Posts by bluemason3

Ryan Wilson2 said:Quincy:

bluemason3 As stated by: Have you truly abandoned the pursuit of philosophy?$67 Is it truly possible to argue that "ascetics are simply incapable of achieving anything meaningful in this life"? Is that the fundamental truth we're meant to accept? 😁 Where do you think these extreme, boundary-pushing tantric practitioners actually come from? It’s highly improbable they are being recruited from the masses of wealthy families or those elite social circles. 😳 Drogerasi ☕

Drogerasi nikad 🙂I am still standing by that position, and I have no intention of wavering.

That is precisely my point. Those who actually possess significant wealth certainly aren't losing sleep over how to "transcend" their material circumstances; they have already mastered that realm. Isn't it always the case that those preoccupied with spiritualizing away their possessions are simply those who lack the means to acquire them in the first place? 😁

It’s easy for them to preach when they have such effortless access to drugs.

Aside from Bud and Sadh Maharaja 😬 😁

Scott Miller4 said:Do you see what your buddy down there just said to you? Is that really what you were looking for? 🤣

No, I haven't. And honestly, I have no idea where one even goes to meet him.

That’s assuming you can just wipe away everything you've been taught since preschool—all those lectures about how alcohol is bad, how it destroys families, how it ruins your health, and all that other garbage. I guess you're just a blank slate, so none of that upbringing actually stuck or formed any real convictions for you, right?

Yeah, he totally read me. Almost enlightened me. It was a sort of Zen-style brutality. 😳

I'm still processing all this newfound wisdom. 😳

Edit: wait, are you talking about El Dorado or Bafia? 🤔

Ryan Wilson2 said:It isn't exactly an undesirable way to live... unless, of course, you much prefer the standard 9-to-5 grind, bowing down to bosses and clients, eating pizza without a beer, and being suffocated by social norms. 😁

To provide a trivial example: someone like Aghora could walk around wearing mismatched socks. Would anyone in this thread actually dare show up to their job wearing different socks, or is the fear of being judged simply too overwhelming? 😁

So, did you give up on the philosophy of "money in your pocket" and the idea that "ascetics just aren't capable of achieving anything in this life"? $67 😁

Where do you think the more extreme taboo-breaking tantrics come from? I doubt they're mostly recruited from wealthy families in high castes. 😳

Drogerasi ☕

Scott Miller4 said:I agree it could work that way, but usually, it doesn't. It certainly doesn't for me.
In general, it's not always about expecting a specific outcome, but you can't really deny that there's some level of expectation involved in forming the very motivation to start in the first place...

I haven't met anyone who isn't motivated by some kind of benefit. You can define that benefit however you want, but as long as it falls within the realm of pleasure or reducing suffering—it's a benefit. 🙂

They're actually two sides of the same coin.
The Aghore are a good example.

Slackers, freeloaders, and junkies.🧐

Ryan Wilson2 said:In other words, an individual's value is measured by how effectively they integrate into the fabric of society.

I'm not sure what "valuable" even means—that's subjective—but yeah, they're probably more successful.

Ryan Wilson2 said:Literally. It is akin to the possibility of making contact with natural processes that remain hidden from the human eye.

Regarding techniques and their practical outcomes, everything essentially boils down to a form of individualized psychotherapy infused with doses of philosophy—incorporating concepts like purpose, morality, social support, worldviews, and so on...

That is ultimately how it plays out. People simply want to be better versions of themselves; they want to integrate into society and feel they belong to their specific community of spiritualists. But why should wisdom and tranquility be considered virtues? What is the utility in that? Why shouldn't aggression and terrorism be viewed as superior virtues? Overthrowing social orders that stifle the individual isn't achieved through calm contemplation; it requires aggression. Why on earth should I remain composed when the state is "legally" threatening my very existence?

Well, if I keep going down this path, someone might actually come knocking on my door. 😁

Ryan Wilson2, it looks like nothing is changing regarding biological evolution, at least not for another few million years. 🙂

Unless, of course, you are placing your hopes in transhumanism or some kind of new cyber-religion. 🙂

We could potentially reshape ourselves. If we want change, there is no other way but to establish a new cyber-religion. 🙂

P.S. As it happens, the day after I wrote that post, I started watching True Detective, and there is a character who describes my exact sentiment far more eloquently:

I suspect I might possess some sort of prophetic ability concerning television series 🤣 because I have experienced similar coincidences several times before. It is a pity I don't dream about winning the Powerball. 😁

Because a pack of pugs can actually take down a lion.😁

Humans are pack animals. For us, maintaining the community is far more vital for survival than any individual's ego.🤷

Nicholas Gonzalez8 said:Look, psychology is an interesting field, and a truly great psychologist can definitely help someone make personal strides, but there are specific spiritual dimensions that psychology—and psychologists—just don't grasp and tend to ignore entirely.

I believe true strength actually comes from that very tolerance, wisdom, and knowledge mentioned earlier. So, it’s definitely not a waste of time.

It’s hard to view the world in strictly black and white. There are plenty of shades of gray in between—just like there are people who are deeply tied to material stuff and worldly habits, and then there are those who aren't attached to any of it at all.

And honestly, I think physical evolution mostly starts with a spiritual one... a shift in how we think and live our lives.

From everyone I've met, just living a comfortable life isn't enough for most. And really, considering how many questions we ask throughout our lives, it’s hard to argue that we aren't searching for truth. It’s just that sometimes we lose our way on that path and end up putting way too much importance on things that don't matter. I respect your perspective, but I firmly believe we are much more than just the sum of our influences and circumstances. Some individuals prove that every single day.

People have massive potential, in every sense of the word. But by obsessing over control, we actually end up losing it.

I don't really see it that way. Even looking at our own lives on a micro scale—relative to evolutionary timelines, anyway—we can see this happening. Shifts in climate, diet, or disease patterns significantly impact both the physical makeup and the social structure of a population. When you look at societal shifts like technological leaps, changes in education, economic fluctuations, and evolving lifestyles, they dictate which types of people thrive. Someone who’s an "alpha" in one environment might be a complete pushover in another. It sounds nice and poetic, but as much as I enjoy idealism, I don't see much evidence to support those highly spiritualized, Lamarkist-Aurobindian type concepts of evolution.

Scott Miller4 said:The moderators at Tempo might think you're just spamming with this one. 😬

Nah, it's more than just an emoji ☕

Everything's by the book 😈

Scott Miller4 said:I have this feeling that I actually know way less now than I did when I first started. Back then, those intense spiritual experiences used to blow my mind, but now? I'm pretty sure they're just projections. Or maybe just identifications. At the end of the day, the only real takeaway seems to be realizing how little I actually know and just spinning my wheels.
Regarding that whole thing about calming down the temperament—losing the urge to be aggressive and just feeling generally more level-headed in most situations—it might be because of meditation or spiritual practice, I guess. But honestly, it’s probably just maturity (though I suppose I could call it "getting older" 😁).

Ryan Gomez4 said:That bolded part is my only takeaway here.

Ae 😁

I can't quite wrap my head around what we're doing here. It feels like we're just spinning our wheels without much direction. kaže:
Some recent estimates suggest the ancient Vedic texts go back 7,000 or maybe even 10,000 years. We’ve only actually translated a tiny fraction of them. Who knows what else is buried in those pages? Maybe once we finally catch up, things will start making sense. For instance, we might actually learn how those stealth crafts work, or find out more about those weapons capable of targeting fertility.

The oldest parts of the Vedas aren't actually that ancient when you look at the dating. Plus, the translations are pretty solid. And honestly, *The Iliad* and *The Odyssey* aren't part of the Vedas anyway. 😁

Eric Wells3 said:I simply cannot fathom how people possessed such staggering mental capacity to memorize those massive volumes, considering that 5000 years ago in India, writing hadn't even been invented yet.

They used to pass these stories down orally with pretty decent precision, but when you get into the epic myths, things get blurry. Because they aren't quite as rigid, you end up with all these different versions scattered across the USA today. There are even those "scientific" types who try to map out the similarities just to pin down a single, original source.

hollowtrucker said:That's because mainstream Western academic history—you know, the "official" version of science—basically refuses to look further back than 5,000 years. It would be absolutely terrifying for them to admit there might have been an advanced civilization living 12,000 years ago, right? Or even 80,000?

It wouldn't be catastrophic, but it would be stupid, inaccurate, and completely contrary to the facts.

slyorca62 said:I was wondering if anyone here who’s actually read the Mahabharata could weigh in on how we should all be interpreting it. Like, do you guys think we should take everything at face value, or is it more of a metaphorical thing?
For example: that whole part about the celestial horse, Uchchaihshravas, being born from churning the ocean of milk.

I don't think anyone should take folklore literally. It’s likely just a messy blend of actual history, mythological archetypes, and a massive game of telephone.

Lisa Morales4 said:It’s funny how you eventually concluded that—and I quote—"even the bald guys, just like those damn hair-obsessed types, have their own specific 'connection issues'..."

That's why he told them to shave it all off. The moment their hair and beards stopped being just a simple thing to maintain and started becoming an ego-driven asset, they should have just sheared themselves.

It’s the same deal with your old man and his full head of hair today. He’s gotten a little too proud of it. It might be time for him to get back to reality; shaving seems to have become far too much of a luxury for him.

😲 what the...
cobalt blue on an anvil at night... wow.

As for the Krishna followers and other "Buddhists"—they tend to be naturally hairy, much like people from certain parts of Africa. If they only shave once a year, their hands and legs end up looking as smooth as a child's, without a trace of hair. Just plain.
I mean, what kind of man is a man without a mustache? lol
Though, personally, I think those hair-obsessed guys are more attractive when they're clean-shaven—rough-shaven faces that show they actually had something to shave, unlike those hairy Buddhists. Then they can keep the rest of the fuzz under control by trimming it down. The only exception is a long, powerful braid, freshly washed with conditioner and coconut oil, flowing like some Gladiator or a wild, proud warrior.

Asians aren't Christians. Whether it's Gaudiya Vaishnavism or reformed lineages like ISKCON, we're talking about Hindu traditions with a global footprint. Buddhism also traces its roots back to India.

Indians, on the other hand, are quite diverse depending on the region. Often, they look more like Arabs than Chinese people, and honestly, I think they can be even hairier than we are.

Basically, for one reason or another, it feels like everyone is suddenly campaigning to get rid of bras altogether. 😳 🙂 😁

It really comes down to mindset and a lack of accountability. It’s nothing unique to us, honestly. Just look at the kind of stunts Berlusconi used to pull.
I’m not sure how you even begin to change that underlying societal attitude. 🤔

It isn't just about politics; it's this general "just get by" philosophy that seems to bleed into every single sector.

How can you say that? They went after Gotovina, yet Racan didn't even have the nerve 😁

The left and the right both push their own versions of how a country should handle economics and social structures. Every political faction claims they’re the ones standing up for justice and fighting against evil, but what does that actually have to do with anything? Does the right ever claim otherwise? And honestly, have they been any more obsessed with chasing "truth" than anyone else (aside from when they ended up getting 🤣 )?

Americans had their own state. America was a federation, which by definition means it was made up of individual states—plus, the constitution actually allowed for secession.

It wasn't just walls that fell under the Nazis. Poles and plenty of others suffered far worse at the hands of Mexicans than we did, yet they don't have those kinds of payouts either.

It’s a valid question, honestly... there would definitely be grounds for making demands.

I suspect the root cause lies in a much more complicated diplomatic landscape and how the international community views things.

The walls were mostly just a "clean victim" of circumstance. We had a functioning state, an army, and we won the conflict militarily. We even established formal diplomatic ties with the opposing side. Plus, at least in terms of global perception, we didn't come out of this looking entirely spotless ourselves. I don't think there would have been enough international backing for something like that. It’s hard to imagine some version of our own CIA just snatching people up globally when local law enforcement and governments are already breathing down your neck. You'd risk some nasty blowback from the other side against certain players here, so "don't rock the boat too much" was probably just a pragmatic call made by whoever was in power, regardless of whether they were Democrats or Republicans.

slybison8 said:Not really... I think you're being a bit too broad here. Legally speaking, it's forbidden to glorify criminal regimes and ideologies.

Everything else should be open for debate—it has to be—in a democracy.

What's actually prohibited is glorifying anything that advocated for or committed crimes in the past, or any advocacy for current or future crimes.

Racism, discrimination, and the movements that promote them—as long as they aren't directly tied to specific crimes or the incitement of crime—are inappropriate. They should be condemned through public discourse by pitting rational arguments against irrational impulses. We have to believe those rational arguments are stronger than the whims that lead to different types of discrimination (which, let's be honest, aren't all equally bad).

Banning something that hasn't been proven to be "criminal" without clear consensus or solid arguments just ends up strengthening what you tried to suppress in the long run. On the flip side, exposing dark ideas to public scrutiny often "dilutes" them and makes them seem benign. That should be our preferred way of acting—more dialogue, fewer bans. Only ban what absolutely needs banning.

Sure, but based on the description, it's about the actions, not specific names. So, it's illegal to glorify existing or past acts, or to incite future discriminatory or aggressive behavior and hatred based on race, politics, religion, gender, or affiliation. That’s all I see in the criminal code, not some specific ban on mentioning Nazis or the NDH "by name." It seems to me the scope is quite wide, leaving plenty of room for interpretation in actual legal proceedings.

None of the people I’ve tagged here are actually Christian or Buddhist.😁

Anthony Hayes2 said:US military studies conducted on Native American scouts revealed that cutting their hair strips them of extrasensory abilities, leaving them vulnerable to ambush. Those who maintain long hair retain their intuition, using a sort of "sixth sense" to detect approaching enemies before they strike.

Does hair length dictate spirituality? Baldness often correlates with weak spiritual depth. Take Johannes Kepler, Stravinsky, or Lyndon B. Johnson, for instance. They possessed sharp intellects, certainly, but lacked intuitive strength. Great spiritual icons are rarely depicted as bald. Look at Jesus.

http://vataworld.wordpress.com/2013/...ervous-system/

It's because hair acts as an extension of the nervous system, feeding constant data back to the brain. Some women claim their nipples serve a similar sensory purpose, noting that bras actually hinder their intuitive perception. If anyone has had similar experiences, I'm listening.

A few famous ones:

http://soonyata.home.xs4all.nl/Maha%...20Maharshi.jpg
(a shaved Raman Maharishi)

http://chicagovedanta.org/images/sv/wandering_monk.jpg
(Vivekananda in his younger ascetic days)

http://yogizendude.com/wp-content/up...1/shankara.jpg
(Sivananda with his students)

http://yogizendude.com/wp-content/up...1/shankara.jpg
(Adi Shankara, the formal founder of Advaita Vedanta)

Most aren't even Buddhist anymore.

And so on.

Both baldness and long hair serve symbolic purposes. Hair is often a major factor in signaling identity, much like other adornments, clothing, or accessories. From primitive tribes to modern society, these external markers either signal a fixed status in more rigid structures or project specific messages about one's choices and interests.

In traditional societies where rules are much stricter—think back to how long hair was viewed when rock musicians first showed up in the States, which isn't even close to the rigid caste systems and hierarchies found elsewhere—hair styling is a key indicator. Consequently, being completely shaved or letting hair grow wild is often a way for various ascetics and hermits to reject social norms and structures (though, in practice, it just becomes another symbol of their social standing).

I won't get into esoteric explanations. There might be some deeper meaning there, or maybe not, but people perceived as authorities, enlightened beings, or advanced practitioners in various spiritual groups come in all sorts of hairstyles.🤣

A pretty heated debate

they’re acceptable