Posts by Matthew Mitchell29

Since I'm already here, I wanted to say hello to everyone and briefly share my story.

I was diagnosed with CSR just a week ago (though it turns out my first episode actually happened about a year and a half ago, but I'll get into that in a bit).

As often happens, after an incredibly stressful period in all areas of my life—both professionally and personally—which culminated in the passing of a close elderly relative a month ago, I started seeing a dark spot in the focus of my left eye. Now, I’ve never been the type of person to run to the doctor for every little thing, and at the time, I honestly thought this was just a minor glitch, so I decided to ignore it. However, after a couple of weeks, that little speck grew and expanded until it was taking up a significant portion of my field of vision and darkening everything. It got to the point where my vision in the left eye was quite poor in low-light conditions. That was my wake-up call that I couldn't just brush this off anymore.

So, I headed over to a private ophthalmologist for a standard exam and an OCT. The verdict: CSR, with vision sitting at about 50-60%.

The doctor also mentioned that there were "scars" left over from previous bouts of CSR. That immediately reminded me of a situation a year and a half ago when I saw "floating" letters and a circle in my field of vision, though it cleared up within four or five days. Back then, I had gone to a general hospital, but the doctor told me she couldn't make a definitive diagnosis without an OCT, which none of the clinics in San Diego had available at the time. Since the symptoms vanished the very next day, I just moved on and forgot all about that episode.

In short, following the exam and the OCT, she prescribed me Diamox tablets, Yellox eye drops, and potassium chloride pills, and told me to come back for a follow-up in 15 days.

After one week, my vision is starting to improve, but I'm dealing with some pretty intense muscle aches in my legs from time to time (I'm assuming it's a side effect of the diuretic, as I mentioned in my reply to the post above).

If any of you have recommendations regarding diet, or any other advice on lifestyle changes and managing stress, I would truly appreciate it.

Henry Perez5 said:Hey everyone, looks like I'm stuck in the same boat as you guys. I just started on Diamox. I've been taking it for two days now, and man, this stuff is no joke—I'm getting these crazy tingling sensations running from my neck down my back and all through my hands, especially after I move around at all. Has anyone else dealt with this? Does this weird nerve stuff actually go away if you stick with the treatment for a while longer?

I was diagnosed with CSR last week and they put me on those exact tablets.
My ophthalmologist mentioned that I should expect that tingling sensation; apparently, it’s linked to potassium loss caused by the diuretic effect. To manage that, she prescribed potassium chloride tablets to take once a week alongside the Diamox and my eye drops. She also suggested I lean more heavily on bananas, tomatoes, and other potassium-rich foods while I'm on the medication.

I haven't dealt with the tingling, but after five days of taking them, my leg muscles—especially my thighs—have been aching quite a bit. It makes me worry that these pills might be flushing out other essential things, like magnesium, too.

Gregory Jackson said:Well, see, the idea is that it's the same soul—I guess Meher Baba is the one who really lays that out, mostly because there are finally people alive today who can actually wrap their heads around it. It wasn't like He showed up and shouted, "Don't follow anyone else but me" (which feels like a totally different vibe), but more like a simple way of saying there's only one God, rather than those hundreds of different deities people used to worship back in the day.

Neither Jesus nor Buddha nor Muhammad ever said, "I am God, so worship me instead of anyone else." The whole message has always been that there is just one God.

It’s also kind of like how they taught that nothing exists outside of God—like, the entire creation, the whole cosmos, even all of us, are basically tucked inside the "body" of God. So, really, there's just the void and God. That specific part or aspect of God where everything was created... well, that's what we call the Creator.

Hmm... I’m curious where you picked up those interpretations regarding Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism.

1. Jesus spoke of a personal God as Father, making a very distinct separation between the Creator and Creation. He also made it quite clear who God is when he said, "I am the Way, the Truth and Life," and "Whoever has seen Me has seen the Father."
2. Muhammad, on the other hand, taught that he was a messenger of God, emphasizing that God is one and transcendent, and that salvation comes through righteous deeds and following Islamic revelation. He explicitly rejected the concept of an embodied God.
3. As for Buddha, he didn't really speak about any god at all, focusing instead on the world being an illusion and finding a way out of suffering by letting go of desire and such.

I have to admit, I'm struggling to see how those specific statements lead to the pantheistic or monistic conclusion you're drawing.

Gregory Jackson said:So, what exactly counts as being fundamentally different? I mean, from where I'm sitting, most people are just preaching about things that aren't even essential, you know? Like, they get all hung up on customs, or specific rituals, or little cultural quirks that don't really change the core of anything. To me, Truth is just such a massive, sprawling concept—it’s got so many layers and facets to it, and honestly, it’s almost impossible for any single religion to wrap its arms around the whole thing. You have to remember that these traditions were shaped by people who were, well, pretty average in terms of their level of development. Like, if you look back at the era of Jesus, or even earlier when other major faiths were starting up, the average person couldn't even read, right? It's kind of hard to grasp how one group could capture everything when the tools they had were so limited. I guess it's like trying to expect one single person to be an expert in every single branch of agriculture—it's just too much, because farming itself is made up of so many different specialized fields. It's the same way with spirituality; it's just too big for one bucket. But, I suppose if you take a little bit from here and a little bit from there, and you use a bit of discernment to see how it all fits together, you can probably piece the puzzle together in a pretty reliable way. Maybe.

I mean, I guess there isn't really such a thing as the complete Truth, and honestly, it’s probably for a bunch of different reasons, you know? Like, one big reason might be that the founders of religions—people like Buddha or Jesus—they probably couldn't even if they wanted to tell the whole story, mostly because there just wasn't anyone around who could actually wrap their head around it all. Plus, you have to think about the specific era they were living in, right? For instance, maybe Buddha intentionally avoided talking about a personal God because people back then were just way too obsessed with idols and all those different personal "gods" floating around. It was just too much for them. So, I suppose that's why an Avatar might lean toward this more impersonal "story of Divinity," or maybe they just leave things undefined entirely, because trying to explain it any other way would have just totally confused everyone at the time. Tao Quote. 🙂

Matthew Mitchell29 I guess what they’re saying is...
So, I guess you could say that this whole idea about God "incarnating itself every 700 to 1400 years" is really just another one of those claims out there—you know, something you can try to prove, or maybe just choose to believe, or even totally ignore if it doesn't sit right with you. It’s all kind of up in the air, honestly. That claim could be true, or it could be completely false, in the exact same way that specific religions like Islam or Christianity might be true or not. I mean, when you're actually out there in the thick of it, trying to wrap your head around the Truth, there isn't really any logical reason to treat universalism like it's some special category compared to any other individual religion, I guess. It's all pretty much on the same playing field, really.

So, like, when you really dig into it, we’re talking about Meher Baba, who basically serves as this massive spiritual anchor going back anywhere from 700 to 1400 years, I guess. If you actually take the time to sit down and truly study his life and everything he stood for, it becomes pretty obvious that he was this incredibly profound spiritual authority, you know? But honestly, at the end of the day, it all kind of boils down to what a person chooses to believe, since everyone just gravitates toward whatever feels closest to their own heart or whatever resonates with them most. It's funny because you can't exactly prove whether religious claims are true through some scientific experiment or anything like that; it's more about having that deep, internal experience, which I suppose is always going to be subjective anyway. But for those people who already believe, or maybe they've even had those personal inner experiences themselves, they don't really spend time overthinking or questioning it—they just dive right in and live out their faith.

I mean, you really can't go wrong if you bring up the Sika religion, right? It’s got this super straightforward vibe that teaches followers a pretty simple way to live: just keep your thoughts good, your words kind, and your actions helpful. Honestly, it’s such a practical little guide for daily life, especially when you aren't busy obsessing over heavy stuff like what happens to your soul after you pass away or wondering what brand of sandals Jesus might have been rocking 🙂

Think of it this way—you have religions that believe in a transcendent God who exists apart from creation yet actively works within it. Then you have faiths that preach the absolute oneness of the Creator and the creation itself, like those rooted in pantheism or monism. On the other end of the spectrum, there are traditions that completely reject the concept of a Creator altogether, such as Buddhism.

Those are profoundly different perspectives. And they can't all be true at once because their core claims contradict one another.

Gregory Jackson said:So, what exactly counts as being fundamentally different? I mean, from where I'm sitting, most people are just preaching about things that aren't even essential, you know? Like, they get all hung up on customs, or specific rituals, or little cultural quirks that don't really change the core of anything. To me, Truth is just such a massive, sprawling concept—it’s got so many layers and facets to it, and honestly, it’s almost impossible for any single religion to wrap its arms around the whole thing. You have to remember that these traditions were shaped by people who were, well, pretty average in terms of their level of development. Like, if you look back at the era of Jesus, or even earlier when other major faiths were starting up, the average person couldn't even read, right? It's kind of hard to grasp how one group could capture everything when the tools they had were so limited. I guess it's like trying to expect one single person to be an expert in every single branch of agriculture—it's just too much, because farming itself is made up of so many different specialized fields. It's the same way with spirituality; it's just too big for one bucket. But, I suppose if you take a little bit from here and a little bit from there, and you use a bit of discernment to see how it all fits together, you can probably piece the puzzle together in a pretty reliable way. Maybe.

I mean, I guess there isn't really such a thing as the complete Truth, and honestly, it’s probably for a bunch of different reasons, you know? Like, one big reason might be that the founders of religions—people like Buddha or Jesus—they probably couldn't even if they wanted to tell the whole story, mostly because there just wasn't anyone around who could actually wrap their head around it all. Plus, you have to think about the specific era they were living in, right? For instance, maybe Buddha intentionally avoided talking about a personal God because people back then were just way too obsessed with idols and all those different personal "gods" floating around. It was just too much for them. So, I suppose that's why an Avatar might lean toward this more impersonal "story of Divinity," or maybe they just leave things undefined entirely, because trying to explain it any other way would have just totally confused everyone at the time. Tao Quote. 🙂

Matthew Mitchell29 I guess what they’re saying is...
So, I guess you could say that this whole idea about God "incarnating itself every 700 to 1400 years" is really just another one of those claims out there—you know, something you can try to prove, or maybe just choose to believe, or even totally ignore if it doesn't sit right with you. It’s all kind of up in the air, honestly. That claim could be true, or it could be completely false, in the exact same way that specific religions like Islam or Christianity might be true or not. I mean, when you're actually out there in the thick of it, trying to wrap your head around the Truth, there isn't really any logical reason to treat universalism like it's some special category compared to any other individual religion, I guess. It's all pretty much on the same playing field, really.

So, like, when you really dig into it, we’re talking about Meher Baba, who basically serves as this massive spiritual anchor going back anywhere from 700 to 1400 years, I guess. If you actually take the time to sit down and truly study his life and everything he stood for, it becomes pretty obvious that he was this incredibly profound spiritual authority, you know? But honestly, at the end of the day, it all kind of boils down to what a person chooses to believe, since everyone just gravitates toward whatever feels closest to their own heart or whatever resonates with them most. It's funny because you can't exactly prove whether religious claims are true through some scientific experiment or anything like that; it's more about having that deep, internal experience, which I suppose is always going to be subjective anyway. But for those people who already believe, or maybe they've even had those personal inner experiences themselves, they don't really spend time overthinking or questioning it—they just dive right in and live out their faith.

I mean, you really can't go wrong if you bring up the Sika religion, right? It’s got this super straightforward vibe that teaches followers a pretty simple way to live: just keep your thoughts good, your words kind, and your actions helpful. Honestly, it’s such a practical little guide for daily life, especially when you aren't busy obsessing over heavy stuff like what happens to your soul after you pass away or wondering what brand of sandals Jesus might have been rocking 🙂

That analogy doesn't quite hold up for the reasons I mentioned earlier, which is that we are dealing with claims that are fundamentally opposed to one another.
To put it in perspective, two farmers might differ on which type of fertilizer they prefer, but if one insists on watering his potatoes with water, another with milk, and a third with hydrochloric acid, all three certainly cannot be right. We have to determine which one actually has the correct method—the one using water—but we can't claim that everyone holds a little piece of the truth. The Truth (represented by agriculture in this analogy) clearly excludes the idea of using milk or acid.

Gregory Jackson said:So, what exactly counts as being fundamentally different? I mean, from where I'm sitting, most people are just preaching about things that aren't even essential, you know? Like, they get all hung up on customs, or specific rituals, or little cultural quirks that don't really change the core of anything. To me, Truth is just such a massive, sprawling concept—it’s got so many layers and facets to it, and honestly, it’s almost impossible for any single religion to wrap its arms around the whole thing. You have to remember that these traditions were shaped by people who were, well, pretty average in terms of their level of development. Like, if you look back at the era of Jesus, or even earlier when other major faiths were starting up, the average person couldn't even read, right? It's kind of hard to grasp how one group could capture everything when the tools they had were so limited. I guess it's like trying to expect one single person to be an expert in every single branch of agriculture—it's just too much, because farming itself is made up of so many different specialized fields. It's the same way with spirituality; it's just too big for one bucket. But, I suppose if you take a little bit from here and a little bit from there, and you use a bit of discernment to see how it all fits together, you can probably piece the puzzle together in a pretty reliable way. Maybe.

I mean, I guess there isn't really such a thing as the complete Truth, and honestly, it’s probably for a bunch of different reasons, you know? Like, one big reason might be that the founders of religions—people like Buddha or Jesus—they probably couldn't even if they wanted to tell the whole story, mostly because there just wasn't anyone around who could actually wrap their head around it all. Plus, you have to think about the specific era they were living in, right? For instance, maybe Buddha intentionally avoided talking about a personal God because people back then were just way too obsessed with idols and all those different personal "gods" floating around. It was just too much for them. So, I suppose that's why an Avatar might lean toward this more impersonal "story of Divinity," or maybe they just leave things undefined entirely, because trying to explain it any other way would have just totally confused everyone at the time. Tao Quote. 🙂

Matthew Mitchell29 I guess what they’re saying is...
So, I guess you could say that this whole idea about God "incarnating itself every 700 to 1400 years" is really just another one of those claims out there—you know, something you can try to prove, or maybe just choose to believe, or even totally ignore if it doesn't sit right with you. It’s all kind of up in the air, honestly. That claim could be true, or it could be completely false, in the exact same way that specific religions like Islam or Christianity might be true or not. I mean, when you're actually out there in the thick of it, trying to wrap your head around the Truth, there isn't really any logical reason to treat universalism like it's some special category compared to any other individual religion, I guess. It's all pretty much on the same playing field, really.

So, like, when you really dig into it, we’re talking about Meher Baba, who basically serves as this massive spiritual anchor going back anywhere from 700 to 1400 years, I guess. If you actually take the time to sit down and truly study his life and everything he stood for, it becomes pretty obvious that he was this incredibly profound spiritual authority, you know? But honestly, at the end of the day, it all kind of boils down to what a person chooses to believe, since everyone just gravitates toward whatever feels closest to their own heart or whatever resonates with them most. It's funny because you can't exactly prove whether religious claims are true through some scientific experiment or anything like that; it's more about having that deep, internal experience, which I suppose is always going to be subjective anyway. But for those people who already believe, or maybe they've even had those personal inner experiences themselves, they don't really spend time overthinking or questioning it—they just dive right in and live out their faith.

I mean, you really can't go wrong if you bring up the Sika religion, right? It’s got this super straightforward vibe that teaches followers a pretty simple way to live: just keep your thoughts good, your words kind, and your actions helpful. Honestly, it’s such a practical little guide for daily life, especially when you aren't busy obsessing over heavy stuff like what happens to your soul after you pass away or wondering what brand of sandals Jesus might have been rocking 🙂

As far as I know, Buddha didn't speak of any god, nor do Buddhists hold a concept of God as a creator.
At the end of the day, God either exists or He doesn't. He is either personal or impersonal. He is either immanent or transcendent.
The Truth is singular, and universalism doesn't really help us arrive at it in this instance.

Gregory Jackson said:But, I don't think He only showed up once; I mean, it seems like He shows up every 700 to 1,400 years or so, whenever "darkness takes over" and humanity desperately needs a spiritual nudge. So, from Zarathustra, Rame, Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, all the way to Meher Baba, He comes. Even before Zarathustra, when there aren't any records, I bet He was coming back then, too.

Then there's this whole other thing where one religion thinks they're the only ones who got the Messiah, God, or an Avatar, and that the "Truth" is strictly reserved for their followers while everyone else goes to hell—it doesn't matter if they lived a million years ago or today. Like, for instance, Buddhists are waiting for a "future Buddha," a Maitreya Being, but I'd argue He already arrived in the physical form of Jesus. It's really just the same Over-soul coming in all these different forms with specific goals for a particular era, and often a specific region, but always with the goal of lifting up humanity spiritually.

Actually, Meher Baba predicted the future birth of "God in human form" as a scientist in Japan in about 700 years. And it's pretty interesting, I guess, that He always seems to arrive in physical form on the Asian continent.

That said, most religions preach fundamentally different things, yet there can only be one Truth. This means only one of these religions can truly be right—unless they are all wrong.

Any form of universalism—the idea that "all religions hold a fragment of the truth, but none possess the whole"—is itself just another claim or belief. It doesn't carry any more factual weight or logical standing than any specific religion does.

So, the assertion that God "incarnates every 700-1,400 years" is simply another claim that can be debated or believed, but it isn't an absolute certainty. That statement could be true or false, just like the claims made by specific faiths such as Islam or Christianity. In the actual process of searching for the Truth, there really isn't any reason to treat universalism differently than we would any individual religion.