Posts by casualtiger2

Betty Ramos said:Men tend to overthink things—too much "philosophy" and not enough feeling. They get caught up in dissecting definitions that don't even exist, and if they actually do experience a moment of true clarity—rarely in their hearts, more often just in their heads—they immediately want everyone else to acknowledge it so they can play the leader.

Women, on the other hand, often struggle with a lack of inner certainty. They tend to overcomplicate the obvious, with emotional shifts that swing as wildly as the phases of the moon... which only serves to cloud what is actually clear.

So, until they find that sense of Oneness, both sides remain equally disconnected from the spiritual. 🙂

I think there's some truth to this.
If we set aside the massive impact of patriarchy throughout history—where women were basically pushed to the sidelines in every single field—the main reason men and women perceive spirituality differently comes down to where they are centered.
Men are mostly head-oriented (and I don't just mean high-level philosophy; I mean that ego-driven, gut-level focus), whereas women, on average, lean more toward being emotional or intuitive—basically, heart-centered.

Men are driven more directly by sexual instinct, while for women, it’s a bit more diffused. Since men are generally more problem-solving oriented and possess a certain level of will—maybe even a dash of recklessness—once they decide to stop wasting energy on external impulses, they can pivot relatively quickly toward those higher mental centers (which is where "spirituality" supposedly happens).
On the flip side, women aren't as hindered by sexuality; they find it easier to lift their energy up to the heart (which could also be called "spirituality"), but then they usually lose interest in going further because the physical sensations—the secondary sexual organs and all that—tend to distract them.
That’s why I think women have a harder time than men distinguishing between love and sex, while men, on average, are less capable of true love (though, if you let that energy flow through your core, you end up experiencing a version of it whether you want to or not).

As above, so below.
What you see on the outside is exactly what's going on inside.
And honestly? The grammar—and the logic—is just as messy.

Forget about chasing cheap thrills or stacking up stuff you don't need—just head out into the desert to find some actual peace and grow spiritually.

The Conspiracy doesn't exist.
There are countless interest groups—big, small, whatever—just trying to get what they want.
And honestly? That’s just human nature—chasing wealth, security, power... the usual stuff.
It all stems from personal, family, national, ideological, religious, or idealistic motives.

Sure, some deals are made behind closed doors, but most of it is hiding in plain sight. Nothing weird about it.
We don't need aliens or secret world governments plotting to enslave humanity just to make sense of how things work.

PS
The poll is poorly designed.
The only option that would actually lead people to say "conspiracy theories don't exist" is that naive idea that "governments are sovereign and independent"—which, let's be real, anyone would reject.

Michael Castillo said:rustymaker5, is there anything about you besides being fake?

First, you were whining about lack of education and illiteracy—but honestly, it’s pretty clear that stuff doesn't bother you at all (your attitude doesn't suggest it does, anyway)

Then you moved on to complaining about people acting like know-it-alls who are always right—I highly doubt those types actually annoy you (I didn't see you call out a single post where someone explicitly claimed "I know everything," despite plenty of them popping up)

Now you're attacking someone's ego—even though you just dropped twenty posts in a row following one specific person, all starting with some variation of "you're beneath me, but I'm superior (and magnificent)."
Clearly, an inflated ego wasn't your problem, since you had zero issues with it.

As for hurting others—it would be a lot wiser if you didn't bring up that topic.

Anyway, I don't really care.
Heading back to my own thread.

(And why did I even reply? Probably because it hits a nerve. )

This pseudo-spiritual nonsense is nauseating. Truly disgusting.

I’ve been hanging around this forum for about ten years now, and honestly, I think this comment is totally off base.
rustymaker5 is actually one of the most genuine and helpful people on here.

Her question is a valid one—both in real life and right here—and frankly, comments like this (which usually just kick off more drama) are exactly what this thread is about.
Moderators. 👍

They say having a healthy sex life works wonders.

Casey Gomez said:The core issue here is essentially how far an individual intends to push their own self-development and spirituality, versus how much they settle for frivolous, fleeting quick fixes—those superficial religious veneers and New Age recipes typically cobbled together from religious or psychoanalytic theories dressed up in naive semantics.
The term "spirituality" itself, which relies on spirit as its central motif, ideologically implies a counterpoint to materialism; it suggests non-substantialism. In nearly all religious texts, the imperative to renounce material wealth emerges as a necessity for the spiritual and secular lives of religious figures—essentially acting as an idealistic paradigm.
Such a demand placed upon a human being stands in direct opposition to our innate nature, which is defined by the permanent attempt to satisfy our own internal voids. As one philosopher clarified, the very existence of passion is a clear indicator that human reality is one of scarcity. It is an unquenchable scarcity that easily devolves into compensation through extreme forms of human gratification, manifesting as blind greed and hatred.
Thus, it is clear that in the struggle against our own animality, man must sacrifice his inherent inclination toward materialism to slowly ascend toward, say, the divine, in order to reach what is ultimately a true ordering of reality. Truth is ugly, according to N.

However, it is difficult to realize this imperative *a priori*, and even harder to abandon the psychological primacy through which we live our lives: our instincts.
The reward is hazy; the state of consciousness belonging to a sublime spirit is an intangible unknown that cannot be pursued if one isn't even aware of its existence.

It is obvious that such a philosophy cannot be contemplated unless it is lived. It requires a different worldview, a different tuning of the nervous system—something that seems impossible to the average person. This requires either an innate quality or circumstances driven by a certain destined force.
Our needs and desires are, even historically speaking, replaceable as momentary pursuits. It would be absurd to suggest that a modern person wants exactly what an 18th-century resident wanted, such as a new carriage and a horse. Yet, that was just as much of a struggle for them as a luxury car is for someone today.

So, who is truly prepared to sublimate nature—that nature whose enchanting, scenic beauty we admire—while beneath our feet, a dramatically fatal and relentless war plays out as a compensation for the eternal deficiency felt by those who live?

An ambitious man who works for hours just to enjoy wealth still represents the ideal of human will and struggle, but can he simultaneously enjoy his entire estate in the same way a higher spirit can enjoy the entirety of its own hard-won, superhuman consciousness?

So, they say the spirit is "non-material." If that's the case—how is physical matter supposed to touch it in the first place?

Almost every religious text out there hits the same note—this idea that you have to ditch your material possessions if you want to actually live a meaningful life, whether you're looking at it from a spiritual or just a practical standpoint. It’s basically become the ultimate idealistic paradigm.

So, how exactly do you pull off that whole "spiritual growth imperative" when you're surrounded by stuff? I mean—if Jesus Christ had access to high-speed internet, would he have even bothered becoming who he was? Think about it. How do you handle the laptop, the fridge, the washing machine, the heater, or the stove? What about your house, your bed, your car, your clothes, or your sneakers? Then there's the food situation—everything from basic groceries to a jar of Nutella—not to mention soap, the bathroom, your phone, intimacy, or even those modern diapers (because if you’re still using cloth, you definitely need that washing machine). And don't get me started on soccer balls and all that other sports gear. How does any of that fit into the "ascetic" picture?
Sure, it works in theory—but honestly, a real-world example would be way more helpful.

Scott Miller4 said:Ryan Gomez4, just make sure you don't give away who you are. 😬

Ryan Rogers5, I’m not really a fan of talking about love in that specific context. I feel like we tend to get tripped up by using terms like "unconditional love" while completely ignoring our own underlying conditioning, so I guess I’d rather stick to discussing acceptance.

But anyway, putting my semantic issues aside, the question you asked is actually pretty interesting. People we generally consider to be at a high spiritual level usually seem to have this incredibly deep sense of empathy and altruism. It makes me wonder—is "kindness" actually one of the core ingredients of a higher spiritual state?

That’s where I see a bit of a mental loop forming. Solipsism has become such a huge trend lately, which leads to the idea that everything we do is ultimately just for ourselves. If you look through that lens, how much of our kindness is just conditioned by a desire to benefit ourselves, and how much is truly authentic goodness that just naturally emerges as a result of spiritual growth?

I think this is a false dilemma.
"Authentic goodness" is often driven by that very "desire to benefit ourselves."
Think of kindness as fuel for life's growth.
Since we’re all one with the universe, there isn't really a fundamental difference—any good I find within myself or the world, and any good I do, is just... good.
The real issue is how we perceive and actually uncover that goodness.

I can't say much about being on-topic, though—my lazy Southern genes won out, so I haven't exactly put in the work that would lead to any real results.
(Sometimes people just hit a certain level of maturity and things happen naturally.) 😍

I spent some time messing around with my hair length, and honestly—for what it's worth—I think there’s a weird link between how long your hair is and how sensitive you feel to everything going on around you.
That said, I don't think it's a big deal, and it definitely doesn't have anything to do with being "spiritual" or whatever.

Back in the day, I used to hang out with some Sri Chinmoy followers, and they’d pass me his books to read.
One of them actually claimed—literally stated—that long hair is bad for your spiritual growth.
Maybe it's just because he went bald early on, so he forced all his students to keep it short. 😂
The funniest part? He kept insisting he was one of Aurobindo's closest disciples (check my avatar). 😍

Money isn't everything.

Part of it is tied up in real estate, stocks, gold, gemstones... 😍

Theosophical concepts regarding reincarnation—maybe they actually hold some answers to the questions we've been asking.
Part two

Robert Diaz2 said:I think what Nancy Wilson2 was getting at actually makes a lot of sense. I guess people jump into relationships mostly because they're just plain terrified. It's that deep-seated fear of being alone, or even the fear of death, honestly. Most people just end up chasing all these different distractions just so they don't have to face those heavy thoughts at all.

I mean, let’s be real—love is basically just a chemical reaction happening in your brain. It feels like the ultimate glitch in the Matrix, right? Like, the system uses it to build this massive hype, which ultimately just traps people in a cycle of dependency. That's probably why every single movie and song out there is absolutely saturated with romance and love stories. There's this constant, overwhelming pressure everywhere to be in a relationship or tied down in a marriage.

Luckily, not everyone falls for it. 😍

So, sticking to the theme here...

The Return

Who knows? (Not a soul—nobody actually knows anything,
Knowledge is a fragile thing!)
Maybe a spark of truth hit me,
Or maybe it's just dreams.
Love might still find its way to us,
That's what I'm saying,
But I haven't decided if I even want it,
Or if I don't.

In the endless, churning sea of life,
Where things fade and surge,
People collide and regroup again,
Like raindrops meeting once more—
And when eternity drifts along its starlit path,
Through a vast, lonely void,
The same lips could meet again
In a single kiss.

Maybe one night you'll show up,
beautiful in blue,
Never realizing you were the light
That haunted my long-lost days,
And here I am, writing these weird rhymes
With a heart full of you,
Oh, I won't know if my longing is real,
Or even your name!

If, in that moment, the soul
Leans in to listen,
It will drown out all reason
With a voice certain and clear;
Under the glow of evening lamps, we'll steal a glance
Like total strangers,
Never realizing how tightly we're bound
By those old, familiar chains.

But time keeps moving, time keeps rolling
Like the sun in its orbit,
Bringing back everything we've known:
The joy and the heartache alike.
Eyes will close, hands will find their way,
And the heart will leap—
As we blindly follow the footsteps
Of the lives we used to lead.

Who knows? (Not a soul—nobody actually knows anything.
Knowledge is a fragile thing!)
Maybe a spark of truth hit me,
Or maybe it's just dreams.
Love might still find its way to us,
Find its way—that's what I'm saying,
But I haven't decided if I even want it,
Or if I don't.

Morgan Bishop4 said:Look, it isn’t some linear progression from baby to king or whatever... it’s more about age stages—baby, child, young, mature, and old, with maybe five or seven levels within each category...
And hey, nobody ever said one lifetime was enough to clear a single level!
Honestly, it feels like if you start out in a baby phase—say, you become some kind of hitman or something—you’re going to have to grind through a hell of a lot of life just to pay off all those delusions you had and actually grow up a bit... so, I guess some souls that develop a little faster might make it through in, say, 40 or 50 reincarnations, but most people definitely need way more than that...
As far as I’m concerned, I fall squarely into the old soul category. Well, except for that intense eye contact thing and the fact that I felt older even when I was a kid (I actually used to feel younger, but once I hit my early 20s, I started feeling way older than my actual age most of the time). Even though there are certain situations where I can see myself acting like a young or mature soul, it’s pretty rare. And then I just end up looking stuck-up 😁 but whatever, that's just how it goes. Plus, most people I know would probably fit into the young, child, or maybe a mix of young and mature souls. And according to this theory of theirs, those types should be the most common ones on the planet...

Anyway, I’ll try to summarize how I figured all this out in plain English.
1. Baby souls: These are folks who just started living on Earth; they’re lost, they don't really get how the world works, so they mostly just screw things up. Or they were born into circumstances where survival is the only goal—people point to psychopaths, or likely people with mental health issues or things like autism, and they also mention people from various indigenous tribes, though I don't buy that much because just because someone doesn't live in a high-rise with electricity and running water doesn't mean their soul is primitive. But fine...

2. Child souls: They crave order, hard work, and discipline. Basically, they're sheep; they tend to blindly follow a religion (like die-hard Catholics or hardcore Islamists, etc.) or maybe a specific political party. Generally, they lean heavily on rules, aren't particularly tolerant, and think everything needs to follow a specific order (like God's laws, the laws of nature, whatever). They could also be Nazis, but most often they're just regular working-class people who just want to live, work, and keep everything nice, mediocre, and normal...

3. Young souls: They act like teenagers or young adults in general—they crave fame, wealth, status, travel, events; they’re active, and a "normal" life seems boring to them, so they're constantly chasing something bigger and better. They’re often superficial and driven by money, though they can also be driven by, say, a thirst for knowledge. They tend to think about themselves more than others, the community, the world, or anything else. And it seems to me these people aren't usually very spiritual; they don't believe in anything they haven't seen with their own eyes...
Most of them are celebrities, actors, singers, wealthy CEOs, and stuff like that...
They also frequently don't belong to any religion because they think it's stupid, unlike child souls who blindly follow whatever they're told. Also, they consider their own opinion more important and better than anyone else's. Maybe they'll listen to you, but you won't convince them they're wrong, because they already know best...

4. Mature souls: These souls have realized that it’s not all about the money, the fame, partying around the world, or indulging every gourmet craving... they realize other people exist, that we are all actually equal, and that we need to be treated fairly. They get pissed off at the state of the world and try to do something to change it—protesting for certain rights, protesting against animal cruelty, etc. Often, they are mentally struggling and deal with various psychological issues—depression, schizophrenia, different phobias, and all that...
Still, they are the ones bringing positive changes to this world—just as young souls might advance technology, science, or expand businesses, mature souls try to show people they're wrong, that injustice exists, that we have to fight it, that the planet is suffering, etc. But the world is full of young and child souls who just ignore them or laugh them off...

5. Old souls: In the beginning stages, they're still somewhat similar to mature souls, but they become less and less attached to the material world. They've given up on fighting for the greater good or anything of the sort. In their middle stage, they might be spiritual leaders or figures like Mother Teresa, and in their final stage, they’re just phlegmatic retirees waiting to kick the bucket. They have no desire for material things, fame, status, travel, nothing. They often don't fit into society, not because they're trying to be "different" or because they're insecure, but because they feel they outgrew it a long time ago—all this chasing after things, happiness, or fulfilling some personal desires. Most of the time they live laid back, take the path of least resistance, aren't criminals, and in 99% of cases, they never become famous. They might even seem cold toward others; they see the big picture and how none of this actually matters. It’s almost like they know their reincarnation cycle on this Earth is coming to an end soon, so they aren't that attached to this world. Just like baby souls are heavily tied to the spiritual world and find this one unfamiliar and lost... old souls aren't lost, because they've lived through it all already, they're just over it...

That’s pretty depressing. 😢
So many lifetimes, so much effort, and it all leads to nothing.
Honestly, it’s no wonder nobody wants to reach enlightenment—who would actually want to become a detached, cold, opportunistic, hollowed-out retiree who doesn't care about anything and is just counting the days until they check out? 🤷

PS
Or am I just misinterpreting the whole thing? 😍

And just like that, spirituality starts sliding right into the "alternative" lifestyle category. 😢

urbanwalker72 said:👍

"Quote:"

casualtiger2, please try to maintain a sense of focus. I am simply asking whether you believe you would be capable of distinguishing between them, or if such a distinction would elude you entirely. That is the only point of importance here.

If we lose our capacity to discern, what purpose does our perception even serve?

"Quote:"

I completely understand your perspective when it comes to demanding rigorous evidence for such hypotheses—truthfully, I seek that same level of proof myself. However, at this stage, I simply don't have those proofs readily available, nor is it my primary goal to go about convincing others. I personally believe that both God and the created world hold an equal degree of reality, though it is the divine essence that holds a much deeper relevance to our existence.

Let us set aside the pursuit of raw evidence for a moment and instead focus our attention on seeking a sense of logical structure, internal consistency, and fundamental coherence within these ideas.

My only question is this: Is it possible to deceive a man who considers himself spiritually enlightened, leading him to embrace a fraudulent experience that he would eventually swear is the absolute truth?

Absolutely. It’s just like knowing whether I'm awake or not.
Sure, you can dream that you're wide awake—but once you actually *are* awake, you notice the distinction. Bottom line: you have to experience being conscious first. If you're just dreaming, you won't know the difference. So, to answer your question—yeah, people can easily be fooled. They might experience some random brain activity—whether from meditation or some high-tech gadgetry—and immediately jump to the conclusion that they've seen God or hit enlightenment.
And people will swear on anything to make it true.

urbanwalker72 said:casualtiger2, I am curious about your perspective on how virtual reality might evolve over the next twenty or thirty years. How difficult will it be to tell the difference between a digital simulation and the world we inhabit?

For the sake of this discussion, let us assume that such advanced VR—an "artificial reality"—will eventually exist to the point where it becomes indistinguishable from the physical reality we know.

How would you rank and evaluate these three distinct layers of existence? There is the material realm, your spiritual dimension, and now this third, virtual one; which of these holds true reality, and how should we weigh their importance?

Furthermore, is it possible for a virtual environment to trigger spiritual experiences so profound that an individual could not distinguish them from their "authentic" encounters?

In principle, any reality—virtual or this "actual" one—can trigger all sorts of phenomena, but that isn't the core of spirituality. A true spiritual experience is characterized by a breakthrough of consciousness out of that matrix, whether it's a virtual one or our "real" one.
The heart of spirituality lies in the state of enlightenment—discovering pure consciousness, which is inherent to everyone, and living that truth within matter.
Why consciousness and matter collided (if they even did) is a mystery no one knows, myself included. People usually call it a divine game.
I see it more as an internal necessity of God—to create, and to continue evolving through that creation.

With that in mind, everything just depends on where you are on the ladder of development and what angle you're looking from.
For an enlightened person, it's possible that consciousness is the only reality, while everything else is just an illusion.
For someone else, matter is the only reality, and for those "in the middle," both hold weight.

I totally get why you're hunting for solid proof for these kinds of hypotheses (I am too, honestly), but right now I don't have any, and it's not my priority
(at least, not for the purpose of convincing anyone else).
Personally, I feel like God and the created world are equally real, though the divine side definitely has more to do with us.

@Itto
Regarding whether the Moon exists when nobody is looking at it, I lean toward a "naive-pseudo-philosophical" stance that it does exist. That whole tautology—"if there's no one to notice something, then neither the noticing nor the thing noticed exists"—just doesn't sit right with me. If some distant aliens were peering at that Moon through their telescopes back before humans even existed on Earth, I can't say it only popped into existence once we noticed it, or that it'll vanish just because we aren't around anymore.

Spiritual experiences can actually be triggered by another being—completely hands-off and from a distance, without any tools involved at all.
(Think of the classic encounter between Vivekananda and Ramakrishna).
The only real use for a blunt, materialistic take on these phenomena is to help unmask the charlatans out there—the ones relying on cheap magic tricks or basic psychological manipulation.

Might be right up your alley— The Plato's cave trap

Benjamin Taylor6 said:If Buddha had known you could reach God through sex, he wouldn't have gone off to live as an ascetic. He would have just married a few more beauties—and practiced tantra with them! Instead of sitting under a tree for hours and hours trying to meditirati.

Maybe this path is actually better—even more elevated—than being a tapas. Honestly, the teacher who introduced me to TM actually turned his back on that bearded Maharishi guy to pursue nirvana through sex. And get this: he actually charges people for it while teaching others. Though, not too much: http://www.nytimes.com/article/lifestyle/tantra-classes-prices-for-ecstasy

'Tantra isn't meant for those who think they can just "bang" a few women every day; it's a technique for achieving bliss through hours of sexual ecstasy.'

p.s.

I was looking at the page about Komaja, and I couldn't find any detailed instructions on how to actually empty out the tantra! ?

Just as I thought. Benjamin Taylor6—your little stories can be entertaining, sure, but even though you act all well-informed and worldly, judging by what you're saying about Komai and MacKenzie, you tend to twist things so they have absolutely nothing to do with the actual subject.
Right here is the manual for the basic Komai meditation technique, and the very first line under "General Instructions" reads: "Komai meditation is performed for 30-40 minutes in the morning and for the same amount in the evening."
MacKenzie meditated for hours every single day—and even now (technically) meditates while leading his courses (though my gut tells me he's basically meditating non-stop).
So, your little jabs about "tantra, beauties, and easy living"—they don't hold water.

I've already pointed out once how superficial your approach is (and apparently, you're too lazy to actually look things up), so now I'm starting to wonder if your "life stories" are even real, or if you've just "interpreted" those, too.
And really, how much have you actually grasped regarding your T-Mobile teachers, Zen Buddhism, Buddha, tantra, or anything else spiritual? 🤷

Benjamin Taylor6 said:He clearly had no clue about Zen Koans.😁

Or even Saint Francis from Assisi.😲

What's the context here?