Started by frozengull2 · · 👁 10 views · 126 replies
…
frozengull2 said:wearyowl29;What's missing from a personal legend?
Credibility.
It’s just more of that new-age nonsense that sounds incredibly deep or heartwarming on paper... but it doesn't actually mean a damn thing.
Most of the time, it just knocks the legs out from under people who are already leaning into that pathetic, self-centered kind of auto-hypnosis.
Why do you even ask?
frozengull2;41942438 said:Credibility.
Everyone is innocent until proven guilty...It’s just some brand new nonsense that sounds incredibly moving—totally heart-wrenching, really—but actually means absolutely nothing.
It isn't meant for those who haven't quite managed to shake off that herd mentality yet...Most of the time, it's the people leaning into that pathetic, self-centered kind of auto-hypnosis that really knock you sideways.
But it won't touch those folks who crave that group security found in a crowd, all wrapped up in that hysterical "love everyone, but only on my terms" attitude...
This isn't for people who haven't managed to shake off that whole herd mentality yet...
It doesn't bother the folks who live for that groupthink safety net, acting all hysterical with that "love everyone, but only on my terms" vibe.
Daniel Castillo11 said:There are countless reasons why people take aim at Christianity: you could point to its history, the alleged falsifications, the rigid dogmas, or doctrines that often seem nonsensical or constantly shifting. Then there’s the darker side—the historical persecution of non-believers, the Inquisition, the sheer hypocrisy, and so on. Beyond that, people push back against stances on more everyday matters, like marriage, contraception, abortion, sexual orientation, or even political leanings...
But I suspect the biggest issue is that Christian values, in theory, are fundamentally different from how they actually manifest in the real world. To be honest, I haven't personally crossed paths with a Christian who truly lives out their faith in a way that inspires envy through their moral or spiritual outlook toward others. For most, it seems to be little more than a beautiful story, much like so many other things in life. People naturally criticize what presents itself as being the complete opposite of what it claims to represent. There are endless examples of this, but I don't feel the need to list them all here.
And John makes a fair point; the actions and attitudes of Church leaders throughout history tell us just as much about the organization itself. If the very people tasked with promoting the faith can't seem to uphold its moral and doctrinal principles, then the faith itself can hardly be considered pure. Even if they did adhere to them, it wouldn't necessarily mean those principles are grounded in reality or practical application, nor does it mean they are inherently good simply because they are difficult to follow.
I'm not particularly fond of New Age movements either, yet one has to admit that New Age thought helped shape many liberal ideals regarding freedom, individualism, free speech, and creative expression. Had it not been for the New Age influence and the hippie movement of the 1960s, our social landscape might look quite different today. When discussing literature and cults, "New Age" is an incredibly broad term; it's a massive cultural and sociological phenomenon. It’s clear there was a deep-seated need to distance oneself from traditional ancestral religions, a void that was eventually filled by new belief systems and doctrines that are essentially incompatible with tradition. It’s much like the tension we see between the left and the right on the American political stage.
bluemason3 said:Just like New Zealand 😁
wearyowl29 said:What’s wrong with finding your own personal legend?frozengull2 said:wearyowl29;What's missing from a personal legend?
Credibility.
It’s just more of that new-age nonsense that sounds incredibly deep or heartwarming on paper... but it doesn't actually mean a damn thing.
Most of the time, it just knocks the legs out from under people who are already leaning into that pathetic, self-centered kind of auto-hypnosis.
Why do you even ask?
casualtiger2 said:
Anthony Hayes2 said:You probably misread the intent—which happens when people cling blindly to dogma.
A personal legend is actually quite credible, contrary to what you think.
Instead of just blending into the crowd and following the herd, everyone should try to find their own "life story."
Basically, figure out who you are, look at where you're standing in this world, and live according to your deepest needs based on that reality.
That's what a "personal legend" is, and there's nothing wrong with it.
Sure, someone might see it as an egocentric trip, but there’s no real difference between that and New Age stuff, Christianity, Islam, or Hinduism.
Christianity isn't any more "authentic" (whatever that implies) than a person's drive to explore, understand, or follow other paths.
PS
I honestly wonder how someone smart and sensitive can get behind teachings—full of violent, outdated elements—and an institution that has historically caused so much harm.
casualtiger2 said:
casualtiger2 said:People were asked why they vote for Party X when they've been stealing for a decade. They just say, "The old guard is already fat; the newcomers still need to get rich."😉
Old religions have had their dark eras, but over time they've become diluted or rigid. There is no longer a need to spread truth through fire and sword, though it still happens—look at Islamic fundamentalism or the "crusades" for oil in the Middle East.
"New Paths" still have to face the sharp turns, steep cliffs, and dark alleys where you might get mugged for a few bucks. Sometimes exploring uncharted territory is a mistake; sticking to proven patterns is safer. You should experiment, sure, but know the risks. During the hippie movement, chasing new paths via drugs was common in subcultures, only for people to later discover the consequences—liver failure, brain damage, death.
Regarding the "personal legend," if you know people, 99% of the time it's just an ego trip. That 1% that is actually worth something is rare. Is it worth valuing 99% of foolish innovations just because of that 1%? It’s like small Silicon Valley startups. Only 1% become massive successes; the rest fail. No bank is going to hand a startup a million-dollar loan just so they can "play around."🤣
northernowl11 said:You probably misread the intent—which happens when people cling blindly to dogma.
A personal legend is actually quite credible, contrary to what you think.
Instead of just blending into the crowd and following the herd, everyone should try to find their own "life story."
Basically, figure out who you are, look at where you're standing in this world, and live according to your deepest needs based on that reality.
That's what a "personal legend" is, and there's nothing wrong with it.
Sure, someone might see it as an egocentric trip, but there’s no real difference between that and New Age stuff, Christianity, Islam, or Hinduism.
Christianity isn't any more "authentic" (whatever that implies) than a person's drive to explore, understand, or follow other paths.
PS
I honestly wonder how someone smart and sensitive can get behind teachings—full of violent, outdated elements—and an institution that has historically caused so much harm.
Anthony Hayes2 said:I find myself asking the same thing: how can someone truly spiritual fail to recognize the essence of Christian doctrine? How can an intelligent, empathetic person get lost in semantics, mistaking the abuse of teachings for the teachings themselves, instead of resonating with the universal messages that lie at their very core?
Can one be authentic enough that belonging to a community (or a "flock," if you prefer the derogatory term used here) doesn't compromise their individuality? It’s a double-edged sword, isn't it? Even when a person physically distances themselves from the group, they remain a part of it. In that sense, there is no such thing as a solitary legend. Any individual "achievement"—spiritual or material—is ultimately the result of centuries, or even millennia, of collective human effort and insight.
Then again, everyone follows their own path, and every path serves its purpose in the end. A Christian might wander into the detours of "quasi-spirituality" just like anyone else.
We are all searching for Glass City, but perhaps we need to travel to India or to Lourdes to realize that it resides within us, and always has. But then again, what can you do? 🙂
Anthony Hayes2 said:I find myself asking the same thing: how can someone truly spiritual fail to recognize the essence of Christian doctrine? How can an intelligent, empathetic person get lost in semantics, mistaking the abuse of teachings for the teachings themselves, instead of resonating with the universal messages that lie at their very core?
Can one be authentic enough that belonging to a community (or a "flock," if you prefer the derogatory term used here) doesn't compromise their individuality? It’s a double-edged sword, isn't it? Even when a person physically distances themselves from the group, they remain a part of it. In that sense, there is no such thing as a solitary legend. Any individual "achievement"—spiritual or material—is ultimately the result of centuries, or even millennia, of collective human effort and insight.
Then again, everyone follows their own path, and every path serves its purpose in the end. A Christian might wander into the detours of "quasi-spirituality" just like anyone else.
We are all searching for Glass City, but perhaps we need to travel to India or to Lourdes to realize that it resides within us, and always has. But then again, what can you do? 🙂
northernowl11 said:It makes sense to the person who has chosen that path, and we shouldn't dismiss that. I believe any path can be valid and lead to the destination (eventually), provided the underlying intention is pure.
How much time meditation actually takes might be better answered by those who practice it regularly... but I know people who have meditated for years and contribute immensely to their communities through their work. For them, meditation provides stability and focus, which is incredibly useful in any profession.
I don't know any "failures" who practice meditation, but I certainly know plenty of people who clock in from 9 to 5 but only actually work two or three hours. And then, on Sunday, they head to Mass. To me, that is a form of "pseudo-spirituality."
Practicing spirituality doesn't just mean going to church or traveling to India—it manifests in how you act every single day.
True spirituality is absolutely applicable to our material reality; in fact, that might be the very key to recognizing it. We make choices at every moment—and I agree that each of us must be mindful of the risks and responsibilities those choices carry.
Those who actually practice meditation might have a better handle on the time commitment. I know people who have meditated for years and contribute significantly to their communities. For them, it provides a focus that aids their professional lives.
I don't know any "failures" who meditate. However, I know plenty of people who clock in from 8 to 4 but only actually work for a few hours before heading to church on Sunday. That's just a hollow version of spirituality.
To me, practicing spirituality isn't just about attending mass or traveling to India—it shows up in how you live your daily life.
True spirituality applies to the material world; that's perhaps how you recognize it. Every moment involves a choice, and we must all own the risks and responsibilities those choices entail.
northernowl11 said:You probably misread the intent—which happens when people cling blindly to dogma.
A personal legend is actually quite credible, contrary to what you think.
Instead of just blending into the crowd and following the herd, everyone should try to find their own "life story."
Basically, figure out who you are, look at where you're standing in this world, and live according to your deepest needs based on that reality.
That's what a "personal legend" is, and there's nothing wrong with it.
Sure, someone might see it as an egocentric trip, but there’s no real difference between that and New Age stuff, Christianity, Islam, or Hinduism.
Christianity isn't any more "authentic" (whatever that implies) than a person's drive to explore, understand, or follow other paths.
PS
I honestly wonder how someone smart and sensitive can get behind teachings—full of violent, outdated elements—and an institution that has historically caused so much harm.
Is there anyone out there actually authentic enough that belonging to a group—or a "herd," if we’re being cynical—doesn't kill their individuality? You know, like "sink or swim," right? Even when you physically walk away from the crowd, you’re still part of it. It's just how it works.
In that sense, personal legends don't really exist. Any "achievement"—spiritual, material, whatever—is just the end result of centuries, maybe even millennia, of collective human effort and insight.
Look, everyone’s on their own journey—and honestly, they all lead somewhere. Even a Christian might wander off into some "quasi-spiritual" rabbit hole every now and then. It happens to the best of us.
Anthony Hayes2 said:Here is how I see it. In Jesus's time, plenty of people were preaching similar messages. Critics of Christianity always point to Marduk or pagan spring renewal rituals, and so on. What was actually unique about Christianity that allowed it to triumph over its contemporaries? Some quality that resonated with the masses. That doesn't necessarily mean it was "the best," just that it satisfied a large group—providing enough substance for them to find a part of themselves within it, while they filled in the rest to complete the collective body of the faith. New Age lacks such a cohesive body. It’s just a mishmash of incompatible beliefs held together by a shared resistance to Western cultural mainstream and a suitability for commerce. From this, I conclude that the New Age isn't built on a spiritual foundation, but a commercial one. It was manufactured by a capitalist society born from the technological and industrial revolutions. A commercial base required a spirituality that could be more easily marketed, tailored to its own needs rather than following the template of Christianity. Today, the spiritual foundation of the West isn't original Christianity anymore; even that has been forced to adapt to the new market-driven mainstream. And that mainstream is best described as...
Freemasonry. Just another layer of the old shadows.
Freemasonry isn't actually a mass movement. It's just tight-knit cliques and elites playing games. What even is it? For some, it’s pure Satanism—an obsession with power and wealth masquerading as liberalism. It feels like a form of occultism rooted in pre-Christian beliefs, a mainstream branch that split from Christianity much like Christianity once split from Judaism. To the masses, this Masonic establishment churns out New Age movements—a pagan mishmash that works because people are too simple-minded to grasp anything deeper, making them easy to manipulate. Sure, there's quality in New Age thought, but finding it requires serious people. Christianity holds more weight because it still has dedicated people—priests, at least—guiding the public toward being better. New Age circles are mostly just manipulators selling themselves as spiritual leaders.
It isn't just about most innovations being moronic. It’s about "human capital." A mass religion finds it easier to recruit high-quality people to spread its message. People talk about the crisis in the Catholic Church lately—how nobody wants to be a priest anymore. But a mass religion also has a built-in skeptical body that rejects insane ideas. Take the flagellants, for instance. They practiced self-flagellation until they bled, yet eventually, society tossed that "innovation" aside as madness. Or imagine if someone in the Catholic Church suggested cannibalism to honor Jesus's sacrifice; even in parts of Latin America, people might accept almost anything, including literal crucifixion. Christianity went through an early era of truly deranged innovations. There were times when people would actually hack off limbs or genitals because they thought it was what the Bible commanded to avoid sin. Just throwing them around. Ridiculous.
I see another issue here. In the tech or service sectors, bad innovations get rejected by the market almost immediately if they fail to meet basic needs. People move on quickly. But a flawed innovation in spirituality might not be discarded for fifty years—plenty of time to waste an entire lifetime on nonsense. There's a high risk of squandering your life on a delusion or someone’s ego trip. And frankly, spiritual direction matters more than whether you drive a car with rounded or angular bodywork.
The problem with New Path is this obsession with mass appeal and trying to force its way into the mainstream. You can't have "mass genius." It isn't for everyone; it's for the exceptional few. From a market perspective, not everyone can be an entrepreneur—that's maybe 2% of the population—and of that 2%, only 5% actually build something meaningful. Entrepreneurship can't be the mainstream industry itself, though it serves as the engine that feeds it.
New Path cannot be mainstream, nor can it be mass-market. If it remained esoteric, it would be fine; it would simply be the pursuit of exceptional individuals. Trying to push New Path onto the masses feels like nothing more than Masonic manipulation.
Transcendental Meditation is a blend of several different traditions, making it a new practice in itself. One issue is that it requires more time than saying the Rosary or attending Mass, so it becomes incompatible with a job and a "normal life."
casualtiger2 said:I find myself asking the same thing: how can someone truly spiritual fail to recognize the essence of Christian doctrine? How can an intelligent, empathetic person get lost in semantics, mistaking the abuse of teachings for the teachings themselves, instead of resonating with the universal messages that lie at their very core?
Can one be authentic enough that belonging to a community (or a "flock," if you prefer the derogatory term used here) doesn't compromise their individuality? It’s a double-edged sword, isn't it? Even when a person physically distances themselves from the group, they remain a part of it. In that sense, there is no such thing as a solitary legend. Any individual "achievement"—spiritual or material—is ultimately the result of centuries, or even millennia, of collective human effort and insight.
Then again, everyone follows their own path, and every path serves its purpose in the end. A Christian might wander into the detours of "quasi-spirituality" just like anyone else.
We are all searching for Glass City, but perhaps we need to travel to India or to Lourdes to realize that it resides within us, and always has. But then again, what can you do? 🙂
Is there anyone out there actually authentic enough that belonging to a group—or a "herd," if we’re being cynical—doesn't kill their individuality? You know, like "sink or swim," right? Even when you physically walk away from the crowd, you’re still part of it. It's just how it works.
In that sense, personal legends don't really exist. Any "achievement"—spiritual, material, whatever—is just the end result of centuries, maybe even millennia, of collective human effort and insight.
Look, everyone’s on their own journey—and honestly, they all lead somewhere. Even a Christian might wander off into some "quasi-spiritual" rabbit hole every now and then. It happens to the best of us.
| Some Muslims argue that those terrorists who kill in Allah's name aren't actually true believers at all. It’s all a lost cause, really. Everything churches and believers have done up to this point? None of it represents true faith or actual doctrine. |
| In essence, you’re just retrofitting ancient teachings to fit modern ethical standards rather than the other way around. You take whatever our current understanding of human potential and perfection happens to be, and then claim it was part of the faith all along. It’s a convenient way to cherry-pick the good stuff while conveniently overlooking the atrocities written right there in the Bible or the Quran—not to mention the actual crimes committed by believers and their "divine" institutions throughout history. So, some people slap a label on it like Christianity, others call it Islam, and some go with Hinduism—all to describe these fundamental human values and ideals. But isn't it true that those principles mostly just come down to being raised with a decent moral compass at home? Even in atheist households, doesn't the core of it all really just stem from how you were taught to act? All that negativity, all those failures? That’s not part of your doctrine. Those aren't "true believers." No, it’s always someone else—because in that mindset, hell is always inhabited by everyone else. I honestly don't understand how anyone can fall for this—how you can try to dress up and polish something that simply cannot be beautified. Chirp. |
| This isn't about whether God exists or what His nature might be. This is about flawed, outdated, and at times, borderline violent doctrines—and the actual impact that following them has on people's lives. |
In that sense, you don't really exist either.
Only humanity exists.
Once again, from my point of view, Christians don't have a monopoly on true spirituality, nor are all other paths inherently misguided attempts at it.
You held a monopoly on the truth for far too long, which is why you think you're the ones qualified to judge it for everyone else. Well, you aren't.
frozengull2 said:I’m writing this because I’m honestly just fed up with the blatant propaganda being shoved down our throats under the guise of "Christian values";
"The roots of faith, history built on the foundations of people like this..."
Sure, the topic shifted over to religion, but what was left hanging in the air—the stuff nobody wants to address—was that massive stench of hypocrisy and double standards trailing behind it.
It’s that classic New Age vibe where someone tries to lecture everyone else on morality while they’re busy sweeping their own skeletons deep into the closet back home.
I think it’s totally unfair, and we really need to have a real conversation about this.
The whole thing is basically the root cause for why so many people end up obsessed with all this spiritual nonsense.
To make my point, I’m going to bring up Carlos Castaneda, who is pretty much the poster child for this New Age garbage.
What really got under my skin is how the person who started this thread is clearly totally obsessed with him.
Okay.
Look, I haven't said anything until now because, hey, everyone’s entitled to their little obsessions, right?
But after reading her post, I just can't stay quiet anymore—I have to put this into some actual perspective;
And that perspective is this: she’s all about throwing "criticism" at Christianity (like, "Oh, let me show you how wrong you are"), yet she goes completely silent when it comes to the things she’s actually obsessed with.
Why is that?
Even the birds on the wire know that Castaneda was nothing but a con artist and a total fake who manipulated his followers straight into ruin.
And when I say ruin, I mean literal death.
These aren't just my random opinions; these are facts based on what people who actually spent years with him have testified to.
I’ve attached some links to an incredible BBC documentary on the subject (it's a seriously objective look at his life and his lies, featuring all those firsthand accounts I mentioned).
Once you watch it, you'll see what a complete circus and total mystification the whole Castaneda thing actually is.
He was just some ordinary, manipulative old man surrounded by New Age fanatics—mostly lonely, emotionally lost people—some of whom ended up meeting incredibly tragic ends.
It’s going to be interesting to watch this train wreck unfold;
People swinging a sledgehammer at traditional values, while simultaneously trying to dodge or make excuses for their own provenly fake obsessions.
Ugh, so frustrating!
Pay close attention to the woman named Alexander Nury at the start of the second clip.
Believe it or not, this woman claims she came directly from the astral plane to meet Castaneda!?
She didn't grow up in the real world; she supposedly just "appeared" a few years ago. At least, that's what he wrote in his book "dream art."
She’s supposed to be that "Blue Tracker" character he writes about... but in reality, she was just a 19-year-old waitress that the world-famous Carlos (who every fanatic wanted to meet) easily seduced at a restaurant in California.
After she took her own life, the police determined it was just a tragic case involving a girl named Dolly Parton... a girl with a rough background and parents, a messed-up childhood, who was naive and way too young to fall into Castaneda's web of lies.
Can you even believe that!?
The film basically rips the mask off Carlos's face and gives SilentWarrior a chance to clear up any doubts about whether there's any hypocrisy involved by just accepting what's shown.
It also paints a true picture of the man that so many people base their entire belief systems on.
And the worst part? People who are blinded by this stuff actually try to lecture others on "what's right and what's wrong."
I know I might be coming off a bit harsh, but sometimes you just have to slam your fist on the table and give someone a reality check.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCqYr...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FrB5...feature=relmfu
ps.
I absolutely cannot stand transparent propaganda and two-faced behavior.
nimblewolf11 said:To start things off,
the church itself has a centuries-old habit of hijacking the very spiritual values they claim to represent—values they often fail to actually understand! However, the winds are shifting today, favoring the creation of new ways of thinking where fresh, natural values can emerge—which, let's be honest, is just the natural longing of the human spirit. This stands in stark contrast to those artificial, processed constructs of distorted and made-up values that have been shaped solely to serve specific interests throughout history, usually at the expense of the common person who was told they somehow deserved their poverty and suffering.
...on this thread, your posts just radiate destructive rage... it sounds like the wounded negativity of an ego!
Shouldn't the fundamental value of Christianity be love—the spreading of love...? Where are these "Christian values" actually being put into practice?? How can something universal (God, Christ, Love...) be institutionalized and claimed as the private property of a specific group? In what era of history did Christianity actually live out those values???
Why has Christianity opted for intolerance, hypocrisy, labeling, and mocking those who disagree...? Why do representatives of Christianity get so offended when they receive constructive criticism? Where did the tolerance go—if it ever even existed regarding the original message?
The answer to this and many similar questions is simple and can be summed up in just a few words! Christianity, along with most other religions (new, old, small, large, whatever...), is in constant conflict with one another and the rest of the world through all sorts of sneaky tactics. It's for an obvious reason: throughout their entire existence, they haven't been able to rise above their animalistic (lower) nature—that exaggerated, selfish consciousness and the temperament of a tiny ego. By definition, that is an immature consciousness: the ego of puffed-up leaders driving a massive number of unconscious individuals, modeling their lives however they please.
For instance, here is something from the well-known arsenal of the "holy" high officials (to use their favorite repetitive phrasing): "God loves you more than the birds of the air and other non-human creatures, and since He takes care of them by providing food without worry, you shouldn't worry about what you will eat either..."
Who, exactly, is God supposed to love more or less? Who does He prefer? And whose creatures are these birds if they aren't God's? Which God is categorizing creatures by value, if not a human, judgmental mind!
Anyone—even someone blind—can see there's no real benefit to this (it's mostly just harmful). Masses of people are being misled by twisted interpretations, their minds are being manipulated, and they're practicing an emotional relationship with God... prayer becomes more like begging God for some senseless personal gain rather than seeking progress or awakening one's inner values (potential)......
northernowl11 said:Who actually claimed that the core essence is Christian? Or maybe it’s Buddhist, or Islamic... you finish the thought. Is it possible for the essence to be anything else? Whose?
Quincy:Of course they aren't. There’s this claim floating around that Al-Qaeda draws inspiration from the Bhagavad Gita. But what do you really think? Does the text itself incite violence? Or is the real issue just the twisted nature of the human mind—the kind of mind that burns people at the stake, impales them, or flies planes into skyscrapers, all in the name of God?
Some Muslims argue that those terrorists who kill in Allah's name aren't actually true believers at all.
It’s all a lost cause, really. Everything churches and believers have done up to this point? None of it represents true faith or actual doctrine.
Quincy:Look, you aren't actually talking to me here. You're addressing a religious dogmatist, and I’ll be the first to admit there are plenty of those around.
In essence, you’re just retrofitting ancient teachings to fit modern ethical standards rather than the other way around. You take whatever our current understanding of human potential and perfection happens to be, and then claim it was part of the faith all along. It’s a convenient way to cherry-pick the good stuff while conveniently overlooking the atrocities written right there in the Bible or the Quran—not to mention the actual crimes committed by believers and their "divine" institutions throughout history.
So, some people slap a label on it like Christianity, others call it Islam, and some go with Hinduism—all to describe these fundamental human values and ideals. But isn't it true that those principles mostly just come down to being raised with a decent moral compass at home? Even in atheist households, doesn't the core of it all really just stem from how you were taught to act?
All that negativity, all those failures? That’s not part of your doctrine. Those aren't "true believers." No, it’s always someone else—because in that mindset, hell is always inhabited by everyone else.
I honestly don't understand how anyone can fall for this—how you can try to dress up and polish something that simply cannot be beautified.
Chirp.
As far as I'm concerned, there is no "us" versus "them," at least not in the way you’re framing it. I see you and me on the same side of this, and frankly, it’s a shame you don't see it that way too.
Quincy:Ultimately, responsibility lies with the individual. This is my response to Fyodor—if your intentions are pure, or if your soul remains untainted, you will naturally recognize what is divine, or whatever the atheists choose to call that higher power, within any teaching. The path to enlightenment is about overcoming the ego, not feeding it.
This isn't about whether God exists or what His nature might be. This is about flawed, outdated, and at times, borderline violent doctrines—and the actual impact that following them has on people's lives.
In a way, Castaneda managed to crack open certain doors that many find incredibly compelling, yet he ultimately fell right into the ego's own trap.
At the end of the day, one really ought to follow. Learning that actually nourishes his higher consciousness....rather than just anyone. A person. Why bother trying to become Castaneda, or even Christ himself? A person's greatness isn't derived from their name or their individual identity. True significance lies in the message they carry and the integrity with which they deliver it. After all, a life should simply be a reflection of the truths being preached.In that sense, you don't really exist either.
Only humanity exists.
Like I said—it’s all just a matter of perspective. Both sides hold weight.Once again, from my point of view, Christians don't have a monopoly on true spirituality, nor are all other paths inherently misguided attempts at it.
I agree.You held a monopoly on the truth for far too long, which is why you think you're the ones qualified to judge it for everyone else. Well, you aren't.
Who exactly is this "we"?
🙂
We all know there is only one who sees everything and is actually capable of passing judgment. 😉
rowdytiger34 said:Just one word: drugs.
Being obsessed with Castaneda is basically just being hooked on pills, mushrooms, or Peyote.
Some people just can't stand living in this reality we've been handed. Unfortunately for them, their own brains force their hand, making them reach for something extra to cope. Honestly, they should probably include a disclaimer when publishing Castaneda; his books are nothing more than propaganda for using hallucinogens to "expand consciousness." In that headspace, you might actually start thinking angels are sitting on your head.
I bet Castaneda's fanboys find Christian values annoying because they teach that everyone carries their own cross—you can't just toss it aside by swallowing whatever substance comes your way.
