Posts by Angela Cox4

I was sitting in a coffee shop the other day, just watching people, and I found myself thinking about how much time we spend ruminating on the "golden eras" of our own lives. You know that feeling? That specific, heavy nostalgia for a group of people you used to be inseparable from, back when everything felt like it was building toward something massive. You look back at those old photos or those old group chats and realize that the chemistry you had then was lightning in a bottle. It was effortless. But then, time happens. People change, goals shift, and suddenly those people who were once your brothers or your closest allies are basically strangers who just happen to share a history with you.

It’s a weird psychological loop to be stuck in. There’s this massive tension between the reverence we hold for the past and the reality of who everyone is now. I think we see it in every facet of life—from old friend groups drifting apart to former business partners who can’t even stand to be in the same room because the very thing that once made them successful is now the thing that makes them clash. We tend to romanticize the "unit" or the "team" and forget that the very friction that made the group work is often the same friction that eventually tears it apart.

I’ve felt this personally with a group I was part of in my early twenties. We were a tight-knit crew, totally convinced we were going to run the world. We had a specific way of operating, a specific shorthand, a specific energy. Fast forward a decade, and if I saw any of them in a grocery store, I’d probably feel a weird knot in my stomach. Not because we hate each other, but because the version of "us" that I loved doesn't exist anymore. You can't recreate that specific spark, no matter how much you try to revisit the old haunts or bring up the old jokes.

It makes me wonder about the nature of rivalry, too. We often talk about rivalry as this purely negative thing—two people fighting for dominance or trying to tear each other down. But I've started to view it differently. Sometimes, the most intense rivalries aren't born out of hatred, but out of a deep, fundamental understanding of one another. It’s much harder to fight someone who knows exactly how you think, exactly where your weaknesses are, and exactly what you sacrificed to get to where you are. There is a profound, almost intimate respect buried under that aggression. It’s the "I know you better than anyone else" factor that turns a simple competition into something much more personal and much more volatile.

There’s a certain tragedy in it, though. There is a sense of loss when a shared foundation is repurposed into a conflict. You’re essentially using the tools you built together to dismantle one another. It’s a strange paradox: the very history that makes the confrontation so compelling is also the thing that makes it so painful to watch. We crave the spectacle of the clash, but we also mourn the loss of the unity that preceded it.

I find myself questioning if we can ever truly move past those old identities. Can you ever truly be "just" an individual again once you've been part of a legendary collective? Or are we always going to be defined by those old roles, those old grudges, and those old connections? It feels like once the seal is broken on a relationship, you can never go back to the way it was before the friction started. You can only move forward into whatever new, messier reality exists.

Does anyone else find themselves obsessing over "what used to be" when they see people from their past resurfacing in the world? Do you think it's possible to have a meaningful confrontation with someone from your past without the weight of your old history ruining the moment?

goldengull3 said:That is precisely why a rule of law exists—to prevent such things, much like how it prevents you from doing 120 mph on an interstate. Either you follow the law, or you commit a crime. And given how fast technology moves, detection is easier than ever; we went from fingerprinting to DNA sequencing, which has become increasingly efficient. Crime has never been more easily uncovered.

Yes, but there is absolutely nothing stopping you from developing your own inventions your way. Nothing at all. It just means you cannot meddle with inventions that someone else has protected—it’s that simple. Otherwise, you face the consequences. It's straightforward. Of course, nobody will bother you if you build something in your garage for non-profit use, but once you take it to market, that is a different story entirely.

The logic is simple: stop forcing your philosophy on everyone else and just live it. Use open-source projects, free industrial designs, royalty-free music, and independent films. Don't bypass payment when creators explicitly ask for it—whether it’s a movie ticket, a rental, or a patent license. Then everyone stays happy.

Otherwise, you have to be prepared to deal with the fallout.

Anyway, we are getting off track. 🙂

In this "highly educated, tech-savvy society" you keep talking about, a tiny handful of academics working for the Federal Government isn't going to stop anything—not when the whole point of the internet is the infinite exchange of info. Basically, a totally free internet might change the world, but it won't happen the way you're dreaming it would—where some elite group of geniuses gets to pull all the strings for an entire era of civilization. That's just not happening. In a fully digitized world, information is everywhere, everyone sees everything, and pretty soon, you won't have anything left to charge money for. Trying to gatekeep value while others are trying to provide open access? It just doesn't work.

goldengull3 said:That is precisely why a rule of law exists—to prevent such things, much like how it prevents you from doing 120 mph on an interstate. Either you follow the law, or you commit a crime. And given how fast technology moves, detection is easier than ever; we went from fingerprinting to DNA sequencing, which has become increasingly efficient. Crime has never been more easily uncovered.

Yes, but there is absolutely nothing stopping you from developing your own inventions your way. Nothing at all. It just means you cannot meddle with inventions that someone else has protected—it’s that simple. Otherwise, you face the consequences. It's straightforward. Of course, nobody will bother you if you build something in your garage for non-profit use, but once you take it to market, that is a different story entirely.

The logic is simple: stop forcing your philosophy on everyone else and just live it. Use open-source projects, free industrial designs, royalty-free music, and independent films. Don't bypass payment when creators explicitly ask for it—whether it’s a movie ticket, a rental, or a patent license. Then everyone stays happy.

Otherwise, you have to be prepared to deal with the fallout.

Anyway, we are getting off track. 🙂

If you're an inventor who actually wants to protect your work, nothing is stopping you from skipping the internet entirely since you think it's too sketchy for your needs. 😉

goldengull3 said:That is precisely why a rule of law exists—to prevent such things, much like how it prevents you from doing 120 mph on an interstate. Either you follow the law, or you commit a crime. And given how fast technology moves, detection is easier than ever; we went from fingerprinting to DNA sequencing, which has become increasingly efficient. Crime has never been more easily uncovered.

Yes, but there is absolutely nothing stopping you from developing your own inventions your way. Nothing at all. It just means you cannot meddle with inventions that someone else has protected—it’s that simple. Otherwise, you face the consequences. It's straightforward. Of course, nobody will bother you if you build something in your garage for non-profit use, but once you take it to market, that is a different story entirely.

The logic is simple: stop forcing your philosophy on everyone else and just live it. Use open-source projects, free industrial designs, royalty-free music, and independent films. Don't bypass payment when creators explicitly ask for it—whether it’s a movie ticket, a rental, or a patent license. Then everyone stays happy.

Otherwise, you have to be prepared to deal with the fallout.

Anyway, we are getting off track. 🙂

goldengull3 said:That is precisely why a rule of law exists—to prevent such things, much like how it prevents you from doing 120 mph on an interstate. Either you follow the law, or you commit a crime. And given how fast technology moves, detection is easier than ever; we went from fingerprinting to DNA sequencing, which has become increasingly efficient. Crime has never been more easily uncovered.

Yes, but there is absolutely nothing stopping you from developing your own inventions your way. Nothing at all. It just means you cannot meddle with inventions that someone else has protected—it’s that simple. Otherwise, you face the consequences. It's straightforward. Of course, nobody will bother you if you build something in your garage for non-profit use, but once you take it to market, that is a different story entirely.

The logic is simple: stop forcing your philosophy on everyone else and just live it. Use open-source projects, free industrial designs, royalty-free music, and independent films. Don't bypass payment when creators explicitly ask for it—whether it’s a movie ticket, a rental, or a patent license. Then everyone stays happy.

Otherwise, you have to be prepared to deal with the fallout.

Anyway, we are getting off track. 🙂

Look, I get that, but you can't just go sanctioning the entire internet—which, let’s face it, is basically one massive, global information machine—just because a few individuals aren't willing to own up to their actions. That's just not how it works. It's totally unacceptable. Our legal system needs to be fixing this from the inside out—starting with accountability at the individual level and moving outward toward the world—rather than trying to play whack-a-mole by censoring the whole damn web.

I mean, honestly, who else besides a Californian would come up with such a brilliant idea? Everything that actually matters comes from that one super progressive part of the US—it’s about time people started taking them seriously.

William Brown4 said:What has the welfare state actually given us? In my experience, nothing—if anything, it’s just stripped away what people worked hard to build. Now, thanks to all that seizure of private property, you can't even get justice through the courts. They've turned major cities like Chicago, Houston, and Phoenix into nothing more than sprawling bedroom communities—concrete cages where people are packed in after their assets were taken. They take resources from healthy, productive citizens just to fund endless treatments for addicts, alcoholics, and people who live completely hedonistic lifestyles (not to mention the lobbyists pushing to legalize drugs). On top of that, they refuse to recognize certain marriages or allow adoption rights, only to eventually seize everything anyway to fund social programs for kids who end up getting into fights in public parks. And they call this a "fair" society? ☕

It’s not the state, man, it’s the citizens—and no, nobody is "banning" anything, they're just using the Constitution to protect what's already been laid out. That's what democracy actually looks like...

darksurfer4 said:Let’s weigh the USA against America for a moment...

I want to look at this through the lens of what happens when a worker gets laid off in both places...

In the USA, if you don't land a new gig almost immediately, you are essentially staring down the barrel of total catastrophe. Most people don't actually own their homes outright; they're drowning in mortgages, which makes the whole situation even more precarious. And since almost all the arable land is owned by massive corporate conglomerates, there isn't much for an individual to fall back on. You can't just go work under the table to make ends meet because the bills keep piling up regardless, and if you can't pay, you face eviction. Of course, in America, they don't deal with much civil unrest, but when they do, the police or specialized units come in with heavy hands, using force and tear gas to clear out protesters or those being evicted.🤷

And then we see the inevitable fallout in the news—some desperate American opening fire on strangers in a shopping mall before finally turning the gun on themselves...

Now, look at America. When a worker there loses their job, they often have a roof over their head that belongs to them or a family member, free from the crushing weight of bank loans. This puts them in a significantly stronger position right out of the gate; sometimes, if they have the capacity, they might even rent out a spare room to students to bridge the gap. There is also often access to land, meaning someone can grow their own food to cut costs, or even sell produce if they are willing to put in the manual labor. It's quite common for parents living in the countryside or extended family to send over eggs, milk, and other essentials. Even when unemployed Americans struggle to find official employment, they frequently pick up odd jobs—maybe some construction work or running a small auto repair shop out of their garage. Crucially, one must remember that an unemployed American still maintains some form of health insurance, unlike the typical unemployed American.

So, looking at the big picture, which country is actually better?🤷

🤷

What can you even do? We'll probably have to start issuing visas to those overachieving Americans just to keep our little socio-American empire from totally collapsing.

wanderingorca9 said:That isn't quite how it works.
The real question is how many lives actually exist—one should probably be careful with those kinds of definitions.
I'm not so sure about the "roll with the punches" approach.

True enough.

It doesn't always play out that way.
The issue is whether a person is even capable of recognizing who they've met.
One person might reach that level of readiness while the other is nowhere near it.
There are plenty of variations on this theme.

Fair point.

This is spot on—though, let's be honest, nobody can ever truly be prepared for a twin flame encounter.
No amount of mental or spiritual prep work is ever going to be enough.
Karmic connections are just... inherently volatile.

Look, at the end of the day, we all show up to this world solo. We come here alone for a reason, not bundled up in some cosmic duo or whatever... Everything you spend your life grinding for, everything you collect—you leave it all behind when you go. You exit stage left, completely on your own.

Just think about it—what if humans were actually immortal? Life wouldn't even mean anything. If you lived for 100, 200, maybe even 600 years, dragging your existence through endless stretches of history, and then somewhere along the line you finally bumped into your "twin flame"—your supposed final partner—in an infinite lifespan... well, to have an eternal life, you'd need an infinite number of not twin flame partners. So it makes me wonder, when does the "final" one actually show up? Never.

I really hope people see how ridiculous this whole twin flame concept is when you frame it as some ultimate destination for a shared life. These ideas about reincarnation in a life we've already been living for an eternity aren't much more than tiny little pauses—brief stops before death—after which we just slide right back into the same old cycle. It creates this illusion of a single life without any meaningful beginning or end involving some "soulmate" that turns out to be a "twin flame."

And honestly, that's exactly why Buddhists and various other spiritual paths have spent ages coming up with methods to reach Nirvana—basically ways for an "immortal" soul to break free from the pointless loop of being born and dying over and over again.

Nicholas Gonzalez8 said:So, get this—for the longest time, we were all under the impression that the universe was basically just 4% atomic matter that we actually recognize, maybe 23% dark matter, and then the rest—about 73%—was just... empty space, right? At least, that's what the scientists used to tell us before they realized they were totally off base. Turns out, that 73% isn't just a big, lonely void; it's actually dark energy. Think of it less like "nothingness" and more like a massive, underlying nervous system that’s woven through every single thing that exists in the cosmos. It completely flips the script on how we view everything—it's this wild idea that everything in existence is fundamentally interconnected.

Check out this image if you want to wrap your head around what I'm getting at.

Yeah, for sure—the whole universe looks like some kind of supercomputer, right? Like the ultimate, most insane biological processor ever conceived, and if you really think about it, everything that massive brain is churning out is basically just holograms. It’s wild. And honestly, you could totally apply that same logic to us humans, too. We’re basically just tiny little microcosms floating around inside that giant macrocosm—just small-scale versions of the big machine.

Figure out how the brain actually works—like, really *gets* it—and you’ve basically cracked the code to the entire universe. It’s all right there.

edit:

So, to back up that whole theory about the brain being some kind of holographic projector—and honestly, I'm not entirely sold, but hey, let's roll with it—check out this snippet I dug up from Wikipedia:

So, get this—there’s this wild concept floating around physics that basically says everything we think we know about "space" is a total lie. Imagine if every single scrap of data within a specific chunk of the universe is actually encoded like a freaking hologram. I'm talking about a setup where every tiny little fragment holds the blueprint for the entire damn thing, just scaled down. It’s this mind-bending phenomenon called “non-locality,” and honestly? It makes my head spin just thinking about it. It’s like looking at a single pixel on a massive LED screen in Times Square and somehow finding the entire map of Manhattan hidden inside that one dot. Everything is connected in this weird, non-linear way that defies all the common sense we use to navigate daily life. It’s absolutely nuts. It actually goes to show why some kids can still be totally sharp and hold their own even after doctors have to slice out huge chunks of their brain—we’re talking massive sections, sometimes like half the damn thing—and they still come out the other side with perfectly normal intelligence. It's wild, honestly. It actually goes a step further—it might finally explain why you don't just lose all your damn memories the second someone takes a cross-section slice of your brain. You know, like if you were looking at a loaf of sourdough and slicing it up? The flavor and the texture aren't just stuck in one single thin piece; they're distributed throughout the whole thing. It’s kind of wild to think about, but that’s how this works—the data isn't just sitting in one isolated little corner waiting to be deleted.

Peter Phillips32 said:Now I'm starting to wonder too. Like, why would you be so incredibly familiar with everything you're preaching—how one thing leads to another and so on and so forth—if you aren't constantly in a state of awakening?

Regarding this part

I don't even know what to say, really. I mean, what kind of "post" are you even talking about, and what does that have to do with the personal awakenings we're discussing here versus the millions of religious people out there?

Look, if you can't independently flip that switch and activate your spiritual vision through your own sheer will, and if being awake is somehow beyond this physical world, then some external force has to grant you a dose of Awareness. So the real question is: why on earth would absolute energetic love bother granting ultimate knowledge specifically to you, when the Absolute is perfectly fine with millions of other people believing in a bunch of different things that have absolutely nothing to do with absolute energetic love itself?

Oh, how wonderful that You showed up, because without You, neither rustymaker5 nor I would have any idea what it is that rustymaker5 "must"—and I mean *must*—do just to get the essence of her existence to fully merge with her material life. ☕

It seems like in a thread meant for sharing an individual's most intimate and sacred moments, this guy has arrived to "rationalize" things and lump someone's awakening in with mass religions, which are nothing more than learned, habitual patterns used to buy a ticket to bliss—but still, one cannot cross the line undeservedly when dealing with such a nature and what is possible. 🤷

Yeah, right, because if you do one thing in religion it's wrong, but if you do that exact same thing in spirituality, suddenly it's magically correct.

The most intimate and sacred moments... 🙄 Just another cheap way to brush off any actual reasonable criticism or a shred of skepticism.

I honestly don't get what you're even trying to achieve with these posts, but look, from everything I've picked up through my own various stages of awakening, pretty much everyone is walking around with the exact same hardware—the same senses, eyes, ears, all that stuff. But the kicker is that people only actually perceive what they choose to focus on. We all have the capacity, but some folks just decide to soak every single thing up into their being, and that’s what we call awakening.

Oh sure, five different people give you five totally different definitions of this famous awakening, but obviously, yours is the one that's right.

That doesn't have to be the case, because Person B isn't just seeing something supernatural; to them, that stuff is just as mundane as everyday reality. Meanwhile, Person A thinks most situations are totally ordinary and just takes everything for granted, which creates this illusion that Person B is seeing something "supernatural." They aren't; they're just hyper-focused on the details that Person A completely misses, which usually leads to Person A failing miserably in most situations.

So, what, you're just constantly in a state of awakening since everything is so crystal clear to you?

Man, you’re really stuck in your own bubble, aren't you? Just once, try actually reading this and chewing on it:

"You’ve got a total misunderstanding of Existence itself. It doesn't 'reveal' itself because it’s already right here—it’s just that we haven't been 'here.' We've been sprinting through life at a mindless, breakneck speed, totally forgetting it exists."

Peter Phillips32 said:Now I'm starting to wonder too. Like, why would you be so incredibly familiar with everything you're preaching—how one thing leads to another and so on and so forth—if you aren't constantly in a state of awakening?

Regarding this part

I don't even know what to say, really. I mean, what kind of "post" are you even talking about, and what does that have to do with the personal awakenings we're discussing here versus the millions of religious people out there?

Look, if you can't independently flip that switch and activate your spiritual vision through your own sheer will, and if being awake is somehow beyond this physical world, then some external force has to grant you a dose of Awareness. So the real question is: why on earth would absolute energetic love bother granting ultimate knowledge specifically to you, when the Absolute is perfectly fine with millions of other people believing in a bunch of different things that have absolutely nothing to do with absolute energetic love itself?

Oh, how wonderful that You showed up, because without You, neither rustymaker5 nor I would have any idea what it is that rustymaker5 "must"—and I mean *must*—do just to get the essence of her existence to fully merge with her material life. ☕

It seems like in a thread meant for sharing an individual's most intimate and sacred moments, this guy has arrived to "rationalize" things and lump someone's awakening in with mass religions, which are nothing more than learned, habitual patterns used to buy a ticket to bliss—but still, one cannot cross the line undeservedly when dealing with such a nature and what is possible. 🤷

Yeah, right, because if you do one thing in religion it's wrong, but if you do that exact same thing in spirituality, suddenly it's magically correct.

The most intimate and sacred moments... 🙄 Just another cheap way to brush off any actual reasonable criticism or a shred of skepticism.

I honestly don't get what you're even trying to achieve with these posts, but look, from everything I've picked up through my own various stages of awakening, pretty much everyone is walking around with the exact same hardware—the same senses, eyes, ears, all that stuff. But the kicker is that people only actually perceive what they choose to focus on. We all have the capacity, but some folks just decide to soak every single thing up into their being, and that’s what we call awakening.

Oh sure, five different people give you five totally different definitions of this famous awakening, but obviously, yours is the one that's right.

That doesn't have to be the case, because Person B isn't just seeing something supernatural; to them, that stuff is just as mundane as everyday reality. Meanwhile, Person A thinks most situations are totally ordinary and just takes everything for granted, which creates this illusion that Person B is seeing something "supernatural." They aren't; they're just hyper-focused on the details that Person A completely misses, which usually leads to Person A failing miserably in most situations.

So, what, you're just constantly in a state of awakening since everything is so crystal clear to you?

I was scrolling through some of your old posts thinking, "Hey, this guy might actually be smart," but man, was I wrong. What you’re doing here is just pure provocation and condescension. You aren't even capable of critical thinking—you just specialize in looking down on everyone else.

Peter Phillips32 said:Now I'm starting to wonder too. Like, why would you be so incredibly familiar with everything you're preaching—how one thing leads to another and so on and so forth—if you aren't constantly in a state of awakening?

Regarding this part

I don't even know what to say, really. I mean, what kind of "post" are you even talking about, and what does that have to do with the personal awakenings we're discussing here versus the millions of religious people out there?

Look, if you can't independently flip that switch and activate your spiritual vision through your own sheer will, and if being awake is somehow beyond this physical world, then some external force has to grant you a dose of Awareness. So the real question is: why on earth would absolute energetic love bother granting ultimate knowledge specifically to you, when the Absolute is perfectly fine with millions of other people believing in a bunch of different things that have absolutely nothing to do with absolute energetic love itself?

Oh, how wonderful that You showed up, because without You, neither rustymaker5 nor I would have any idea what it is that rustymaker5 "must"—and I mean *must*—do just to get the essence of her existence to fully merge with her material life. ☕

It seems like in a thread meant for sharing an individual's most intimate and sacred moments, this guy has arrived to "rationalize" things and lump someone's awakening in with mass religions, which are nothing more than learned, habitual patterns used to buy a ticket to bliss—but still, one cannot cross the line undeservedly when dealing with such a nature and what is possible. 🤷

Yeah, right, because if you do one thing in religion it's wrong, but if you do that exact same thing in spirituality, suddenly it's magically correct.

The most intimate and sacred moments... 🙄 Just another cheap way to brush off any actual reasonable criticism or a shred of skepticism.

I honestly don't get what you're even trying to achieve with these posts, but look, from everything I've picked up through my own various stages of awakening, pretty much everyone is walking around with the exact same hardware—the same senses, eyes, ears, all that stuff. But the kicker is that people only actually perceive what they choose to focus on. We all have the capacity, but some folks just decide to soak every single thing up into their being, and that’s what we call awakening.

Oh sure, five different people give you five totally different definitions of this famous awakening, but obviously, yours is the one that's right.

That doesn't have to be the case, because Person B isn't just seeing something supernatural; to them, that stuff is just as mundane as everyday reality. Meanwhile, Person A thinks most situations are totally ordinary and just takes everything for granted, which creates this illusion that Person B is seeing something "supernatural." They aren't; they're just hyper-focused on the details that Person A completely misses, which usually leads to Person A failing miserably in most situations.

So, what, you're just constantly in a state of awakening since everything is so crystal clear to you?

And where exactly is the "reasonable criticism" in that? There isn't any. It’s just cheap labeling, plain and simple.

Peter Phillips32 said:Now I'm starting to wonder too. Like, why would you be so incredibly familiar with everything you're preaching—how one thing leads to another and so on and so forth—if you aren't constantly in a state of awakening?

Regarding this part

I don't even know what to say, really. I mean, what kind of "post" are you even talking about, and what does that have to do with the personal awakenings we're discussing here versus the millions of religious people out there?

Look, if you can't independently flip that switch and activate your spiritual vision through your own sheer will, and if being awake is somehow beyond this physical world, then some external force has to grant you a dose of Awareness. So the real question is: why on earth would absolute energetic love bother granting ultimate knowledge specifically to you, when the Absolute is perfectly fine with millions of other people believing in a bunch of different things that have absolutely nothing to do with absolute energetic love itself?

Oh, how wonderful that You showed up, because without You, neither rustymaker5 nor I would have any idea what it is that rustymaker5 "must"—and I mean *must*—do just to get the essence of her existence to fully merge with her material life. ☕

It seems like in a thread meant for sharing an individual's most intimate and sacred moments, this guy has arrived to "rationalize" things and lump someone's awakening in with mass religions, which are nothing more than learned, habitual patterns used to buy a ticket to bliss—but still, one cannot cross the line undeservedly when dealing with such a nature and what is possible. 🤷

Yeah, right, because if you do one thing in religion it's wrong, but if you do that exact same thing in spirituality, suddenly it's magically correct.

The most intimate and sacred moments... 🙄 Just another cheap way to brush off any actual reasonable criticism or a shred of skepticism.

I honestly don't get what you're even trying to achieve with these posts, but look, from everything I've picked up through my own various stages of awakening, pretty much everyone is walking around with the exact same hardware—the same senses, eyes, ears, all that stuff. But the kicker is that people only actually perceive what they choose to focus on. We all have the capacity, but some folks just decide to soak every single thing up into their being, and that’s what we call awakening.

Oh sure, five different people give you five totally different definitions of this famous awakening, but obviously, yours is the one that's right.

That doesn't have to be the case, because Person B isn't just seeing something supernatural; to them, that stuff is just as mundane as everyday reality. Meanwhile, Person A thinks most situations are totally ordinary and just takes everything for granted, which creates this illusion that Person B is seeing something "supernatural." They aren't; they're just hyper-focused on the details that Person A completely misses, which usually leads to Person A failing miserably in most situations.

So, what, you're just constantly in a state of awakening since everything is so crystal clear to you?

You twist every single statement to fit your own narrative, including this one. But real experiences are true for the person living them, and clearly, the truth isn't for everyone, judging by how much this is getting under your skin.

What I wrote was just me typing out my own memory of being in an elevated state of consciousness. Honestly, I think I gave the most "out there" definition possible—one that probably looks like total nonsense to someone who hasn't reached the state you claim to be in. I honestly have no idea how you managed to wrap your head around all this. Must be easy for you to just fly through it, huh?

p.s.

And look, I’m not just making this up as I go—this isn't just my own personal take on things, it's actually what a spiritual teacher once laid out.

Peter Phillips32 said:Look, I know you were the one claiming you’d actually seen Things As They Are, and that through that whole experience, you figured out you could just pull the trigger on it whenever you felt like it—like you had some kind of remote control for reality. But now, suddenly, you're totally backtracking and changing your tune because it turns out you can't just summon that spiritual vision on command whenever it suits you.

You're just twisting the narrative because you can't stomach the thought of admitting you actually caught a glimpse of the Truth and that, despite all that heavy realization, things still went south for you. It’d be a massive blow to the ego if you had to face the fact that the Truth you clung to was nothing more than a lie, so instead, you're just reshaping the whole story to keep that precious Truth looking pristine and untouched.

I mean, let’s be real, most of humanity basically spends its entire existence choosing not to be One and refusing to just exist as Love, right? If you actually look back at the whole damn history of the world, isn't that exactly what we see playing out over and over again? It’s like we're hardwired to stay scattered. Don't you think?

So, you’re basically saying we should all just undergo some kind of emotional euthanasia? It’s a wild thought, really. I mean, if we’re all fundamentally broken—which, let’s be honest, most of us are on any given Tuesday—then why not just lean into being slaves to a single master? At least then we could all be identical through the one we serve, since apparently, we can't manage to be anything else on our own. Only this time, instead of some corporate overlord or a tyrant, the boss would be some concept like Love. Man, if only we could get lucky enough to swap one master for another. But hey, maybe this one will actually treat us better...

Man, I really am one lucky bastard, aren't I? Ha! 😍

I mean, look, you've gotta wrap your head around the "why" first, right? Like, you really have to figure out why the mighty Absolute Energetic Love would bother showing up for you specifically when there are millions upon millions of Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, and every other kind of believer out there just waiting for a sign. It’s a wild thought, honestly.

Look, if some magical goldfish popped up right now and offered me three wishes, I wouldn't even waste my breath on the usual crap like winning the lottery or getting a mansion in Malibu. I’d honestly just use my one shot to wish that every single person on this planet had a massive, simultaneous awakening to Love. If everyone just finally got it, all this misery, the endless drama, and all the suffering we deal with would just vanish in a heartbeat. Now, obviously, that’s clearly not the grand design or why we’re stuck here in this chaotic existence, but for those people who actually vibe with that Idea over Idea, they can show us it's doable. By just being themselves and living that way, they prove it's possible to live for our own good while helping everyone else too—because at the end of the day, we’re all just part of the same One.
Look, at the end of the day, we’re the ones pulling the strings—we are the architects of our own damn reality. It really all comes down to what we decide to "Be," because that choice is basically the blueprint for every single thing we experience in this life. I mean, seriously, who decided that life has to be this constant, exhausting grind? Who says it’s supposed to be nothing but struggle and misery? For some people, that just isn't the case. And honestly, can anyone actually prove that life wasn't meant to be one big, glorious adventure? Because for a lot of us, it absolutely is. 🤷

Look, if we’re all supposedly playing god and manifesting our own little bubbles of reality, then why wouldn't someone just manifest a reality where your whole "energetic love" thing is nothing but a total hallucination? It’s a wild thought, I know, but hear me out. If this guy is out here building his own world and you're busy constructing yours, what actually happens when those two conflicting realities smash into each other? Like, does the universe just glitch out, or is there some kind of cosmic collision where one version of the truth just eats the other? It makes you wonder how much of this stuff is actually solid ground and how much is just us bumping heads in the dark.

Look, she doesn't owe anyone a damn thing—seriously. She’s got zero obligations to the noise or the expectations of everyone else out there. Her only real job, her one true mandate, is to stay loyal to her own being and her own existence. Once you actually lean into that, all that nagging doubt and restless anxiety? It just... evaporates. It settles everything.

Look, you’ve got it all wrong when it comes to Existence itself. It doesn't just "show up" like some guest arriving at a party—it’s already here. It’s been sitting right in front of us this whole time. The problem? We haven't actually been *here*. We’ve just been sprinting through life like headless chickens, moving at such a frantic, mindless pace that we completely lost track of what was happening. We basically forgot to exist because we were too busy running.

rustymaker5 said:😕
Are you absolutely sure you "know" what I actually said, because honestly, I have no clue what you're even talking about... 🤷

And regarding this part

I really don't even know how to respond to that... I mean, what kind of "revelation" are we even discussing here, and what does that have to do with the individual awakenings we're talking about in this thread versus millions of religious people?

So, apparently we’ve got someone jumping into a thread that’s supposed to be about sharing our most private, sacred little moments, just so they can try to "rationalize" things—as if anyone asked for that. They’re out here trying to lump someone's personal awakening in with mass-market religions, which, let’s be real, are nothing more than rehearsed, cookie-cutter patterns people follow just to try and buy their way into heaven. It’s honestly pretty tacky. You can't just swoop in like that and claim credit for something you haven't earned—it’s totally out of line, and frankly, it's just bad vibes. 🤷

Peter Phillips32 said:So, basically, a person has these supernatural senses that let them feel the supernatural. But it's not just that you need those specific senses to feel it; those senses themselves exist entirely outside the material realm. Because if those internal spiritual senses weren't outside the physical sphere, we could actually claim our world is non-dual.

Basically, Person A, just by existing as they are, can't experience anything spiritual. They have to undergo a shift to become Person B—which is what people call "awakening." As Person A, their spiritual sensors aren't even switched on, and once those spiritual senses kick in, they've effectively become Person B.

When Person A tries to describe spirituality—essentially describing what they saw while they were being Person B—they're lying, or at least misrepresenting reality, because they're trying to explain someone else's perspective through their own limited lens. Person A and Person B are complete strangers to one another, almost like Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde versions of spirituality, separated by a level of mental difference so massive it borders on total incompatibility. They just don't speak the same language.

But hey, big claims need big evidence. Why should anyone buy into your claim that they are fundamentally broken or incomplete, or that your specific path is the only way to fix it? Why is your story the truth and not, say, what the Roman Catholic Church teaches?

You've got a little slip-up there. During those brief moments of waking up, "seeing is believing" at its most intense, most crystal clear level possible—it's that fleeting, inexplicable taste of Truth. During that moment of pure clarity, there's zero need to go checking how wide or deep that clarity goes. There's just no reason to. Who would bother doing that when "Awakening" itself is right there in front of you? Checking and verifying is something the Ego/persona—the mask we wear—needs to do, and that "checking" is exactly what causes the window of clarity to slam shut, getting all foggy with overthinking, analyzing, trying to prove things, comparing it to stuff you already know, or just drifting into a hollow emptiness... it essentially smudges the lenses. But even a millisecond feels like an eternity, and that brief "waking up" leaves this indelible, sweet trace behind that can totally flip someone's life upside down without even technically changing anything. Pretty soon, you realize 😉another, more permanent interval is coming. You can't force it.

If we can agree that an unawakened person isn't the same as an awakened person, then an unawakened person can't possibly claim that a fleeting moment of awakening is the same thing as constant, sustained awakening. They haven't experienced both states, so they can't compare.

Brief "Awakening" is exactly the same as constant "Awakening."

When you’re living in this state of constant "Awakening," thoughts still drift in and out, sure, but they aren't these big, heavy, bolded things anymore—they aren't the center of the universe. This Awakening just kind of shines a light on everything, letting you actually experience the Whole in its true, unfiltered clarity.

Look, I honestly can't take a single word you say about being constantly awake seriously when you clearly aren't actually there yourself.

And honestly, once that moment of clear "seeing is believing" hits, the questions just sort of evaporate on their own; there isn't even anything left to ask.🤷

If things really worked the way you're claiming, we wouldn't have all these people second-guessing what they felt through their own intuitive senses. Plus, there wouldn't be such a massive crowd of people all describing wildly different experiences, sometimes even totally contradictory ones.

Look, I honestly don't get what you're even trying to go for with these posts—like, what's the actual point? But, hey, speaking from my own experience navigating through various stages of awakening—some long stretches, some short ones—I'll tell you this: every single person is walking around with the exact same hardware. We’ve all got the same senses, similar eyes, ears, the whole nine yards. It’s all there. But here’s the kicker—you only ever see what you actually decide to see. That’s the thing. We all have the capacity to tap into it, but some people just make the call to soak everything in, to truly absorb it all into their being... and that, my friend, is what we call awakening.

Peter Phillips32 said:So, basically, a person has these supernatural senses that let them feel the supernatural. But it's not just that you need those specific senses to feel it; those senses themselves exist entirely outside the material realm. Because if those internal spiritual senses weren't outside the physical sphere, we could actually claim our world is non-dual.

Basically, Person A, just by existing as they are, can't experience anything spiritual. They have to undergo a shift to become Person B—which is what people call "awakening." As Person A, their spiritual sensors aren't even switched on, and once those spiritual senses kick in, they've effectively become Person B.

When Person A tries to describe spirituality—essentially describing what they saw while they were being Person B—they're lying, or at least misrepresenting reality, because they're trying to explain someone else's perspective through their own limited lens. Person A and Person B are complete strangers to one another, almost like Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde versions of spirituality, separated by a level of mental difference so massive it borders on total incompatibility. They just don't speak the same language.

But hey, big claims need big evidence. Why should anyone buy into your claim that they are fundamentally broken or incomplete, or that your specific path is the only way to fix it? Why is your story the truth and not, say, what the Roman Catholic Church teaches?

You've got a little slip-up there. During those brief moments of waking up, "seeing is believing" at its most intense, most crystal clear level possible—it's that fleeting, inexplicable taste of Truth. During that moment of pure clarity, there's zero need to go checking how wide or deep that clarity goes. There's just no reason to. Who would bother doing that when "Awakening" itself is right there in front of you? Checking and verifying is something the Ego/persona—the mask we wear—needs to do, and that "checking" is exactly what causes the window of clarity to slam shut, getting all foggy with overthinking, analyzing, trying to prove things, comparing it to stuff you already know, or just drifting into a hollow emptiness... it essentially smudges the lenses. But even a millisecond feels like an eternity, and that brief "waking up" leaves this indelible, sweet trace behind that can totally flip someone's life upside down without even technically changing anything. Pretty soon, you realize 😉another, more permanent interval is coming. You can't force it.

If we can agree that an unawakened person isn't the same as an awakened person, then an unawakened person can't possibly claim that a fleeting moment of awakening is the same thing as constant, sustained awakening. They haven't experienced both states, so they can't compare.

Brief "Awakening" is exactly the same as constant "Awakening."

When you’re living in this state of constant "Awakening," thoughts still drift in and out, sure, but they aren't these big, heavy, bolded things anymore—they aren't the center of the universe. This Awakening just kind of shines a light on everything, letting you actually experience the Whole in its true, unfiltered clarity.

Look, I honestly can't take a single word you say about being constantly awake seriously when you clearly aren't actually there yourself.

And honestly, once that moment of clear "seeing is believing" hits, the questions just sort of evaporate on their own; there isn't even anything left to ask.🤷

If things really worked the way you're claiming, we wouldn't have all these people second-guessing what they felt through their own intuitive senses. Plus, there wouldn't be such a massive crowd of people all describing wildly different experiences, sometimes even totally contradictory ones.

Look, it doesn't even have to be that deep—it’s more like Person B isn't actually seeing some "supernatural" stuff, they just view everything through this lens where the weirdness feels totally normal. Meanwhile, Person A thinks most situations are just run-of-the-mill, everyday life, so they take everything for granted. This creates this whole illusion that Person B is tapping into some higher plane, but honestly? They aren't seeing anything mystical; they're just hyper-fixated on all those tiny little details that Person A completely misses. And yeah, that obsession with the minutiae usually leads to them missing the mark big time in almost every single situation.

Eric Gray2 said:The problem is—that only works if you actually *had* a carefree childhood to begin with. For a lot of people out there, growing up felt more like a waking nightmare than anything else.

And honestly? Even when those kids grow up, I don't see them ever truly finding happiness—it’s hard to grasp the concept of joy when you never actually experienced it growing up. But here’s the real kicker: do they even know how to make someone else happy? How can you give anything back when everything was stripped away from you when you were just a kid? Giving doesn't bring them peace if they've got nothing left inside to offer.

Richard Wells said:Look, sticking to the truth isn't just an option—it’s the only way. But here’s the kicker: it’s all about how you deliver it. If you want people to actually listen, you’ve got to ditch the judgment and just stick strictly to the facts.

Even if the truth comes wrapped up in a bunch of annoying biases, you still have to be able to recognize it and hear it for what it actually is, without letting those prejudices get in the way.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/r/post/123

Elizabeth Davis said:"mental disorder" is just some fancy-schmancy way of saying mental illness. If homosexuality is a mental disorder (excuse me, a *disorder*), then what's the actual code for it? Because if there isn't one, how can it even be called a disorder in the first place?"

Look, anything that deviates from the norm can be labeled an anomaly or a disorder. But honestly? You’ve gotta ask yourself—who defines what "normal" actually is? That’s the real question right there. It's hard to set a standard when there isn't a fixed direction for society to head in, but since the number of heterosexual people stays pretty much constant, any deviation from that baseline could technically be tagged as a disorder.

From that perspective, homosexuality—as a phenomenon that shows up infrequently in society—is an anomaly. And hey, I'm not trying to be offensive here, I'm just stating a fact. 🤷

Matthew Anderson said:Look, you totally broke the rules laid out in the Apple guidelines—straight up. From my perspective, that strike was completely justified. The rules clearly state you can't label homosexuals (or anyone else, for that matter) as "sick," and there's a super strict ban on sharing medical diagnoses like that. It’s just how things work here.

I'm not exactly knee-deep in John Newman34's specific situation—don't ask me to play doctor here—but from a strictly scientific standpoint, there’s actually a massive distinction between a disease and a disorder.

"Disorder" is one of those newer buzzwords people throw around all the time lately—usually when they're talking about conditions where the actual cause, how long it lasts, or even the underlying biological stuff is still pretty much a massive question mark. unknownIt’s also applied when you’ve got a glaringly obvious root cause, but the actual symptoms end up being this massive, unpredictable spectrum—often so subtle you might miss them entirely if you aren't looking closely.

Modern science—and honestly, let’s be real, they aren't exactly claiming to have all the answers here either—still hasn't pinned down the exact causes behind homosexuality:

Look, people have been throwing every theory under the sun at the concept of how homosexuality develops—it’s like everyone thinks they’ve cracked the code—but honestly, so far, nobody has actually nailed down a definitive answer. It’s one of those things where you see a dozen different scientific papers or psychological deep dives, all claiming to have found the "smoking gun," yet we're still basically staring at a giant question mark. There are arguments about genetics, stuff involving prenatal hormones, even some old-school sociological takes, but it’s all just layers of speculation at this point. It’s kind of wild how much debate goes into this when, in reality, the science is still playing catch-up with the complexity of human nature. Look, let’s be real—there is absolutely no single version of events that everyone actually agrees on. It’s always a mess. You ask ten different people about what happened, and you’ll get ten different stories, half of them probably made up on the spot just to sound more interesting. There’s no "official" truth that sticks, no matter how much people try to hammer it home. Everyone's got their own angle, their own bias, and their own little version of reality they cling to like a life raft. It’s honestly exhausting trying to find any kind of consensus when everyone is basically playing a different game entirely. The whole debate over where a homosexual orientation actually comes from—man, people have been tearing their hair out over this forever. It’s one of those deep, messy rabbit holes that scientists and psychologists just can't seem to nail down once and for all.

I was just falling down a rabbit hole reading through this Wikipedia deep dive on homosexuality—you know how it goes, you start looking up one thing and suddenly it’s three in the morning and you're questioning everything. It’s honestly pretty wild how much ground they cover here, from the biological theories to the sociological stuff, all the way through the historical shifts in how society views it. It’s a massive topic, obviously, and seeing it laid out like this really makes you realize how much "normality" is just a moving target depending on when and where you're living. One decade it's treated like a medical issue, the next it's a civil rights battleground, and then you've got the whole spectrum of identity that people are navigating today. It’s messy, it’s complicated, and frankly, it’s a lot to wrap your head around if you aren't already deep in the weeds of gender and sexuality studies. Anyway, I found myself staring at the section on evolutionary biology for a good twenty minutes—trying to make sense of the various theories on why it exists in nature. It definitely puts things in perspective when you realize we're talking about patterns that show up across basically the entire animal kingdom, not just among humans. Just some food for thought while you're scrolling through the internet late at night.

So, look at this controversial post—they’re using the word "disorder," but according to the official handbook, you aren't even allowed to use the term "patient." Since these quotes make it crystal clear that a disorder isn't exactly the same thing as a disease, what exactly was violated here?

Just a quick suggestion for the admins here—maybe take a look at how discussions about homosexuality are handled over on Apple. You’ll notice that anyone who dares to hold an opinion different from the "honored" users (or even Matthew Anderson himself), whether their argument actually holds water or not, ends up getting mocked or straight-up banned. It's pretty much a pattern at this point.

Elizabeth Castillo87 said:Personally, I feel like the whole debate about whether the SELF is permanent or just passing through is just as important for everyone else, not just the "spiritual seekers." Just as much as it is to figure out what to do with that "I" once you realize it's there.
Once someone has that personal breakthrough, they hit a level where those old questions don't even matter anymore. The real choice is whether they want to stay in that headspace or... well, like Sandra Morgan2 once pointed out, what's the actual payoff for the individual? In the end, we all have to make a call: do we ditch the ego entirely and go live like hermits in the desert, or do we just get smart about it, take the reins, and actually enjoy the ride?

You hit the nail on the head here:

Being open is the absolute baseline if you want to see the full picture.

Obsessing over eternity versus this constant state of vanishing... that’s just a byproduct of our minds—all that fear, whining, and "flickering"—and while we're stuck in that headspace, we just wander aimlessly through the horizons of the past and future without ever stopping. It's exhausting. Total nightmare fuel.

As for the definition itself, I stumbled upon this gorgeous insight from the Indian sage Osho in his first book of secrets:

Quincy:

So here’s the kicker: in a moment of true love, the past and the future simply cease to exist. And that brings up this incredibly delicate point: if there is no past and no future, can you even call this moment "the present"? Usually, "the present" is just defined as the tiny sliver between two points—the past and the future. If those two boundaries aren't there, what’s the point of calling it "now"? It makes no sense. That’s why Shiva doesn't bother with the word "present." He speaks of "eternal life." By that, he means "infinity"—stepping into the "infinite." We tend to slice time into three chunks—past, present, and future. But that's just an artificial construct—completely fake. Time is understood within the framework of the past and the future. The "present" isn't actually a part of time. The present is a part of eternity. Whatever has happened is time; whatever is yet to come is time. But what is *now*? That isn't time, because it can't "pass." It is always right here. Now is always present. It is ALWAYS here! This "now" is infinite. If you are coming from the past, you’ll never actually arrive at the present. You just move from the past straight into the future. There is no way to land in the "now." From the past, you jump directly to the future. But from the present, you never move toward the future. From the present, you only move deeper and deeper into this exact moment. That is the eternal life. Think of it this way: time stretches horizontally from the past to the future. Time is like a flight path on a plane, following a set route. Or, you could call it "horizontal." But the second you enter the present, the dimension shifts: you start moving vertically—up or down, toward the heights or the depths. In that state, you never move horizontally again. Buddha, Shiva, and people like them live in eternity, not in time.

Look, I don't care what kind of massive, sweeping global theory some genius comes up with—the actual pieces of the psyche and the raw character traits that make us who we are? That stuff isn't going out of style. Period. Sure, you can try to map it all out from thirty thousand feet, but at the end of the day, everyone’s gotta go through their own personal grind and express themselves just to figure out what's actually going on inside their own heads.

So, I had this wild dream where two people showed up to visit me. It was right at the end of the day, just as the sun was starting to dip below the horizon. I had this intense feeling like I had some kind of duty I absolutely had to fulfill, but one of them kept messing with my head—trying to break my focus. I can’t tell if they were doing it on purpose or what, but right at the tail end of the dream, just as I snapped awake, there it was. In the pitch black of the hallway, I saw this... thing. This creature made of pure light, waving these weird little tentacles toward my eyes. Honestly, I freaked the hell out and just shoved it away. Even though it didn't look like it was trying to hurt me, I've heard too many stories from other people about why you shouldn't trust those kinds of entities—plus, the way it was hovering around my eyes and head felt way too invasive, so I reacted pretty aggressively.

What’s your take on all this?

Are the people we see in our dreams just projections of our own consciousness—just bits and pieces of our subconscious—or is there something much deeper going on here?

urbanwalker72 said:Quincy:

Paul Jones7 As stated by: I don't necessarily need to know the specifics. However, one might wonder how to discern the truth in a more general sense. I wouldn't presume to offer my opinion, nor would I wish to involve myself in such matters.

That was a fair assessment.

Quincy:

If we strictly adhere to the principle that a hypothesis cannot be proposed without absolute empirical proof, one might wonder if the very concept of sharing an opinion becomes obsolete. Must we all become career researchers just to voice a thought? It seems almost as though we are being asked to follow the rigid protocols of a federal investigation just to engage in basic conversation. 🙂 My friend, you are treating this like a spiritual treatise in PDF format; there is certainly no need to write a scientific dissertation here just to share an opinion.

The notion that one should refrain from forming or expressing an opinion is a fallacy; in truth, such intellectual engagement is not merely permitted, but essential to a healthy discourse.

I am not searching this space for rigorous scientific precision or a strict methodological framework, nor am I looking for an analysis of that spirituality PDF; rather, what I am seeking is a fundamental sense of intellectual honesty. It feels as though one is attempting to construct a thesis that is intentionally shielded from verification—a proposition where, as you suggest, being held to any standard of proof simply isn't the objective.

Unverifiable premises may serve as a legitimate foundation for faith or hope, yet they certainly lack the substance required to constitute an intellectually rigorous argument.

Look, urbanwalker72—if a person actually puts in the work and trains their mind, they could basically tap into abilities straight out of some wild sci-fi blockbuster. And I’m not just talking out of my ass here; I’ve definitely dabbled in that headspace myself enough times to know what I'm talking about. Honestly, if I’m being totally real, I get sucked into this stuff because of those "paranormal" vibes, but it’s more than that—it’s about digging into the raw, unexplored depths of what humans are actually capable of. It's all about unlocking that hidden potential we're all sitting on.

Look, here’s the thing—it’s actually possible to read someone else's mind without them ever opening their mouth. I'm talking about picking up on those silent cues, those tiny shifts in energy that tell you exactly what's going on in their head. And honestly? It goes even deeper than that. You can actually nudge someone's thoughts so effectively that they end up believing the idea was entirely their own. Like, they think they just had this sudden epiphany, when really, you were the one pulling the strings the whole time. Of course, you don't see this happening every day—you need a massive amount of raw talent and some serious, disciplined training to pull that off. That's why it stays such a rare, almost invisible skill.

Gregory Jackson said:Though, I guess there might be a third option too:

3. maybe it's an influence that triggers dormant areas of the brain (if you want to be vague about it, like the "right hemisphere") which might eventually happen through evolution, though who knows when that would actually kick in...

If that were the case, then a ton of untapped potential could suddenly flip on and become available to everyone, instead of just being limited to those rare few people we see who seem to have these crazy, unexplainable gifts for stuff like memory, math, or intuition and all that sort of thing

Man, I would give anything to have a photographic memory, seriously... 😳

But honestly? Most of us are always using our memory, probably pushing it pretty close to the limit—the real struggle is just figuring out how to organize all that data so it actually makes sense when you need it.

Sandra Morgan2 said:They aren't "windows" into pure consciousness. Because in pure consciousness, there is no content. No objects. No events. No phenomena. Paradoxically, there isn't even anyone there to be conscious of being in a state of pure consciousness. It’s a pure non-dual experience... which, of course, isn't an "experience." For an experience to exist, you need a subject doing the experiencing and a sense of time passing—both of which are just more content, more objects within consciousness. They are just our usual worldly tendency to divide things into a watcher, the watching, and the thing being watched.

Exactly. Like any other experience, these are only valuable if we actually acknowledge them. I think we tend to reject them. Mostly because they scare us.

That fear you mentioned? To me, it's a beautiful protective mechanism. It’s good that it exists! It pulls us back to where we belong right now—to the world where we have to pay the bills, raise kids, maintain a home, and make sure we have a hot meal on the table every day. If we slipped into some parallel reality, we'd look like total lunatics in this one. We'd be swept away by experiences that serve no practical purpose, eventually needing someone to take care of us or ending up in a mental health facility.

So, in this case, fear serves a vital function: it keeps us grounded.

But honestly? Fear is nothing more than a restrictive trap that just drags you down.

Sandra Morgan2 said:They aren't "windows" into pure consciousness. Because in pure consciousness, there is no content. No objects. No events. No phenomena. Paradoxically, there isn't even anyone there to be conscious of being in a state of pure consciousness. It’s a pure non-dual experience... which, of course, isn't an "experience." For an experience to exist, you need a subject doing the experiencing and a sense of time passing—both of which are just more content, more objects within consciousness. They are just our usual worldly tendency to divide things into a watcher, the watching, and the thing being watched.

Exactly. Like any other experience, these are only valuable if we actually acknowledge them. I think we tend to reject them. Mostly because they scare us.

That fear you mentioned? To me, it's a beautiful protective mechanism. It’s good that it exists! It pulls us back to where we belong right now—to the world where we have to pay the bills, raise kids, maintain a home, and make sure we have a hot meal on the table every day. If we slipped into some parallel reality, we'd look like total lunatics in this one. We'd be swept away by experiences that serve no practical purpose, eventually needing someone to take care of us or ending up in a mental health facility.

So, in this case, fear serves a vital function: it keeps us grounded.

Usually, the people who fall into that hole are those dealing with a whole history of health issues—including panic attacks, which obviously tie right back to that fear.

There is absolutely nothing good to be found in fear.

So, a few months back—since I’m still pretty much a rookie at this whole meditation thing—I had this wild, terrifying experience. You know how everyone tells you, "don't identify with the body"? Well, I took that advice way too literally. I started telling myself, *I am not this body, I am not these feelings, I am not this or that,* and suddenly—bam—I felt this insane pulling sensation right behind my head. It was like being yanked upward, like I was falling at some lunatic speed, but instead of hitting the ground, I was plummeting up into the sky... 🙂

Later on, I found out that when you actually manage to detach from the physical self like that, there's a chance you might actually leave the body behind. Honestly? That was one of the scariest moments of my life. It was so visceral, so real—and look, I’m not the type to freak out easily unless something truly heavy is going down.

I know for a fact it wasn't just some hallucination, either. I’ve always been pretty grounded and successful in everything else I do... My mental state was totally solid.

I don't know about you guys, but honestly? Every single scene from that first movie felt absolutely epic to me.