense of continuity regarding fundamental natural laws, theorists have cooked up models like string theory or the multiverse. But let's be clear: those aren't proven physical facts; they're just mathematical possibilities.
At best, God is just one more possibility, though not one that holds much weight in serious mathematics, so most people don't really take the idea seriously.😁
The whole "I don't know what caused this, therefore it must be God" line is a weak argument, and historically speaking, it hasn't aged well.
In fact, almost everything modern physics understands was once attributed to God or some other supernatural force. As our understanding becomes more precise, the "supernatural" keeps getting pushed further into the margins. And so far, none of it has ever been proven. So, purely based on probability, there’s a very slim chance that God will turn out to be the answer to whatever we don't understand right now.
Paul Rogers94 said:I honestly don't know what you're trying to achieve with this question—it's either a total lack of comprehension or you're just trolling at this point. Plenty of people have taken much higher doses than you ever will and see absolutely nothing. You aren't "doing" anything with it... spiritual experiences can't be forced. You can't earn them, you can't manufacture them, and there isn't anything you need to "do" about it because it's entirely a matter of grace (which requires maturity, by the way). It happens, that's the answer. And Enchantress, you can't hold onto them—not spiritual experiences, not anything. You can't perform some ritual to recreate the exact same feeling; all those techniques are essentially useless.
I actually think it's the opposite, which is why setting and mindset are so critical. If your mind is preoccupied with something, you'll hallucinate it. Hallucinogens definitely ramp up suggestibility.
In my experience, the mental obsession, expectations, and how a session is steered essentially define the trip. It's not some grand "grace"; it's more like a direct provocation.
For example, back when I was deep into studying Buddhist practices and then took LSD, I would consciously try to perform those specific meditations while tripping (unless the dose was so high that I couldn't even function). Every single experience felt incredibly meditative and tied directly to those theories and practices. Outside of that context, the trips just revolve around whatever happens to be on my mind at the time.
The same logic applies to trance states induced by non-chemical methods.
Paul Rogers94 said:Psychotic episodes and spiritual experiences aren't actually different—except for one thing: the former leaves the person miserable and alienated from everyone around them, while the latter brings a sense of fulfillment and joy, even amidst suffering... (not that I feel like getting into the weeds of that right now)
There are several key differences here. A friend of mine went through a psychotic episode—what some call a "Kundalini experience"—following an incredibly intense yoga practice. It’s not quite the same as the typical spiritual experiences he had before, nor is it like the ones I've personally had. There is an entire spectrum of psychological and physiological symptoms that set them apart. Psychotic experiences can sometimes be categorized as spiritual ones—or at least, they’re perceived that way by people prone to that kind of interpretation. That said, labeling them as such doesn't quite capture the full spectrum of what people call "spiritual experiences."
Paul Rogers94 said:They aren't narcotics—I call them psychedelics. Narcotics don't lead to any kind of spiritual experience. As for the intelligence bit, it's just a way to give authority to nonsense by wrapping it in pseudo-scientific jargon to make it sound more serious.
Cocaine and amphetamines aren't psychedelics. 😛
I don't quite follow. If you want my take on this whole intelligence thing, just say the word. 🤔
THE GIANTS OF SUBSTANCE USE: Why did so many global geniuses turn to opiates?
American journalism 🙄
The headline screams "opiates," yet almost none of the substances mentioned in the actual article qualify as such. As for that first sentence claiming these things boost intelligence—well, I don't know if we're talking about intelligence or how you define it, but there have been studies showing specific improvements in scientific output linked to certain substances.
And you're still out here dropping links like this. 😁
I’m not talking about how psychiatric diagnosis relies on subjective symptom checks since we don't have blood tests for it, nor am I critiquing old-school psychiatric methods from decades ago.
This specific experiment doesn't deny that actual psychiatric disorders, psychoses, or hallucinations exist, nor does it question their connection to experiences triggered by hallucinogens.
Paul Rogers94 said:I’ve spent quite a bit of time experimenting with substances designed to deepen one's perception of reality—tools meant to facilitate an encounter with the true self or perhaps transcend the confines of limited consciousness. A few observations from my journey:
1. Substance-induced experiences are qualitatively identical to those achieved through non-substance methods.
2. You won't experience anything significant—unless you find yourself caught somewhere between a fairy tale and a nightmare—if you aren't already internally prepared for the encounter.
3. The catalysts I’ve used include LSD (which has allowed me to dwell within my true nature on several occasions) and psilocybin mushrooms—which act as genuine reservoirs of occult wisdom and have imparted profound, holistic teachings to me... various "graces and fruits of the spirit." I am currently attempting to write a book regarding these experiences and DMT. There are other substances that can facilitate this if one is ready—things like ibogaine, peyote, psychoactive toads, and many others I haven't personally tested. I don't view these as "drugs" in the traditional sense; they aren't addictive, nor are they particularly popular with the typical addict crowd, since they tend to produce the exact opposite effect.
4. During certain early stages of spiritual development, it can be beneficial for some (though certainly not everyone) to break through to "THAT PLACE" via a substance—simply to verify its existence, to prove we can reach it, and to get a glimpse of what it actually looks like (essentially, getting a roadmap of where we are actually heading).
5. My initial breakthrough experiences (as well as some later ones) had absolutely nothing to do with any substances whatsoever, which is why I maintain that these experiences are qualitatively indistinguishable from those induced chemically.
6. Not every psychedelic sensation qualifies as a spiritual experience. In truth, that happens very rarely, and even then, only to those who have reached a certain level of maturity (among other specific conditions).
...
I wouldn't go that far, though the symptoms and spiritual interpretations—like kundalini and such—tend to be pretty much the same.
I get what you're saying. Are you suggesting the best way to settle the clash between those primal, hierarchical instincts—that whole "alpha" mindset—and our modern, individualistic liberal values is to just project them onto imaginary beings? 😳