Posts by bluemason3

I’m not entirely convinced that dyslexia is the kind of disorder we're actually discussing here, regardless of what you were trying to get at in your previous posts...

According to some studies, a massive chunk of the population could technically be diagnosed with some kind of disorder. The people who actually end up with a formal diagnosis are just the ones seeking help, so it’s pretty much expected that they'll have a more negative outlook on the specific symptom clusters we label as a "disorder." Meanwhile, someone dealing with a milder version of those same symptoms—someone whose lifestyle masks them or who manages them effectively—is far less likely to ever see a psychiatrist or get a diagnosis in the first place.

And that brings us back to the core issue: what actually constitutes a disorder, and what is it even based on? If you took a diagnostic manual and ran tests on a statistically significant, randomized sample of the general public, you wouldn't get the same ratio of symptom clusters as you would if you only tested people who proactively sought out psychiatric or psychological help because they were struggling.

It all boils down to how you define a disorder. Sometimes there’s this tendency to turn certain traits into standalone issues, labeling things as "disordered" even when the person is functioning perfectly fine in their daily life.

But if we establish that the baseline for needing diagnostic tools is an actual struggle with everyday life, then we can say the condition itself is simply a negative experience occurring under specific circumstances.

That said, just because something causes problems doesn't mean it lacks utility; it just means the downsides currently outweigh the upsides.

Take the spectrum from depression to mania, for instance. As you lean more toward the depressive side, you might find a more objective—if somewhat bleak—view of the world; realism tends to increase. On the flip side, moving toward mania brings a surge of energy and creativity. Both can be assets depending on what you're doing or the situation you're in. However, once you cross a certain line, the "negative" aspects become too heavy for the "positive" ones to compensate for. And if you push past another threshold, the benefits vanish entirely—depression hits a point where there's zero energy to do anything, while mania leads to delusions and losing control over your own life.

Maybe, in the end, everything just depends. The whole concept of a psychological disorder is incredibly messy; it covers everything and anything, and diagnostics are always fluid and approximate...

Woteva 😬

Michael Hernandez77 said:If depression is purely physiological, then where’s the issue?
Standard medicine just treats the symptoms... and the depression vanishes.
And who’s talking about "mystical" experiences here? We're talking about the actual nature of being human, not some mysticism.

Depression is basically just symptomatic pus; the root causes vary. Sometimes it's biological, sometimes it isn't.

Also, just because something is physiological doesn't mean it's easy to fix. If that were true, physical diseases wouldn't exist, yet we still get sick and die.

The true nature of a human being is a beautiful, resonant echo that says nothing at all.

What does intellectual disability have to do with psychosis? Honestly, most of this is just being thrown around aimlessly. Depression can be—and quite frequently is—rooted in physiology rather than some psychological "drama." It can actually be a much heavier burden than a psychotic disorder because we're dealing with such a massive spectrum; you just can't generalize like that. Not to mention how mystical spiritual experiences often sit right on the edge, if not entirely over the line, of psychotic symptoms. 😁

Of course I can't moderate those PDFs; I lost track of which one I was looking at. As soon as I realized where I was and handed out the warning, I requested that the post be removed along with the ban. That’s already been handled, so your appeal doesn't really hold much water.

Technically, the move was justified—let's be real. That post was just a classic example of your habit of picking at the moderation team whenever you feel your ego is being bruised. You tend to nitpick things like title changes from years ago just to make a point. 🙄
Since commenting on the mods (especially in such a repetitive way—both generally and in this specific instance) is against the rules, there isn't much to debate here, regardless of what excuses you come up with or how you try to shift the blame onto others. 😉

Anyway, that's not my department. I stumbled in there by mistake. 🙂

🙂

might need to boil 😁

Here are some more threads that need to be nuked (honestly, we could probably clear out a whole warehouse of them given the blatant trolling going on here):

I haven't a clue 😁 (and I'm not even at my desk right now)...
Yeah, she's online, just using IE, which is what it opens with by default. I didn't check if there are any other browsers installed, and I don't have the permissions to install anything else on my end.

What kind of issues are you running into? Honestly, I think this first thing is just a technical glitch, whereas the second part seems like a standard setting that simply can't be changed. 🤔

Of course she could sort it out with the company, but it’s easier for her to just ask me since I'm already downtown... besides, she's getting up there in years (retired, actually, though she still does some freelance work) and this kind of tech back-and-forth really wears her down. Unfortunately, I was off the clock, so I couldn't reach out to IT directly.

Hi there,

My boss just switched over to this version at the office, and since I’ve never actually used it before, I’m running into two specific headaches while trying to get things set up my way.

1 - Sound and pop-up alerts. I found the settings and toggled them on in Outlook, and I even tried messing with the Windows sound schemes, but nothing. No sound when an email hits the inbox, and no pop-ups either. Just silence.

2 - This might be a lost cause given how these web interfaces work, but the distinction between read and unread emails is pretty poorly designed. The subject line just shifts from blue to black, which is barely noticeable in practice. I really wish there was a classic bold option or even just some higher color contrast to make it obvious. As far as I can tell, there aren't any settings to fix this...

thanks 👋

Douglas Rogers45 said:But this is how moderator "responses" work when they're easily bullied. They just use threats to scare off the "offender" until they back down...

What can you do? Life isn't fair.

Though, life only seems unfair when things aren't going our way, right?.. 😳
Everyone's out for themselves, except for Mamic, apparently. 🧐

Either way, this is still better than the alternative.

Otherwise, the PDF would just turn into an unreadable mess of professional nitpickers.

Rachel Williams18 said:See, that’s exactly it! So you aren't "Hindu" unless you have the entire Vedas memorized? Or if you can translate them into one or more European languages? From that logic, every Hindu is basically genetically locked in, just like a Jew or a Mujahideen. That makes it a sociological or political definition first and foremost. And honestly, there's no room for that kind of stuff in true spirituality. I see Hinduism as the oldest, most universal spiritual practice and theory out there—it isn't limited by where you came from or your genetic tie to a specific nation. I perceive it as "knowledge"—a legacy meant for all possible incarnations, races, or whatever... basically a total spiritual and "scientific" heritage for every living being incarnating on this planet.

Based on what you're writing, it sounds like you can't be "Hindu" unless you were born an Indian in some isolated Brahmin community. To me, that mindset is basically just fascism, communism, or National Socialism in a spiritual mask. Either way, you're basically turning Hinduism into nothing more than elitist hermeticism, Gnosticism, or some occult secret society doctrine...

So, yeah, nothing new here. It’s always that same vibe: "We hold onto these secrets for centuries and it's not for everyone." If someone takes "that" away from us, or if "that" goes mainstream—then suddenly our elitist status is under threat.

In contrast to those elitist esoteric circles, our "knowledge" is hidden behind the ancient Sanskrit language. You have to be crazy enough to spend years mastering Sanskrit just to even have a chance at resonating with the Vedic texts. Because without resonating with the Vedas—there is no resonance with Hinduism.

But my take is totally different—it's more of a personal experience. I view Sanskrit and the Vedas generally as technology, not just a language. Like, an advanced vibrational technology that bypasses the consumer's linear-logical perception, which means the rhetorical importance of the Vedic script fades into the background. Instead, the main focus—in the spiritual, mental, and physical experience—becomes that fine internal structure we call the soul.

Look, just because you aren't a Christian doesn't mean you've memorized the Bible, and just because you aren't a lawyer doesn't mean you know every statute by heart. You still need the licenses, the degrees, and the credentials to back it up.

Even if you can translate them into one or several European languages.

That makes you sound more like a linguist than a Hindu. Our most prominent—or at least most famous—Sanskrit expert is an active, practicing Catholic, for instance.

It follows that every Hindu is genetically limited, just like a Jew or a mujahideen.

It’s more about culture than genetics. Ethnicity acts as a cultural phenomenon, while culture itself is a social construct—they aren't the same thing biologically. Even American identity isn't baked into our DNA; if you look at genetic testing, you just see a massive, messy mix of everything.

Judaism is more strictly defined by ethnicity and faith than Hinduism is, but it still maintains a formal process for conversion.In a way, ethnicity gets factored into the equation too.With Hinduism, things get messy because the doctrine and administration lack any real sense of universality.You see some of that stuff in the walls too, though it’s less intense and lacks the sheer variety you find in Hinduism. Nothing else really comes close.).

Islam isn't an ethno-religious group. It’s more like Christianity or Buddhism—missionary, transnational faiths where ethnicity doesn't really play a role.

So, we're looking at a sociological definition first, or maybe a political one. It's hard to say which comes first.

Religion and formal religious identity are, first and foremost, sociological phenomena.

Spirituality doesn't have much room for rigid definitions.

I’m not entirely sure what spirituality actually is. Everyone seems to throw the word around lately, yet nobody can ever land on a single, clear definition for it.

I see Hinduism as the oldest living tradition out there.

Why is it considered the oldest, and what collective label are you using to justify treating Hinduism as a single, unified phenomenon, given that it’s really just a massive collection of conflicting sects and doctrines from all sorts of different eras?

a universal spiritual practice

What exactly is universal about Hinduism when, as mentioned before, there isn’t anything unique or universal within the individual themselves?

and a theory that isn't tied to ancestry or being part of a specific ethnic group, but rather something I see as "knowledge"—a legacy intended for all possible incarnations, races, and essentially a collective spiritual and "scientific" inheritance for all living beings inhabiting this planet.

I could also perceive it as ice cream, but religions and their memberships define those groups, not some third party's personal whims or feelings. I’d love to be a member of the House of Saud and live as an oil tycoon, but my desires, feelings, or convictions don't exactly bring oil wells to my doorstep.

From your posts, it sounds like you can't be "Hindu" unless you were born Indian into one of those isolated Brahmin communities.

It doesn't have to be isolated or Brahmin (if we're talking about the priestly caste), though it is highly debated (with no final consensus) whether one can be Hindu without being born into it. Opinions range from it being impossible to saying it’s enough to simply consider oneself Hindu. Since there is no central authority or strict doctrine, there is no religious equivalent to a "Supreme Court" to settle the matter. But given how strong the ethno-cultural identity is, it's very unlikely an average person in India will view you as a true Hindu, regardless of what you do.

To me, that stance is ideologically identical to fascism, communism, or Nazism.

By that logic, being a member of the first Dallas Mavericks roster would also be fascism, communism, or Nazism because you can't join just because you want to. Any social group—a company, a club, a religion, or a casual circle of friends—chooses its members as it sees fit. There's nothing controversial about that. We aren't talking about public institutions, government agencies, electoral systems, or the conduct of civil servants. For those comparisons to make any sense, you'd need to be talking about public administration.

So, nothing new here. It's just the usual: "We've kept these secrets for centuries and they aren't for everyone." If you take "that" away and it becomes commercialized, then you're threatening our elitist status.

1 - You can certainly adopt the practices of most Hindu traditions; the question is whether that makes you Hindu. Mind you, you can't become a Vedic priest, as that specific branch of the religion is the most closed off, not just ethnically but by caste, which naturally leads back to ethnicity. Other devotional, yogic, Tantric, and various other paths are plenty open to non-Indians.

2 - I don't see the issue, even if that were the case. I have the right to give or withhold my money, to let someone into my house, or to offer intimacy... similarly, I have the right to share or withhold information, socializing, or membership in a group... provided we aren't talking about a public government office, of course. I don't quite get why you assume everything should be accessible to everyone and that everyone should be met with open arms.

Unlike those elitist esoteric circles, our actual "knowledge" is tucked away inside the ancient Sanskrit language.

Language is just a vessel for moving information; there’s nothing hidden within it except for excessive mystification. If you really think learning Sanskrit is the key, I suggest enrolling in an Asian Studies program. Once you have that degree, maybe these debates will actually become constructive.
Just because you achieve that doesn't mean you'll be accepted as a Brahmin. But if you believe Indira's magic trick is to multiply your flock of great wisdom, by all means, go ahead.

First, you have to be crazy enough to spend years mastering Sanskrit just to gain the ability to resonate with the Vedic texts. Because without resonating with the Vedas, there is no resonance with Hinduism.

Resonance is a physical phenomenon, and I fail to see how it relates to learning a language.

Most modern Hindu traditions only claim a connection to the Vedas; in practice, they rely much more on other scriptures. It’s not like you need to read the Torah in Hebrew to be a Christian. Most Americans who follow Hinduism don't know a word of Sanskrit.

But my perception is entirely different—it's a personal experience. I generally view Sanskrit and the Vedas as technology rather than a mere language. Specifically, an advanced vibrational technology that bypasses linear-logical perception, pushing the rhetorical meaning of the Vedic script to the background. Instead, the spiritual, mental, and physical experience is occupied by that subtle internal structure we call the soul.

OK 😁

It’s not really an option. There's a massive debate over whether you can actually become Hindu if you weren't born into it. For many, it feels more like a cultural or ethnic identity rather than just a religious choice. Very few organizations actually facilitate formal conversions to Hinduism (mostly because much of what we see today stems from the Neo-Hindu movement, which tends to focus on bringing former Hindus back into the fold—often in entire communities that switched to other faiths like Islam, Christianity, or Buddhism due to various social or political pressures). Now, if you're looking at joining a specific sect within Hinduism, there are initiations and all that. You can certainly become part of a certain lineage or spiritual tradition, but it's debatable whether that makes you "Hindu" in the full sense. Most people wouldn't share that core cultural background or go through the standard life rituals an average American Hindu would.

With Christianity, you get baptized, usually after finishing some basic classes.

Converting to Judaism is one of the toughest paths out there; it takes serious work.

As for becoming a Freemason, you can only be accepted by specific lodges through their own initiation process.

Sure, maybe you could just call yourself an alchemist and leave it at that.😁
Becoming Muslim is relatively straightforward. Even becoming Buddhist isn't too much of a climb.

Just Google it 😁

It’s gone. Vedic religion is basically extinct. You might find a few Brahmin groups tucked away in some rural villages that still cling to that specific stage of development, or maybe a handful of organizations that claim inspiration from the Vedas.

Most of what people talk about in the West is just modern Neo-Hinduism—a 19th-century invention built by stitching together Puranic Hinduism and other traditions that were already post-Vedic (dating back to the Middle Ages).

The Krishna followers are a slight exception; they follow one of those Puranic sects from the late Middle Ages, though they've been heavily reformed and adapted over time. Even they don't have much to do with the actual Vedas or the original Vedic religion, despite their obsession with slapping the label "Vedic" on everything under the sun.

If you actually want to study this seriously, you're better off enrolling in an Indology program rather than joining some local spiritual group.

Rachel Williams18 said:So, what even is this whole "Veda science" thing?

I mean, how much of it actually makes it over to us Americans? How much of it has even been decently translated into ENG? Take Blavatsky, for instance—it feels like she’s basically the only one who called out the West for mishandling Veda knowledge, and because of that mess, it ended up in the hands of 19th-century occultists and Nazi fanatics... just a total tragicomedy...

Pretty much everything has been translated into English for ages, and well enough at that. Besides, plenty of people understand Sanskrit. You even have decent Indology programs in places like NYC where studying Sanskrit is a core focus.

Blavatsky was just spinning yarns that had little to do with the Vedas, selling her own narratives and interpretations that don't exist in the original texts. Just your typical romanticizing occultist peddler.

Lawrence Torres56 said:Look, an animal out in the wild never kills out of pure greed or malice, right? They do it because they're hungry, and that's actually how nature keeps everything in balance.
And as for a dog—sure, they eat, sleep, and breed, but they also guard the house and keep their owners happy... there's more to it than that.

In that whole chain of life, nobody is inherently "better" or "worse" than anyone else; everyone plays their part, so this whole idea of "progressing" versus "regressing" honestly feels pretty hollow when you think about it.
Trying to put yourself above everyone else isn't some sign of spiritual enlightenment, is it? To me, it just looks like ignorance and an ego that's desperate to be the alpha.😁

Zver in the wild kills for food, instinct, or even just sport (look at how cats—from house pets to big cats—or even penguins play with their prey, sometimes killing it without even eating it). Nature balances itself out naturally, not through some conscious intention (except in humans). Things actually fall out of whack quite often; a new species enters an ecosystem and wrecks the existing balance by overhunting or overpopulating.

There’s no romance or pseudo-religious mysticism in it.

Since humans are the only ones who actually know what they're doing and can make conscious choices, they are obviously more valuable.🙂
Besides, value is subjective. In-group preference is a natural, necessary mechanism, both among human communities and toward other creatures. It's only natural that your own child matters more to you than a stranger, or that your own species comes first.

What area are we talking about here?

Any examples of how they overlap?

Can you give me some examples of science within the Vedas?