Look, I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
As much as you're right—those who argue this is all about Hindu roots, religion, and philosophy—those people are also right when they claim the TM initiation and the mantra itself are just techniques without any "strings attached." In my two and a half years doing TM, including the siddhi techniques, I’ve met all kinds of people. Some were basically zealots who treated TM like the only salvation for humanity, while others just took the mantra, kept practicing, and went right back to their regular lives.
Even though the mantras stem from Hindu tradition, they function as sounds (especially with bija mantras, which don't really carry religious baggage), and you don't have to accept them the way you'd accept a belief in a specific deity. Similarly, even though the initiation ritual is directed toward the tradition's guru, it doesn't bind the person being initiated in any way—at least, not if you ignore the esoteric interpretations 😍. A person can believe in Jesus or Allah and still practice TM.
Regarding the "scientific" studies, I personally feel a lot of them seem "rigged," particularly those concerning "Maharishi's effect." On the flip side, I do think some efforts in that direction were worth noting—measuring how meditation affects brain waves, skin conductance, heart rate, and so on... it wouldn't be a bad idea to keep researching that stuff with other techniques too.
In a conversation about TM, we should probably distinguish between "outer circle" members (those who just got initiated) and those deeply tied to the organization (teachers, Mother Divine, managers...). The organization itself definitely has its pros and cons. When I was initiated, the prices for the techniques were relatively affordable (basic and advanced levels were fine; siddhis were a bit pricier, but not crazy). They went up later, and I know of teachers who actually left the movement because of that. Regardless, everyone has the free will to take a course and pay, or not.
For me, the technique was great at first, and I’d recommend it to anyone who doesn't want to deal with a bunch of spiritual or philosophical fluff and just needs a way to relax. Provided, of course, they aren't already mentally unstable. I don't know how things changed later, but back then, nobody was promising us heaven or enlightenment, even if plenty of people drifted in that direction. 😍 In any case, no one forced anyone to do anything—you could show up or walk away whenever you wanted, and you could think or say whatever you liked (sure, the "orthodox" types would give you weird looks, but there were no "sanctions" 😍)
I met many good people in that movement. Maharishi himself didn't leave a huge impression on me when he visited the US, but I think making meditation techniques accessible to more people is a good thing—wishing him a happy journey to his eternal hunting grounds.
vastusamye cittabhedattayorvibhaktah panthah Since what is "objectively real" (vastu) is actually just one thing—any divergence between two observers happens simply because their "perceptual foundation" (citta) differs.
The differences we see in how people act can be explained by their varying capacities for perception—basically, the difference in how refined their perceptual foundation (citta) is—rather than some lack of a single, unified reality for any given object.
Translation and commentary — Zoran Zec --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reading this morning and wondering: why are so many people so obsessed with being right? Why is winning an argument so vital to them, especially when we know our "perceptual foundations" are bound to be different? It’s also funny how everyone claims to have their own unique life or spiritual path, yet they still constantly insist—either subtly or not so subtly—that *their* way is the only correct one.
Over time, I’ve learned not to take my own opinions too seriously—even though I still try to build them on the best, most precise info available and defend them clearly. At the end of the day, an opinion is just one possible lens for viewing reality, even if it feels like a powerful tool. It seems like a huge issue to me. I see so many relationships—especially between partners or parents and kids—where, even when people are convinced by other sources (emotional ones, usually), they still end up clashing in these pointless power struggles over who is "right." Maybe that obsession with our own mental constructs explains a good chunk of the conflicts we see in religion and spirituality, too.
Don't get me wrong—I'm not saying we should accept everything blindly. There's always room to critique systems, groups, or individuals. But if others aren't hurting anyone and are genuinely trying to move forward on a path of love and light, they deserve at least some understanding, if not full support. Even when aiming for the same goal, different systems use wildly different methods. It makes you wonder where the line is, and what the point of all this "right vs. wrong" friction really is. To what extent does criticism from one school of thought actually matter to someone in another?
How do you guys handle your own opinions, and how do you deal with people who are trying to grow spiritually in a way that’s totally different from yours?
Mark Anderson9 said:Philosophy has never really appealed to the masses—people are too busy dealing with their own day-to-day existential struggles. And if some philosophical movement actually tries to force itself onto the public, it just turns into an ideology—kind of like what happened with Marxism. Plus, how are you supposed to get today's kids interested in philosophy when they're glued to MTV, flipping through teen mags, and only caring about sex and partying?!
Not exactly the "masses," but at least the middle class. Just a few weeks ago, I was watching clips from a lecture by some philosopher from the North America—Zizic or someone like that?—who tours the world giving talks. His halls are packed because he’s lively and provocative. I think everyday existential issues could actually gain a whole new dimension through philosophy (plus maybe some meditation). As for the masses—well, a crowd is a crowd. You can kind of "leverage" that herd mentality and urge to follow along to steer things in a certain direction—though, obviously, digging deeper into the big questions remains a solo journey. Look at environmentalism today—that topic hits home even for the most oblivious people. When the Green Party first showed up in Germany, everyone laughed at them; now they're sitting in Parliament, and have even held power.
granitetinker15 said:Stephen Hawking offered an interesting observation in his book "A Brief History of Time":
Until now, most scientists have been too preoccupied with developing new theories about what the universe is to even ask why it exists at all. On the other hand, philosophers—those whose actual job is to ask "why"—haven't been able to keep pace with scientific progress. Back in the eighteenth century, philosophers considered the entirety of human knowledge, including science, to be their domain, tackling questions such as whether the universe had a beginning. But during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, science became far too specialized and mathematical for philosophers and anyone else outside of a tiny circle of experts. Philosophers narrowed their scope so much that Ludwig Wittgenstein, the most famous philosopher of the twentieth century, remarked: "The only remaining task for philosophy is the analysis of language." Quite a decline from the grand tradition of Aristotle to Kant...
Do you think philosophers are truly to blame for their shrinking scope because they couldn't keep up with science, or did science simply take over certain areas where it was more specialized and thus more successful?
Do you believe the scope of philosophy has actually narrowed? What should modern philosophers actually be focusing on? 🙂
At first glance, I see two areas where they could spend a lot more time.
1. Helping the rest of us—people who don't necessarily have their logic dialed in quite like they do—reach that same level. Think "philosophy for the masses"—books, lectures, stuff that makes philosophy actually feel "cool" and accessible. A deep dive into logical fallacies is a great example; or even just reading blogs from people like Taylor Campbell4, casualtiger2, Jonathan Brooks8, or some of the other sharp thinkers here. Even if it doesn't push the academic needle forward directly, you might end up pulling in a whole new crowd of interested minds.
2. Refining philosophical practice itself—kind of like what yogis aim for—by actually seeking and finding answers to those age-old questions: Who are we? Can we actually be happy (and if so, how)? What’s the right way to live our lives? This would mean moving past philosophy as just this narrow intellectual exercise—you know, the endless loop of building theories and questioning everything. Sure, asking questions is vital, but wouldn't it be nice if some of them were actually answered? We need some kind of undeniable knowledge that addresses the whole human experience—body, sex, emotions, thoughts, social circles, and maybe even what people call the soul or spirit. To get there, I think philosophy needs to start offering meditative methods—tools that allow for deeper concentration and help us move beyond just pure thought.
brightridge59 said:Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the astral layer is attempting to separate from the physical form, but fails to do so, resulting in those physical twitches as the two layers struggle to 'reconnect'?
I recall reading some fascinating theories about various methods of astral projection quite a while ago. It seems that the astral body can launch itself into the interspace, which wouldn't cause the physical body to die, but would result in a separation where the physical shell continues to function on this plane, albeit without the consciousness that has moved to the other side.
Yeah, those twitches happen because you’re constantly surging and dropping as you drift off. Once that initial phase passes, the physical body starts to "curl up," which can feel pretty weird if you've actually woken up and are trying to move. The astral body detaches because it needs to recharge its energy.
That whole idea about getting snagged in the void is mostly just movie magic—stuff that makes for a good script in films like The Matrix or Ghost. Even then, if you die in The Matrix, your physical body dies too; unless, of course, you're Neo or Trinity 😁 . Almost everyone's physical and astral bodies separate every single night while sleeping. Sometimes it's just a few inches, sometimes it feels like an intercontinental trip, but they stay linked by a single thread. If that thread snaps, the physical body dies, while the astral part keeps going for a little while longer.
When your astral body detaches from your physical one—which happens during these experiences and often while you're sleeping—you get those vivid dreams of flying. Then, when you're coming back down to earth, you dream about falling—something that actually happens quite a bit right as you're drifting off. During that middle ground, you might find yourself fully aware of everything around you while your physical body feels completely paralyzed—it’s because the astral body hasn't fully reconnected yet. Think of the physical body as "dead" matter without that link; in fact, that break in connection between the two is basically what we call death.
These things are perfectly natural, so there's really no reason to freak out or think something is wrong with you medically—though, I'll admit, it can definitely feel a bit unsettling at times.
PS Flying and falling can also carry symbolic weight in your dreams, but honestly, you'll have to figure out what that means for yourself—everyone's interpretation is different.
I don't really have much to add—you’ve already covered it all. Honestly, the more I dwell on this, the less sense it makes. It's just pure existential dread at this point.
When it comes to spirituality, you're my Tupac for "living together," my Nemesis for religion, and my Executioner for "philosophy"—though, unlike everyone else, I actually agree with him. You're basically my source of hope and comfort.
So, you've hit the nail on the head again. The core issue? Women. You can't live without them, yet you can't live with them either (well, maybe there are a few saints out there who've managed to transcend that whole mess). Then again, maybe I could manage solo if I ever actually figured out why I can't. In that sense, what you wrote was actually pretty helpful.
As for the rest, I'm at a loss. It's becoming increasingly clear that half the things I've been searching for don't even exist—soul, spirit, divinity, God, free will, self-growth... it's all smoke and mirrors. Though, given my stubborn American roots, I guess I'm wired to handle this kind of void. 🙂
Heading out to the garden now; it's a beautiful evening. Sending warm wishes from afar, Free Duso.
PS The potatoes are coming in great! And not just them. We've planted about ten different fruit trees over the last few years and they're all thriving—even a fig tree that somehow survived the winter against all odds. And don't even get me started on the strawberries—they're huge, and they taste like wild berries straight from the woods. Just melts in your mouth.
Now you guys have completely thrown me off. I was just getting comfortable with the idea of not having to develop anything—basically accepting my fate— when suddenly, apparently we need to be enlightening people and awakening their spirituality. It’s like... "good morning" "good morning" "I am your spirituality, now who are you?"...
Who exactly is doing the enlightening and waking up? Who is the target here?
PS So, I guess there’s no point in trying to force willpower, since there isn't really a need for it if the true motivation is already there?
I mean, I honestly don't know—that's exactly why I'm asking. This is a spirituality forum, right? It's crawling with people who claim to have had "spiritual awakenings" or found their "guru"... so I figured someone here might actually have an answer. There’s no shame in asking, is there?
So, we can all at least agree on one thing—there's nothing to actually "develop." 😬
Isn't a huge part of the problem here the fact that we're trying to measure the entire universe using nothing but a single-level tool—namely, thought? The world is layered. And every one of those layers carries its own version of truth. Why do we assume "Truth" only belongs to theologians, mystics, quantum physicists, or holists, while treating the reality of every other level as somehow... less true? Isn't that just one specific flavor of philosophy or theology? The idea that God is the only source of Truth, and everything else is just an illusion—or at best, a secondary truth?
Following that logic, it’s fair to say we understand what our senses can grasp, what we can predict from our own experiences, and what we can conceptualize through language. A good chunk of our physical reality is clear and true to us. But once you hit the levels of emotion and thought, things get much messier—mostly because our perceptual tools aren't quite developed enough for those realms yet, even if there's potential for them. Consequently, clarity and truth become much harder to pin down. Trying to apply mental precision (in terms of accuracy) and truth (in terms of definitive results) to quantum physics, the field of consciousness, or whatever people call God... well, it's a noble effort, I suppose. But it's doomed to fall short right out of the gate. Mostly because you can't visualize or describe these things using everyday imagery, which forces us to rely on highly abstract mathematical models instead.
Newton’s laws are clear. They're true. But trying to use them to explain the mechanics of attraction or why two people fall in love? That's just the wrong tool for the job. Naturally, the results will be vague and, frankly, untrue.
So, my question is: who exactly gives anyone the right to decide what the "Truth" should look like—or what it actually is? 🙂
To be honest, becoming a father was never on my radar. It just wasn't something I ever thought about—not a single urge or desire, really. My wife, though? She wanted this more than anything. Probably for all those reasons Elizabeth Ruiz65 mentioned earlier. I guess most women have this deep-seated drive—it’s almost purely biological. Since I loved her, I decided to step up and help make that dream happen, despite my own total indifference toward the whole idea.
Then the baby arrived, and suddenly, I was a dad. Even the pregnancy itself was an interesting ride, but nothing compares to the moment they were actually born. It’s easily one of the most intense experiences of my life—that rush of energy hitting you, and then the tears just start flowing. Calling it "joy" feels like an understatement; it’s something much bigger than that. Now, as the kid grows, I’m growing right along with them. There comes a point where I realize that if I actually had the time and resources to raise them properly, I’d want hundreds of kids. It’s just such a rich, incredible experience. For those of you who aren't parents, you might get the vibe if you grow a garden or have a pet—though, let's be real, having a child is a thousand times more intense and rewarding because of that constant connection.
Matthew Ruiz2 said:So, what does happiness actually mean to you? And what about misery? Is misery simply the direct inverse of happiness, or is there a more complex relationship at play? Furthermore, what provides lasting fulfillment rather than just a fleeting moment? Is happiness merely an abstract concept, a transient feeling, or perhaps a profound experience? Have you ever truly felt it? If so, how did it manifest—in whom, through what, and with what level of intensity? If someone claims to be satisfied or fulfilled, does that necessarily imply they are happy? Can satisfaction even be equated with happiness? How much of a distinction do you draw between these two states?
It may be one of those eternal philosophical or sociological debates, but I expect nothing less than your most honest answers.
I’ve posted on another thread about how happiness is really just the sum of everything—all those little wins and big moments hitting you on a physical, emotional, mental level. You know—grabbing some good chocolate, holding your kid, being close to your partner, nailing a project at work, just being genuinely floored by nature or people, or finally feeling like you have a purpose...
But if I had to boil down my 43 years on this planet into a single sentence—just the absolute core of it—I’d say - for me, happiness is being in love with love itself. It’s this specific psycho-physical sensation—feeling totally centered in your own life, with this kind of internal hum right in your chest. Everything else that counts as "happiness" is really just a byproduct of that sense of being centered (though, sure, those other things can definitely help fuel it) . The absence of that? That's where the misery kicks in.
Chris Collins2 said:Well, if you look at faith in Buddha, it's different. As Christians, we talk to God through prayer, whereas Buddhists might use prayer, meditation, or other practices. I guess it just varies.
TM and Buddhism... 🤣 🤣 🤣 I honestly have no idea where you guys are pulling these claims from. 😕
* The film claims we’re "90% water"—which is a stretch. In reality, newborns sit around 78%, one-year-olds at 65%, adult men at roughly 60%, and women at about 55%.[14]
* There’s also that bit about Native Americans being unable to see Christopher Columbus' ships. Honestly, none of the voyage journals actually mention this, and since the local oral traditions were wiped out during the next 150 years of Spanish rule, it's hard to verify. The Story in The film May be a garbled and mis-interpreted version of an incident described in Carl Sagan's Cosmos. Episode XIII describes an Oral retelling of How The Tlingit encountered The la Pérouse expedition in The 1780 S. The Tlingit were initially too terrified to even look at the ships—they thought the vessel and sails were some manifestation of Raven that could turn them to stone. It was only after an old man, who was nearly blind, paddled a canoe closer that they finally realized what the ships and crews actually were.
* That animation showing electrical signals jumping straight across a synaptic cleft? Misleading. Signals are in fact carried between neurons chemically via neurotransmitters; electricity only handles the propagation within the individual neurons themselves or through gap junctions.
* Then there's the claim that our bodies produce all 20 amino acids. Not quite—we only synthesize 12 of them. The other 8 are "essential," meaning you actually have to eat them to survive.
Look, Dana Brooks3, even if I grant you that a movie idea can grab someone's attention, I've got one other minor gripe—mostly about the actual filmmaking. The scenes, the interviews, those computer animations... they flip by at this breakneck speed, almost like a commercial. You don't even have time to process what's happening, let alone actually sit with the good points being made—even if you actually know what the hell you're talking about. It just leaves you with eye strain and this nagging feeling that someone—who, really?—is trying to bypass your brain and plug directly into your subconscious. Why? What's the endgame? It feels like a way to dodge any actual critical thinking.
Honestly, the worst part for me was seeing some of my good friends—people I genuinely respect as spiritual seekers—just swallow the film whole, treating it like the ultimate scientific breakdown of spirituality. Part of it is probably because they’ve all been out in India lately, tucked away from the mainstream media, so they're easily dazzled. And partly, well, because until now (and apparently including 🙂) they haven't had a clue about (quantum) physics.
Dana Brooks3 said:A lot of people watching this for the first time will be introduced to quantum physics and some pretty big ideas. That's the point. How else would you design that first encounter? And what's wrong with them being excited? Are we supposed to laugh at them, maybe?... 😕
Like the Anonymous user already pointed out, I have two main gripes with the movie: "Trying to force some awkward quasi-explanation linking quantum physics to the macro world is just ridiculous... The scientist brought in for the role actually distanced himself and trashed their 'quantum physics interpretations'—which were basically bumper sticker level nonsense." And "Just New Age mumbo-jumbo—superficial chatter claiming they've grabbed God by the beard and are incredibly spiritual. A pretty bad piece of work."
The problem with their excitement is that they take half-truths as absolute facts and then spread them like wildfire. I honestly enjoy mocking people like that—not to be mean, but if I don't, there's a real chance they'll try to "align" their entire lives with such nonsense and even "help" others do the same.
If anyone actually cares about quantum physics or science in general, there are sites like this one where a lot of stuff is explained in a witty and relatively simple way—like Alpha Centauri. The site is unfortunately in German, but I'm sure there are plenty of good ones in English. Plus, there are countless science communication magazines out there.
For those interested in spirituality, there's a massive selection available—everything from traditional religions to modern psychological-spiritual movements.
PS One decent attempt at a "bridge" between physics and spirituality is, in my opinion, the book by Fritjof Capar — Tao Physics: I physics; ii eastern system; III parallel! Anyway, "don't mix grandmothers and frogs." 🙂
Anthony Perez9 said:Nah, the truth is great! The problem is trying to force some shaky "quantum physics" explanation onto the macro world—it’s ridiculous (like that bit about the kid multiplying basketballs). It's all just: "...and therefore anything is possible, if only our minds didn't limit us." All delivered by some guru wearing thick-ass glasses. If he's so damn sure about the power of thought, why hasn't he fixed his eyesight yet?
Or that whole story where the natives couldn't see Columbus's ships because they couldn't imagine them. In reality, they were just terrified by superstition, thinking some holy Gavran had arrived, so they kept their eyes down. Then some supposed New Age shaman touches their third eye and suddenly—POOF—they can see the ships that were right there the whole time.
Just typical New Age mumbo-jumbo and shallow chatter, pretending they've grabbed God by the beard and attained peak spirituality. 👎Total garbage.
Still, this forum is a great thing. It’s made a few things clearer regarding the movie. I think I'll just copy what Anthony Perez9 wrote and hand it to anyone who asks me about the film—mostly just to save my own gray cells from committing suicide trying to make sense of this nonsense. 👍
A few months back, a good friend "blessed" me by suggesting this movie. And honestly, I really tried to be polite for the first five or six minutes because she's dear to me and is a spiritual person (spent about 15 years meditating in an ashram in India), but then I slowly but surely started cursing her out for everything under the sun—we actually had to stop the vibe after about 15 or 20 minutes.
A few weeks later, another close friend reached out (another Indian connection, but through Anandamaya)—praise the Lord, guess what? The exact same movie. (Who knows, maybe there's a virus in India that makes people absolutely incapable of being critical about this kind of stupidity?) Luckily, this time I was informed and prepared. 😈 😬 PS Is it probably just people hearing about quantum physics for the first time through a movie that get so excited?