Posts by Paul Rogers94

bluemason3 said:Yoga is pretty much useless, compared to the good drugs. 😁 It’s not just some stuff from America, and it’s certainly not just a bunch of plants. Most of it consists of much more tangible substances—though there are a few botanicals mixed in—and the benefits are pretty hard to ignore. 😛

I wasn't taking phenibut. Honestly, I’m not crazy enough to stockpile (pseudo)benzos like that.
I don't really get why Phenibut is such a huge trend right now. I guess for the alternative crowd, anything that doesn't require a prescription is automatically cooler. Personally, I don't see anything that makes it better than Xanax—I bought some once to try it out—but it seems to hit the stomach harder and builds a dependency way faster. I honestly don't see what the big deal is. 🤔
But that's beside the point. 😁

That division isn't exactly traditional, is it? I'm not sure if we saw anything like it before Swami Vivekananda.The terminology pops up, sure, but I haven't seen it framed as some kind of formal categorization in any of the traditional sources.) 🤔
At the end of the day, Hinduism is just pure chaos. There isn't a single tradition that stays consistent for more than one small group.

and Patanjali is read just as literally as a patriot reads the Bible

neonmarlin39 said:If we’re talking about the classic way of splitting up yoga, it’s usually jnana, karma, and bhakti. It’s kind of like a triangle in certain systems—if you pull one corner away, the whole thing just loses its balance and falls apart.

It’s all just one single yoga. You can't have pure devotion without understanding, nor can you have selfless action without devotion—it’s a continuous loop. It really just comes down to a person's temperament; which aspect gets emphasized depends on who they are, but ultimately, it's all just a byproduct of those two paths I mentioned.

Steven Stewart3 said:So, basically, Raya yoga and jñāna yoga are the two big branches. Though, I gotta say, that sentence of yours is a bit of a contradiction:
" yoga of direct insight into the true nature of reality—without the interference of the senses or the mind"—I mean, how are you supposed to realize what is true or not without using your mind or your senses in the first place?
There aren't books written about this second type of yoga because it’s impossible to write anything coherent about it.
That being said, I think those two yogas you mentioned actually bleed into one another; you really need both. Also, you totally overlooked bhakti yoga and mantra yoga, which are vital (sometimes even essential) for moving forward, whether you like it or not.
Like Patanjali roughly says:
..bychanting sacred texts, one establishes a connection with their chosen deity...(bhakti yoga)
....through the repetition of pranava, God is revealed(mantra yoga)....

That’s just Advaita. There is plenty of material out there on it—it’s just a shame you didn't catch what the poet was actually getting at.

Zachary Cox69 said:Which babies?
In Egypt?
Weren't they killing Jewish babies for no reason?
Before all that!
Honestly, maybe they deserve the karma—let them see how much that kind of injustice hurts.
And are you gay?
Sorry, didn't realize.
People aren't being killed for it today; let them march. I don't have an issue with that. In the end, when God decides to judge everyone, those "Christians" who are adulterers, pedophiles, or gays will face the same judgment.

Patriot, where were you back in '91?

Steven Stewart3 said:Actually, I don't know if I totally agree with that, because you could pretty much say the same thing about a ton of different yoga styles! Like, think about Nada yoga, Nidra yoga, Shiva yoga, and all that. If we stick to that super "rigid" logic (no pressure, obviously!), then there are basically only a handful of yogas mentioned in the Vedic texts. But honestly, this newer way of categorizing things makes it way easier to grasp what’s actually going on. For instance, Kundalini yoga is kind of similar to Raja yoga, but when people talk about Kundalini yoga, they’re mostly focusing on that specific process of moving the Kundalini upward. With Raja yoga, you’re looking at the whole package—the Yama, Niyama, Pranayama, and everything else. In the world of Kundalini yoga, it’s usually assumed that those other aspects are already checked off and good to go!

Sure, it’s a bit muddled and unclear like this. You could list another hundred types of yoga if you wanted to, but an experienced devotee can see there are really just two fundamental paths or currents. I’ll just mention them now—and I might elaborate more later if I feel like it and decide it’s actually worth the effort, since this topic is the starting point for my Magnum Opus. They are:

Let’s call it Willful Yoga (which works with Prana and Kundalini): it stems from the idea that mental content is cluttered by sensory impressions. To control the mind, you have to control the senses, and vice versa. The foundation is sublimation (not suppression) of sexual energy (Virya) into mental energy (Ojas Shakti)—we raise the Kundalini to the Sahasrara, resulting in Nirvikalpa Samadhi. This requires breath control, dietary control, sleep control, and mastery over all other aspects of life. An adept of this path masters all levels of existence (Lokas), entering and exiting them at will...

And let’s say Sahaja yoga (so-called Natural Yoga, or the yoga of direct insight into the true nature of reality—meaning without the mediation of the senses or the mind). Much like Zen, it allows things (life) to simply happen without any willful interference. Every attempt at intervention is just an obstruction. You have no control over experiences, nor do you cling to them, just as you don't cling to anything else. This current has its own completely different dynamic, and the result is direct insight into the true nature of reality (Jnana). It is the most beautiful and miraculous path—pure bliss through non-attachment and devotion. It doesn't bargain; it doesn't demand you do "this" or "that" to get something. It is unconditional. It doesn't ask you to earn THAT, because you *are* THAT (Tat Tvam Asi)...

These are the only two ways to wake up from all the dreams.

Only by understanding these two currents can we make sense of everything else.

Everything else listed is merely a consequence of one current or the other. There is no third option.

I should note that this is just a very, very rough outline, as I am in no mood for any serious elaboration—especially not here, because that would be pointless.

bluemason3 said:Etymology and root similarity are essentially the same thing, and there's no connection here. Also, for what it's worth, neither of those things has anything to do with consciousness.

The total number of sounds and combinations we can actually make is limited. It's inevitable that different languages will end up with words that sound alike, even when there's zero connection in their Etymology or meaning.

Trying to find meaning where none exists is just a pattern-seeking human reflex—kind of like seeing faces in the clouds or thinking you see heads in the grass. Making these easy leaps without any solid ground just creates unnecessary mental clutter.

There is no "subjective truth" in this. Facts don't care about our personal opinions.

I’m not saying you aren't right—I’m well aware of the meanings and origins for both—but I allow myself to look beyond those rigid boundaries. You know, intuitively. And I don't think I'm any less correct than you or some linguist; it’s not like I’m just making stuff up because I’m uninformed or "dreaming of whatever suits me"... I just don't feel burdened by the need to draw every single conclusion strictly from a scientific standpoint.🙂

What I meant was more about the fact that, for me, both Chris and Krishna represent consciousness—regardless of their linguistic roots or where the words actually come from.

Facts don't depend on personal opinions, but you're free to choose your own angle of approach. Personally, I find it far too limiting to view everything exclusively through the lens of linguistics.

bluemason3 said:I don't think there's an etymological link there. Sounding similar can be pretty deceptive.

Christ comes from the literal Greek translation of the Hebrew/Aramaic term for "anointed one" (Messiah), whereas Krishna is rooted in the word for the color black. The Proto-Indo-European root (construct) is kr̥snós, which is etymologically linked to our own word for black.

The Greek khrī́ō (to smear, to anoint) in the root of Christ is actually more closely related to the Sanskrit ghṛta.

I get that—but I can’t ignore how much that root similarity jumps out at me. Even if it isn't strictly etymological, the connection is undeniable... For me, it points toward the exact same thing that linguists and spiritualists have been circling around for ages.

You can't just ignore the etymological overlap here—both Christ and Krishna serve as synonyms for consciousness. They’re both personalists who champion the path of devotion.

Zachary Cox69 said:I'm talking about Carver right now, not what happened back then.
Unlike you, I actually believe people can change—that they can own up to their sins, admit their mistakes, and start over.
You claim it's "his side of the story," but how can you be so sure he's lying?
When a guy loses his business and finds himself drowning in debt to everyone he knows, he's capable of pulling money from systems illegally just to survive. He wasn't much of a believer back then—it was all surface-level stuff.
He's a different man now.

So we've finally reached the point where we're out here promoting war profiteers, corrupt criminals, and murderers as Christ's representatives—people who go into schools spreading hate in His name? That exact same hate that led to his own suffering? You’re just one of those guys still fighting a battle from twenty years ago for a world that doesn't even exist anymore. Only someone as mentally stunted and perverse as you could push this nonsense... "he changed"? My ass. People like him don't change. He's a monster, plain and simple, and you're just his loyal servant.

Your father is the devil, and you want to fulfill his desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not live in the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. (John 8:44)

David Vaughn75 said:Yeah, that’s exactly where I hit the wall with this whole thing—it’s a massive contradiction.
If every single person who ever walked this earth has been sinning, then you have to face the fact that God designed us to be prone to it; our very nature today is fundamentally broken.

They love to preach about "free will" and how we choose to sin, but let's get real: a man dying of thirst is always going to reach for water. It’s not some grand moral choice—he’s just wired that way. He was designed to crave water when he's thirsty, plain and simple.

I actually spent most of my day reading some debate on this topic (the rest was spent trolling both Christians and anti-Christians on the forums), and your questions hit right on the pulse of those ideas. To avoid spamming you with quotes, if you're interested, there's a PDF by Ramesh Balsekar titled No More Confusion for Spiritual Seekers (check out chapter Sin and Guilt starting on page 16)
.
If only that learned priest would remember that no human being has the capacity to grasp the mechanics behind how God's will operates. If he could just recall that God didn't conjure this entire universe solely for the benefit of His beloved human children, he wouldn't be throwing around so many assertions with the misplaced confidence of God's personal secretary or best friend. The priest's statements give the impression he's forgotten that God created a universe that doesn't just consist of one type of object called a "human being," but thousands of other species and objects that all work together to form the totality of the manifested world!

The whole issue of sin and guilt only arises from the assumption that human will is what's acting, rather than God's. If someone fully, unconditionally accepts the phrase "Thy will be done" and does exactly what their programming dictates—without any sense of personal agency—then the concepts of sin or merit simply cannot emerge. And that is precisely it: if someone is able to participate in life and accept everything that happens as God's will in the moment—whether it's pleasure or pain, joy or misery, success or failure—that is self-realization. In that state, the sage participates in life without any burden of sin or guilt weighing down their mind.

wearyowl29 said:You’re conflating two different things here.

Spirituality isn't some fixed destination or a static level you reach; it’s a dynamic, moving process. Religion, on the other hand, is something people often adopt as an absolute truth and then just cling to it until they die, never actually evolving.

I was reading John O'Donohue's "Anam cara" the other day, and he uses this wonderful analogy of a massive house. He describes how religious folks tend to get stuck in the basement or maybe just the first floor. They spend their entire lives looking out from that single vantage point, seeing just one tiny spot in the garden, and they honestly believe they've mastered everything growing in that yard.
From that limited view, they think they have all the answers and try to lecture everyone else.

But then you have the people who actually put in the work to climb higher. They push themselves up to the upper floors, where the view opens up, giving them a much broader perception of reality.
And those rare few who make it all the way to the penthouse? They can see far beyond the boundaries of their own backyard.

Religion hands you pre-packaged truths—it’s all about blind faith. Spirituality doesn't accept any "truth" unless you've personally verified it through constant questioning.

Zachary Cox69 said:So, what exactly is spirituality?
Look, if I’m a Christian and I believe in God, and I practice spirituality and being spiritual—what does that even mean?
Wikipedia
"Spirituality is a state of consciousness where a person commits to the development of their own spirit through religious devotion to God. The word itself comes from the Latin *spiritus*, meaning breath or spirit.[1] While the concept is closely tied to religion, it can also describe a mental state where a person turns their attention toward things beyond their immediate surroundings. For example, studying history or writing poetry can be non-religious forms of spirituality.

To be a spiritual person means prioritizing the eternal, the metaphysical, and the immaterial over the fleeting, the secular, and the material.

Spirituality is practiced through prayer, meditation, and living a moral life.

As a broad term, spirituality encompasses all human activities directed toward the immaterial, spiritual realm (most often of a religious nature), though it can also include artistic creation.

The element of the spiritual, as a core component of various philosophical views, finds the source and origin of all things in the transcendent and supreme. It is most prominent in the school of idealism and related spiritual movements that take supernatural reality as their primary starting point."

It isn’t about defining "spirituality"—it’s about your arrogance, your ego, and your sheer, unadulterated nastiness. People have tried to subtly tell you to take your preaching somewhere else more than once, but you clearly don't give a damn; you just keep shoving your garbage down everyone's throats without an ounce of consideration. Honestly, religious groups wouldn't want you there for that exact reason. Go find a therapist or something... You belong to the most sniveling, bottom-of-the-barrel type of people—you and your opponents are one and the same, just feeding off each other. And frankly, nobody gives a damn about atheists or their preaching of some idiotic ideology either. Both sides are just equally delusional and pathetic.

Just as a lotus leaf stays perfectly dry despite sitting in the water
don't let the chaos of the world seep into your heart..
Staying busy with life isn't the problem,
it's only a problem if you let that busyness rattle you--
if it does, then the real issue is just your own internal struggle..

The ocean doesn't lose sleep over ten million waves crashing against it!
So why stress over the constant ebb and flow of your thoughts?..

Clinging to an old, toxic habit
is basically like hugging a pit viper.
It’s high time you let go of that snake and toss it away..

Bad moods are always ghosts—either lingering shadows of the past or anxieties about a future that hasn't happened yet.
In the actual Present, moods simply don't exist..
Moods are products of circumstances and history;
just face the Sun, and those shadows will vanish..

The world is like a dog's tail—it's just wired to curl up.
Your best bet is to remain quiet
and refuse to let any of it get under your skin..
People will drift in and out of your life like passing waves... don't try to fight them.
Just be still.

Papaji

When the mental storm hits
—just cut the power.

Don't get sucked into
the drama or the overthinking.
Just instantly sever
the flow of attention
and unplug from
that mental circuit.

That's the beauty
of impersonal witnessing.

By simply holding your focus
in a state of neutrality,
the mind returns to its natural
home as unborn awareness.

Mooji

darkcanyon10 said:Meditation is honestly endless boredom if you ask me. But, if you want to quiet the mind, try walking with intention or just relaxing your tongue muscles.

You can also shut it down with sleep.

"There is a silence within you.
It’s ever-present—constant, immovable, and utterly still. It isn't "doing" a thing.

Just be mindful of it.
It’s simply present, though it never actually arrived.
In this state, you aren't a persona.

Within the silence itself,
you exist without a history, a name, or a shape.

Acknowledge that space right now—that pure existence.

It serves as the foundation for all action,
yet remains entirely uninvolved in the fray.

Observe and witness this truth in the moment,
and settle into your beautiful rest."

~ Mooji

casualtiger2 said:This is actually pretty significant stuff—after all, every single one of us carries a mix of both masculine and feminine hormones, along with certain "masculine" and "feminine" traits.
Given how men have historically dominated women in various ways, it’s left a mark on everyone—both men and women—on a subconscious level, even today.
By trying to belittle or control women, men essentially ended up diminishing themselves too, while women were stripped of the chance to truly reach their potential.
That’s why, if we want to actually feel like whole human beings, we need to acknowledge and understand both the masculine and feminine aspects within ourselves. We need to develop them, embrace them, and let that understanding guide how we act in the "real world."

There’s zero reason why people should be treated unequally based on gender, despite how things have functioned up until now.
Sure, having a bit more testosterone or a stronger physical build isn't a valid excuse for men to rule over women, but that’s basically how it all started—the "I'm stronger, so I decide" mentality. That logic eventually got baked into tradition and then cemented by social structures, government laws, and some pretty mindless religious dogmas as the supposed "natural order of things."

At its core, it’s just a very specific way to feed the ego—the "I'm a man, so no matter how weak, stupid, or cruel I am, I'm still superior to a woman" mindset. It's just one of many ways the ego protects itself.

It’s really only since the state—specifically a secular government—took over the role of being the "stronger" authority that things have started to improve for everyone. Now, whether you're a man or a woman, there's finally a path toward becoming mature individuals, especially if you actually care about any kind of spiritual growth.

PS
Don't get me wrong, women have their own version of "ego support" through the "I'm a woman and..." trope, but historically, that version has always been a lot less damaging than the male equivalent.

your stance is an ideology—or rather, a byproduct of one.

Every human being possesses both masculine and feminine qualities in full; it's just that men are socially conditioned to suppress their feminine traits as "unnecessary," pushing them into the unconscious (the anima) and projecting them onto an external object—namely, a woman. The reverse happens too.

That is a dogma, and we are trained—conditioned—to see it that way. From the perspective of vital life, men and women are equally valuable and interdependent for the continuation of the species, each serving a specific biological function...

A man exists to be potent, and a woman to bear children (to be beautiful and fertile). Because of their biological differences, their psychological morphologies are also different and require different treatments. In reality, equalizing is a poor way to treat both men and women. The direct consequence is a loss of clarity regarding both sex and gender, as well as the distinctions within them. It is this equalization that has led to a chaotic understanding of gender, driven by the attempt to make everyone equal. Everything else we perceive becomes equally chaotic.

Based on this equalization, every gender ends up handicapped—men lose a significant part of their "masculinity" and women lose a significant part of their "femininity." If you compromise with equalization, you end up with castrated men and barren women.

From a spiritual standpoint, every man and every woman is a star.

For anyone wanting to reflect on this, I recommend Jung's *The Red Book*.

Joseph Bailey41 said:Oh, that. Thanks for translating. 😁

To be honest, I don't even remember when or why I wrote that... but I really don't feel militant at all. That just feels so third-dimensional and unspiritual. I spend my time reading Sensata, hugging trees, celebrating the lunar cycles, and soaking in the endless abundance of Mother Nature—plus, I'm already planning to attend a womb blessing workshop next year.

And then yesterday, I got some great news—it turns out my ego boundaries are incredibly firm; they've healed, just spontaneously. Maybe the same thing happened with my Virgo opposition... I haven't had a chance to check yet.

Love is the law. 🎉

Highly recommended 🤣

expert at inspecting virgin leather footwear and a lover of rubber dolls

Dhyana occurs when the distinction between subject and object vanishes. Everything else—the constant focus—is just concentration, and that requires actual work.

Don't get it twisted: practicing might keep the mind calm for a bit, but it won't kill it. The mind isn't going to just disappear on its own. It stays quiet temporarily... nothing more.
The real goal—the one absolutely vital for true freedom—is to maintain that stillness and finally dissolve the mind entirely.
Freedom is simply what happens when there is no mind.

When the mind doesn't function, you've found freedom. Focusing on an object? That yields nothing, because it’s forced. Effort is required to bridge the gap between the observer and the observed—that friction, that tension, is the very definition of mental effort. But when the mind doesn't function and returns to its natural state of calm and peace, the struggle stops. That is effortless. That is "freedom."

Achieving this kind of freedom doesn't require a manual or a specific technique. Forget the well-worn paths everyone else follows. You need to uncover your true nature—find out who you actually are. You have to start there, before you even attempt to understand anything else.

Drop the methods. Drop everything. Just sit still and stay quiet.
Stop stirring the pot—don't trigger the mind or engage the intellect. Instead, turn your attention toward the observer itself. That is your true nature, the bedrock from which everything else emerges. This is who you really are.

If you start treating this like a project—applying effort, using a method, or chasing some goal in the distant future—you're just falling back into the trap of time. And time? Time is just the mind playing games. Your fundamental nature is pure emptiness.

At every single moment, you are empty. That's all! Simply watch whatever thought pops up. You will find that all thoughts arise from emptiness, from their source. Once you become aware—once you realize, "I am that source itself"—the need to practice or travel anywhere evaporates. You'll realize you've been That all along.
This is "freedom," and it isn't something you hunt down in the future.
It's already right here!

~ H. W. L. POONJA
WHO IS AWARE OF CONSCIOUSNESS?

Michael Gonzalez77 said:I agree, but even that Love is a form of grace—and you don't get it for free.

Grace isn't something you can hustle for—if it were, it would just be a transaction. You can't "earn" grace. First, you gain an actual understanding of how reality works, and then you naturally gravitate toward truth—sort of like how sunflowers track the sun. Call it Love if that's your thing. Even if it looks like you worked hard to get there, those very efforts are actually driven by grace itself. None of this is your credit or your choice. It’s not some trophy won through sheer willpower; you can't "achieve" anything like this through grit alone. Still, it feels like there needs to be some sort of inherent maturity or readiness beforehand. Your only real job is to stop getting in your own way with all your theories... enlightenment isn't a prize waiting at the finish line of some spiritual marathon.