Christian vs. Eastern Meditation: Similarities and Differences!

neonmarlin39 said:Look, whether you show up or disappear, whether you exist or not, the entire universe is still just... there. It’s still existing. Objective reality doesn't give a damn about you or any other individual. The cosmos doesn't care about your mind or how you perceive things—it exists regardless of your presence or lack thereof.

Concepts and preconceptions are just mental categories—they don't exist out there in the physical cosmos without a mind to house them.

If there isn't anyone around to actually experience a concept coming to life, then the concept itself doesn't even exist.

neonmarlin39 said:You can get to that conclusion pretty easily using simple logic, looking at things through an objective scientific lens, using philosophical methods, or even through spiritual insights (take the case of Buddha, for example) 😁

But, like you said, you're the one claiming to have reached a "final" conclusion, even though you're basically just parroting someone else's dogma... And honestly, whether these are your own conclusions or someone else's doesn't even matter much, since other people have already tried to explain this exact thing here. Plus, if you truly believe everything is an illusion, then you and everything you're saying is just an illusion too. In a way, you're totally undermining your own point because you're claiming nothing is real—which means what you're saying isn't real either (if you're pushing that whole Maya/Advaita Vedanta/Shankara interpretation I've noticed you go for). Why would anyone listen to the illusory ramblings of some illusory figure who, by your own logic, doesn't even exist? Or do you only see the contradiction when you're arguing that the universe isn't real? And why on earth would Brahman bother creating some pointless illusion like the universe where everything is fake? Where does Maya even come from in your version? You haven't even touched on the heavy hitters here. You're mixing up basic philosophical concepts like relativity, the Absolute, reality, actuality, and illusion—you can see that in your thread about the universe being an illusion. And you say "cosmos," not the universe, which sounds like those Slavinski terms or wherever you got them from.

Also, in previous debates, people have pointed out specific teachings and systems that tear down these philosophical dogmas about the universe not being real, using solid philosophical frameworks, but you just ignored it all and stuck to your guns. People even suggested books to read if you actually wanted to dive deeper and see what's what. Now, science is a totally different beast. It’s one thing to believe whatever you want—hey, you're entitled to your beliefs—but it's a completely different story when you want to argue a point or analyze something using clear sources, philosophy, scientific evidence, or whatever else. Your thread is, to put it mildly, just rambling, and it falls flat under several major philosophical critiques found in both Eastern and Western traditions. Philosophy hasn't just popped up overnight, and neither has philosophical critique. Right now, most of what you're saying is based on pure belief and your own narrow interpretation, while you're ignoring plenty of other critiques and systems that might explain things way better than the books you're reading or the ones you've already decided to believe in.

If I recall correctly, I said I presented or arrived at certain "final" conclusions, not that I invented water from nothing. You can agree or disagree—I’m fine with diverse opinions—but I didn't see any actual critique in your post regarding my specific claims, even your attempt to defend the idea that the physical universe doesn't depend on the subject, but rather what...?
It's pretty obvious that aside from being stuffed full of various "expert" theories, you lack clarity. You don't have a single foundation upon which to build a coherent thought about anything—it doesn't matter if someone agrees with you or not. It always ends with "that's how it's written in the Veda" or "that's what Buddha said"...
Here's an example: Can you answer my post in one or two coherent sentences? Something that actually hints at a logical idea or a cohesive thought related to the topic—something either I or someone else could actually respond to? But no, instead I have to deal with you and your total incompetence, all while I'm trying to go grab another bottle of wine.
If I'm not mistaken, we're actually trying to reach an agreement on whether the manifest universe is real or unreal... and if that's not what's happening, and we don't even know what the subject of this "debate" is, then there's no point in arguing further, because I fail to see how any of your rambling connects to anything.
And that little jab about Slavinski, along with everything else you've thrown out that has zero relevance—I read a few of his books when I was a kid, just like I've read hundreds of others. Your blatant misattribution of things that have nothing to do with me, my reality, or anything else is just wrong. I refuse to react to your delusional assumptions about what "side" I'm on; I'll just tell you this: you're swinging wildly at a target that doesn't exist. Even if there is someone there, it certainly isn't me—you're just talking to some imaginary interlocutor.

That's what a "debate" looks like when I try to follow the chaos in your head—and that's being generous, because I have no intention of defending myself against your twisted, nonsensical projections.

All I can suggest is finding a good shrink.

David Vaughn75 said:Concepts and preconceptions are just mental categories—they don't exist out there in the physical cosmos without a mind to house them.

If there isn't anyone around to actually experience a concept coming to life, then the concept itself doesn't even exist.

I'm honestly thrilled that someone finally grasps the obvious: this bottle of wine sitting in front of me is just data processed by my visual cortex, yet it only truly becomes "wine" once it exists as an idea in my mind...

David Vaughn75 said:Concepts and preconceptions are just mental categories—they don't exist out there in the physical cosmos without a mind to house them.

If there isn't anyone around to actually experience a concept coming to life, then the concept itself doesn't even exist.

It’s pretty much the same deal in Hinduism—this idea that you take the whole, undivided reality and split it into three parts to make sense of things: the subject (the person doing the thinking), the object, and the actual experience of that object... turns out that's how everything starts.
Predrag Kezele — 7 chakras, 7 states of consciousness

David Vaughn75 said:Concepts and preconceptions are just mental categories—they don't exist out there in the physical cosmos without a mind to house them.

If there isn't anyone around to actually experience a concept coming to life, then the concept itself doesn't even exist.

If I’m allowed to interpret that "concept" as more of an actual event... I feel like I’ve already heard that whole "if a tree falls in the woods and nobody's there to hear it, does it make a sound?" thing way too many times...
It’s honestly ridiculous to me—I mean, that whole situation doesn't even need an observer just for the sound of wood hitting wood to be a constant thing...

I've heard this question tossed around a million times already—honestly, I just don't get the logic behind it...

Paul Rogers94 said:I'm honestly thrilled that someone finally grasps the obvious: this bottle of wine sitting in front of me is just data processed by my visual cortex, yet it only truly becomes "wine" once it exists as an idea in my mind...

How does it only "become" what it is in your head if it’s a physical object? It exists in reality—for both you and me—regardless of whether I turn my back on it and stop looking...

Paul Rogers94 said:If I recall correctly, I said I presented or arrived at certain "final" conclusions, not that I invented water from nothing. You can agree or disagree—I’m fine with diverse opinions—but I didn't see any actual critique in your post regarding my specific claims, even your attempt to defend the idea that the physical universe doesn't depend on the subject, but rather what...?
It's pretty obvious that aside from being stuffed full of various "expert" theories, you lack clarity. You don't have a single foundation upon which to build a coherent thought about anything—it doesn't matter if someone agrees with you or not. It always ends with "that's how it's written in the Veda" or "that's what Buddha said"...
Here's an example: Can you answer my post in one or two coherent sentences? Something that actually hints at a logical idea or a cohesive thought related to the topic—something either I or someone else could actually respond to? But no, instead I have to deal with you and your total incompetence, all while I'm trying to go grab another bottle of wine.
If I'm not mistaken, we're actually trying to reach an agreement on whether the manifest universe is real or unreal... and if that's not what's happening, and we don't even know what the subject of this "debate" is, then there's no point in arguing further, because I fail to see how any of your rambling connects to anything.
And that little jab about Slavinski, along with everything else you've thrown out that has zero relevance—I read a few of his books when I was a kid, just like I've read hundreds of others. Your blatant misattribution of things that have nothing to do with me, my reality, or anything else is just wrong. I refuse to react to your delusional assumptions about what "side" I'm on; I'll just tell you this: you're swinging wildly at a target that doesn't exist. Even if there is someone there, it certainly isn't me—you're just talking to some imaginary interlocutor.

That's what a "debate" looks like when I try to follow the chaos in your head—and that's being generous, because I have no intention of defending myself against your twisted, nonsensical projections.

All I can suggest is finding a good shrink.

Look, if you missed it the first time, let me say it again: maybe try reading with a bit more focus from the jump:

You can reach that conclusion pretty easily through some basic logic, scientific or objective views of the world, or even philosophical methods—hell, even spiritual insights (take the case of Buddha, for example). But, like you said, you're the one claiming to have reached this "final" conclusion, even though you're basically just repeating someone else's dogma... And honestly, whether these are your own conclusions or someone else's doesn't even matter that much; other people have already tried to break this down here. Plus, since you believe everything is an illusion, then you and all your statements are just illusions too. You're basically debunking yourself because you're claiming nothing is real—not even what you're saying right now (if you're pushing that whole Maya/Advaita Vedanta and Shankara interpretation I've noticed you're into). Why would anyone listen to the illusory ramblings of an illusory figure who, by your own logic, doesn't even exist? It's not real, so why would his words be real? Or do you just not see the contradiction when you argue that this entire universe is unreal? And why on earth would Brahman bother creating some pointless illusion like the universe where everything is fake and non-existent? Where does Maya even come from in your version? You aren't even touching on the heavy-hitting questions. You're mixing up fundamental philosophical concepts like relativity, the Absolute, reality, and illusion—it’s pretty obvious in your thread about how the universe is an illusion. And it's called the cosmos, not the universe, unless you're using those weird Slavinski terms or whatever they are.

Also, people have pointed out specific teachings and systems in past debates that tear down these philosophical dogmas about the universe being unreal, providing actual philosophical frameworks, but you just brushed them off to stick to your guns. People even suggested books if you actually wanted to dig in and see what's what. Science is a totally different beast, too. There's a massive difference between believing in something—which hey, you're totally free to do—and trying to make an argument based on clear analysis, solid sources, philosophy, or scientific evidence. Your thread is just rambling, to put it lightly, and falls flat under standard philosophical critiques found in both Eastern and Western traditions. Philosophy isn't some new thing, and neither is philosophical critique. Right now, most of what you're saying is just based on your own beliefs and a pretty narrow interpretation, while you ignore other systems that might explain things way better than the books you've picked out and decided to believe in.

Paul Rogers94 said:If I recall correctly, I said I presented or arrived at certain "final" conclusions, not that I invented water from nothing. You can agree or disagree—I’m fine with diverse opinions—but I didn't see any actual critique in your post regarding my specific claims, even your attempt to defend the idea that the physical universe doesn't depend on the subject, but rather what...?
It's pretty obvious that aside from being stuffed full of various "expert" theories, you lack clarity. You don't have a single foundation upon which to build a coherent thought about anything—it doesn't matter if someone agrees with you or not. It always ends with "that's how it's written in the Veda" or "that's what Buddha said"...
Here's an example: Can you answer my post in one or two coherent sentences? Something that actually hints at a logical idea or a cohesive thought related to the topic—something either I or someone else could actually respond to? But no, instead I have to deal with you and your total incompetence, all while I'm trying to go grab another bottle of wine.
If I'm not mistaken, we're actually trying to reach an agreement on whether the manifest universe is real or unreal... and if that's not what's happening, and we don't even know what the subject of this "debate" is, then there's no point in arguing further, because I fail to see how any of your rambling connects to anything.
And that little jab about Slavinski, along with everything else you've thrown out that has zero relevance—I read a few of his books when I was a kid, just like I've read hundreds of others. Your blatant misattribution of things that have nothing to do with me, my reality, or anything else is just wrong. I refuse to react to your delusional assumptions about what "side" I'm on; I'll just tell you this: you're swinging wildly at a target that doesn't exist. Even if there is someone there, it certainly isn't me—you're just talking to some imaginary interlocutor.

That's what a "debate" looks like when I try to follow the chaos in your head—and that's being generous, because I have no intention of defending myself against your twisted, nonsensical projections.

All I can suggest is finding a good shrink.

You're just rambling again, trying to wrap up conclusions for me because half the stuff happening clearly goes right over your head...

Paul Rogers94 said:If I recall correctly, I said I presented or arrived at certain "final" conclusions, not that I invented water from nothing. You can agree or disagree—I’m fine with diverse opinions—but I didn't see any actual critique in your post regarding my specific claims, even your attempt to defend the idea that the physical universe doesn't depend on the subject, but rather what...?
It's pretty obvious that aside from being stuffed full of various "expert" theories, you lack clarity. You don't have a single foundation upon which to build a coherent thought about anything—it doesn't matter if someone agrees with you or not. It always ends with "that's how it's written in the Veda" or "that's what Buddha said"...
Here's an example: Can you answer my post in one or two coherent sentences? Something that actually hints at a logical idea or a cohesive thought related to the topic—something either I or someone else could actually respond to? But no, instead I have to deal with you and your total incompetence, all while I'm trying to go grab another bottle of wine.
If I'm not mistaken, we're actually trying to reach an agreement on whether the manifest universe is real or unreal... and if that's not what's happening, and we don't even know what the subject of this "debate" is, then there's no point in arguing further, because I fail to see how any of your rambling connects to anything.
And that little jab about Slavinski, along with everything else you've thrown out that has zero relevance—I read a few of his books when I was a kid, just like I've read hundreds of others. Your blatant misattribution of things that have nothing to do with me, my reality, or anything else is just wrong. I refuse to react to your delusional assumptions about what "side" I'm on; I'll just tell you this: you're swinging wildly at a target that doesn't exist. Even if there is someone there, it certainly isn't me—you're just talking to some imaginary interlocutor.

That's what a "debate" looks like when I try to follow the chaos in your head—and that's being generous, because I have no intention of defending myself against your twisted, nonsensical projections.

All I can suggest is finding a good shrink.

There are two perfectly coherent paragraphs right above this with clear critiques if you actually bother to look.

Paul Rogers94 said:If I recall correctly, I said I presented or arrived at certain "final" conclusions, not that I invented water from nothing. You can agree or disagree—I’m fine with diverse opinions—but I didn't see any actual critique in your post regarding my specific claims, even your attempt to defend the idea that the physical universe doesn't depend on the subject, but rather what...?
It's pretty obvious that aside from being stuffed full of various "expert" theories, you lack clarity. You don't have a single foundation upon which to build a coherent thought about anything—it doesn't matter if someone agrees with you or not. It always ends with "that's how it's written in the Veda" or "that's what Buddha said"...
Here's an example: Can you answer my post in one or two coherent sentences? Something that actually hints at a logical idea or a cohesive thought related to the topic—something either I or someone else could actually respond to? But no, instead I have to deal with you and your total incompetence, all while I'm trying to go grab another bottle of wine.
If I'm not mistaken, we're actually trying to reach an agreement on whether the manifest universe is real or unreal... and if that's not what's happening, and we don't even know what the subject of this "debate" is, then there's no point in arguing further, because I fail to see how any of your rambling connects to anything.
And that little jab about Slavinski, along with everything else you've thrown out that has zero relevance—I read a few of his books when I was a kid, just like I've read hundreds of others. Your blatant misattribution of things that have nothing to do with me, my reality, or anything else is just wrong. I refuse to react to your delusional assumptions about what "side" I'm on; I'll just tell you this: you're swinging wildly at a target that doesn't exist. Even if there is someone there, it certainly isn't me—you're just talking to some imaginary interlocutor.

That's what a "debate" looks like when I try to follow the chaos in your head—and that's being generous, because I have no intention of defending myself against your twisted, nonsensical projections.

All I can suggest is finding a good shrink.

It's clear you're missing the point on a lot of things.

Paul Rogers94 said:If I recall correctly, I said I presented or arrived at certain "final" conclusions, not that I invented water from nothing. You can agree or disagree—I’m fine with diverse opinions—but I didn't see any actual critique in your post regarding my specific claims, even your attempt to defend the idea that the physical universe doesn't depend on the subject, but rather what...?
It's pretty obvious that aside from being stuffed full of various "expert" theories, you lack clarity. You don't have a single foundation upon which to build a coherent thought about anything—it doesn't matter if someone agrees with you or not. It always ends with "that's how it's written in the Veda" or "that's what Buddha said"...
Here's an example: Can you answer my post in one or two coherent sentences? Something that actually hints at a logical idea or a cohesive thought related to the topic—something either I or someone else could actually respond to? But no, instead I have to deal with you and your total incompetence, all while I'm trying to go grab another bottle of wine.
If I'm not mistaken, we're actually trying to reach an agreement on whether the manifest universe is real or unreal... and if that's not what's happening, and we don't even know what the subject of this "debate" is, then there's no point in arguing further, because I fail to see how any of your rambling connects to anything.
And that little jab about Slavinski, along with everything else you've thrown out that has zero relevance—I read a few of his books when I was a kid, just like I've read hundreds of others. Your blatant misattribution of things that have nothing to do with me, my reality, or anything else is just wrong. I refuse to react to your delusional assumptions about what "side" I'm on; I'll just tell you this: you're swinging wildly at a target that doesn't exist. Even if there is someone there, it certainly isn't me—you're just talking to some imaginary interlocutor.

That's what a "debate" looks like when I try to follow the chaos in your head—and that's being generous, because I have no intention of defending myself against your twisted, nonsensical projections.

All I can suggest is finding a good shrink.

And why would you say "universe" instead of "space"? The question was super straightforward...

Paul Rogers94 said:If I recall correctly, I said I presented or arrived at certain "final" conclusions, not that I invented water from nothing. You can agree or disagree—I’m fine with diverse opinions—but I didn't see any actual critique in your post regarding my specific claims, even your attempt to defend the idea that the physical universe doesn't depend on the subject, but rather what...?
It's pretty obvious that aside from being stuffed full of various "expert" theories, you lack clarity. You don't have a single foundation upon which to build a coherent thought about anything—it doesn't matter if someone agrees with you or not. It always ends with "that's how it's written in the Veda" or "that's what Buddha said"...
Here's an example: Can you answer my post in one or two coherent sentences? Something that actually hints at a logical idea or a cohesive thought related to the topic—something either I or someone else could actually respond to? But no, instead I have to deal with you and your total incompetence, all while I'm trying to go grab another bottle of wine.
If I'm not mistaken, we're actually trying to reach an agreement on whether the manifest universe is real or unreal... and if that's not what's happening, and we don't even know what the subject of this "debate" is, then there's no point in arguing further, because I fail to see how any of your rambling connects to anything.
And that little jab about Slavinski, along with everything else you've thrown out that has zero relevance—I read a few of his books when I was a kid, just like I've read hundreds of others. Your blatant misattribution of things that have nothing to do with me, my reality, or anything else is just wrong. I refuse to react to your delusional assumptions about what "side" I'm on; I'll just tell you this: you're swinging wildly at a target that doesn't exist. Even if there is someone there, it certainly isn't me—you're just talking to some imaginary interlocutor.

That's what a "debate" looks like when I try to follow the chaos in your head—and that's being generous, because I have no intention of defending myself against your twisted, nonsensical projections.

All I can suggest is finding a good shrink.

The chaos is in your head + you just keep pushing these wrong assumptions that have zero to do with what we're actually talking about...

Paul Rogers94 said:If I recall correctly, I said I presented or arrived at certain "final" conclusions, not that I invented water from nothing. You can agree or disagree—I’m fine with diverse opinions—but I didn't see any actual critique in your post regarding my specific claims, even your attempt to defend the idea that the physical universe doesn't depend on the subject, but rather what...?
It's pretty obvious that aside from being stuffed full of various "expert" theories, you lack clarity. You don't have a single foundation upon which to build a coherent thought about anything—it doesn't matter if someone agrees with you or not. It always ends with "that's how it's written in the Veda" or "that's what Buddha said"...
Here's an example: Can you answer my post in one or two coherent sentences? Something that actually hints at a logical idea or a cohesive thought related to the topic—something either I or someone else could actually respond to? But no, instead I have to deal with you and your total incompetence, all while I'm trying to go grab another bottle of wine.
If I'm not mistaken, we're actually trying to reach an agreement on whether the manifest universe is real or unreal... and if that's not what's happening, and we don't even know what the subject of this "debate" is, then there's no point in arguing further, because I fail to see how any of your rambling connects to anything.
And that little jab about Slavinski, along with everything else you've thrown out that has zero relevance—I read a few of his books when I was a kid, just like I've read hundreds of others. Your blatant misattribution of things that have nothing to do with me, my reality, or anything else is just wrong. I refuse to react to your delusional assumptions about what "side" I'm on; I'll just tell you this: you're swinging wildly at a target that doesn't exist. Even if there is someone there, it certainly isn't me—you're just talking to some imaginary interlocutor.

That's what a "debate" looks like when I try to follow the chaos in your head—and that's being generous, because I have no intention of defending myself against your twisted, nonsensical projections.

All I can suggest is finding a good shrink.

Man, you've always done this. Every time a real discussion starts, you immediately pivot to insults and try to send people to therapists. You act like you're some kind of authority on the subject, probably because your instructor runs some cheap $200 psychology seminar online and now you think you're a pro. We've been down this road before, and I already told you what I think about that kind of behavior and what it says about the person doing it. I see you're still at it. Maybe work on some basic debating skills first, then feel free to chime in... When you run out of arguments and actual knowledge, I guess you just settle for throwing insults and suggesting doctors (hope they're actually good, since you seem to know them personally).😁

David Vaughn75 said:Concepts and preconceptions are just mental categories—they don't exist out there in the physical cosmos without a mind to house them.

If there isn't anyone around to actually experience a concept coming to life, then the concept itself doesn't even exist.

Look, if you've got a blind guy and an apple in a room, and you put that apple five feet away from him where he can't sense it at all, does that mean—by your "logic"—the apple objectively ceases to exist just because he isn't perceiving it subjectively? I’m telling you, someone's subjective perception has absolutely nothing to do with objective reality or the existence of the universe.

You had your chance, but you just proved you're nothing more than a bottom-tier hack. Get lost—I don't care about a single word you write, and I certainly don't plan on reading another one of your posts ever again. You don't exist to me... go find some loser to vent to, because you're clearly just a pathetic, spineless coward who does nothing but sit around and watch life pass you by.

Paul Rogers94 said:I'm honestly thrilled that someone finally grasps the obvious: this bottle of wine sitting in front of me is just data processed by my visual cortex, yet it only truly becomes "wine" once it exists as an idea in my mind...

Look, someone manufactured it, someone bottled it, someone shipped it to the store, someone stocked the shelf, and then someone bought it.
Your whole thesis is just some misguided, narcissistic nonsense.

Paul Rogers94 said:You had your chance, but you just proved you're nothing more than a bottom-tier hack. Get lost—I don't care about a single word you write, and I certainly don't plan on reading another one of your posts ever again. You don't exist to me... go find some loser to vent to, because you're clearly just a pathetic, spineless coward who does nothing but sit around and watch life pass you by.

🤣
Seriously, how old are you? Did you ever actually finish kindergarten, or maybe even elementary school? It’s hilarious how you talk about "spirituality" and "mind control" when your actual ability to argue or hold a conversation is basically zero. That's just who you are. And what "chance" are you giving me? Like, really? Especially after those little meltdowns you had in our last few chats. Last time, you spent like four pages straight posting absolute nonsense, acting like some big-shot shrink trying to psychoanalyze everyone else just to dodge the actual point of the discussion. And you're doing the exact same thing right now. You actually convinced yourself that you were doing me a favor by "giving me a chance"? 😁 That's just ridiculous.

lonestag15 said:It’s pretty much the same deal in Hinduism—this idea that you take the whole, undivided reality and split it into three parts to make sense of things: the subject (the person doing the thinking), the object, and the actual experience of that object... turns out that's how everything starts.
Predrag Kezele — 7 chakras, 7 states of consciousness

If I’m allowed to interpret that "concept" as more of an actual event... I feel like I’ve already heard that whole "if a tree falls in the woods and nobody's there to hear it, does it make a sound?" thing way too many times...
It’s honestly ridiculous to me—I mean, that whole situation doesn't even need an observer just for the sound of wood hitting wood to be a constant thing...

I've heard this question tossed around a million times already—honestly, I just don't get the logic behind it...

Well, even that sound—once processed through the auditory system—only becomes "something" once it hits the mind as an idea. The whole story about the tree falling is just added imagination.

neonmarlin39 said:🤣
Seriously, how old are you? Did you ever actually finish kindergarten, or maybe even elementary school? It’s hilarious how you talk about "spirituality" and "mind control" when your actual ability to argue or hold a conversation is basically zero. That's just who you are. And what "chance" are you giving me? Like, really? Especially after those little meltdowns you had in our last few chats. Last time, you spent like four pages straight posting absolute nonsense, acting like some big-shot shrink trying to psychoanalyze everyone else just to dodge the actual point of the discussion. And you're doing the exact same thing right now. You actually convinced yourself that you were doing me a favor by "giving me a chance"? 😁 That's just ridiculous.

I was doing it desperately and pointlessly just to show you how much of a psycho you are—not because I'm playing pretend psychologist.

What you're pulling isn't a coherent discussion about spirituality; it's textbook psychopathic gaslighting. I've dealt with this type before...

A narcissistic psychopath feeds on souls and leaves nothing but wreckage in their wake—the same wreckage that eventually consumes them. I've seen it happen...

Paul Rogers94 said:I was doing it desperately and pointlessly just to show you how much of a psycho you are—not because I'm playing pretend psychologist.

What you're pulling isn't a coherent discussion about spirituality; it's textbook psychopathic gaslighting. I've dealt with this type before...

A narcissistic psychopath feeds on souls and leaves nothing but wreckage in their wake—the same wreckage that eventually consumes them. I've seen it happen...

It’s funny, you really think that by throwing around these "psycho" insults, you’re somehow pointing out everyone else's issues. Honestly? It just makes you look like the one who needs help if you can't see that. You seem totally obsessed with psychiatrists, too—always bringing them up, constantly suggesting people go see one, or trying to slap some DIY diagnosis on someone the second you run out of actual points to make. Usually, that happens after maybe two sentences at most. Most of the time, your posts are just a mess of insults and whatever weird fantasies you've got going on, with zero real arguments to back it up. You can't even deny it; if you actually sat down and looked at all your outbursts together, it would be pretty obvious.

Paul Rogers94 said:I was doing it desperately and pointlessly just to show you how much of a psycho you are—not because I'm playing pretend psychologist.

What you're pulling isn't a coherent discussion about spirituality; it's textbook psychopathic gaslighting. I've dealt with this type before...

A narcissistic psychopath feeds on souls and leaves nothing but wreckage in their wake—the same wreckage that eventually consumes them. I've seen it happen...

Man, just stay away from those psychedelics. You can see they’re doing you no favors...

I’d say we’ve got the most vampires on these forums, though I guess it works both ways

lonestag15 said:It’s pretty much the same deal in Hinduism—this idea that you take the whole, undivided reality and split it into three parts to make sense of things: the subject (the person doing the thinking), the object, and the actual experience of that object... turns out that's how everything starts.
Predrag Kezele — 7 chakras, 7 states of consciousness

If I’m allowed to interpret that "concept" as more of an actual event... I feel like I’ve already heard that whole "if a tree falls in the woods and nobody's there to hear it, does it make a sound?" thing way too many times...
It’s honestly ridiculous to me—I mean, that whole situation doesn't even need an observer just for the sound of wood hitting wood to be a constant thing...

I've heard this question tossed around a million times already—honestly, I just don't get the logic behind it...

Look, without a witness, nothing gets heard because there isn't anyone there to process it. Hearing is an experience—and how is some massive void supposed to "experience" anything?

neonmarlin39 said:Look, if you've got a blind guy and an apple in a room, and you put that apple five feet away from him where he can't sense it at all, does that mean—by your "logic"—the apple objectively ceases to exist just because he isn't perceiving it subjectively? I’m telling you, someone's subjective perception has absolutely nothing to do with objective reality or the existence of the universe.

The apple exists, sure, but the *concept* of the apple doesn't.

If there were nobody left in the entire universe, then nobody would be around to establish any facts about that universe at all.

Thomas Nelson25 said:I’d say we’ve got the most vampires on these forums, though I guess it works both ways

Nah, it definitely doesn't go both ways. You've got people who actually know their stuff—folks who want to share knowledge and learn from others... and then you have this crowd that just exists to cynically stir the pot, all to satisfy some weird need to feel "smarter" than everyone else. Honestly? They feed on negativity and conflict just like vampires—probably because they can't handle their real lives... For those other guys, there's zero point in engaging, and I don't get why none of these threads ever stay constructive. It just turns into constant bickering and ego-tripping... This sub used to be top-tier ten years ago, too...

neonmarlin39 said:It’s funny, you really think that by throwing around these "psycho" insults, you’re somehow pointing out everyone else's issues. Honestly? It just makes you look like the one who needs help if you can't see that. You seem totally obsessed with psychiatrists, too—always bringing them up, constantly suggesting people go see one, or trying to slap some DIY diagnosis on someone the second you run out of actual points to make. Usually, that happens after maybe two sentences at most. Most of the time, your posts are just a mess of insults and whatever weird fantasies you've got going on, with zero real arguments to back it up. You can't even deny it; if you actually sat down and looked at all your outbursts together, it would be pretty obvious.

Man, just stay away from those psychedelics. You can see they’re doing you no favors...

Brilliant...

You’re acting just like this Guilman guy—constantly dropping these little jabs and low blows in the comments, and then when someone finally snaps at you, suddenly *they're* the psycho... meanwhile, you completely miss how you're constantly baiting people with petty sarcasm and endless arguing—which seems to be your whole diet—instead of actually reading the posts and trying to grasp the context.

You're a perfect example. I mention I've been practicing Kundalini lifting and how it's boosted my creativity, cut my need for sleep, and given me an overall energy surge. Your first instinct? To comment that "Kundalini" is a feminine noun. Bravo! (Look, I know about Shakti too, but I just wrote it casually, while you're just hunting for any excuse to prove a point... not even sure what you're trying to prove, probably just being pedantic). Then you drop a smiley face to mock what was said... and then you act shocked when someone calls you out on it, totally blind to your own behavior—just a tiny, insignificant little jerk constantly nitpicking everyone else...

David Vaughn75 said:Look, without a witness, nothing gets heard because there isn't anyone there to process it. Hearing is an experience—and how is some massive void supposed to "experience" anything?

The apple exists, sure, but the *concept* of the apple doesn't.

If there were nobody left in the entire universe, then nobody would be around to establish any facts about that universe at all.

Look, fine, I get what you mean about "hearing" in terms of processing sound waves—since there's no one around to process them... but the sound itself still exists regardless of whether someone is listening or not... which makes this whole philosophical angle feel kind of paradoxical to me.

Paul Rogers94 said:Well, even that sound—once processed through the auditory system—only becomes "something" once it hits the mind as an idea. The whole story about the tree falling is just added imagination.

Yeah, strictly if you're looking at it from a subjective angle...

Underestimating and overestimating.