Don't pray to God and the politics of non-violence

Edward Flores4 said:And hey, please don't try to "defend" me here—I'm talking specifically about institutionalized beliefs, whereas you're talking about altruism in a broad sense, which includes individual people rather than just big organizations.

I'm not defending you. It's the institutions that shape the people.

@Edward Flores4
🙂 Whatever, man. I should’ve known your ego wouldn't let a little advice slide. You just see it as an intellectual attack and try to win by nitpicking my exact wording while totally missing the point. And now you're hung up on me calling things "sacred."
To me, they're sacred because those words come from God. They're invaluable to me and always inspire me. I never said YOU had to treat them as sacred or follow them as authority, and I definitely didn't imply that. It's my right to see them that way if I want to, regardless of what anyone else thinks. Honestly, I don't care what you think about it. You claim you can strip away the layers and read these types of texts, but tell me—what have you actually read besides philosophy and critiques? Nothing. Absolutely nothing, buddy. It’s obvious. Just pick up something like The Bible or some Apocrypha, like the Gospel of Johnson. Those are easy to find. Read the actual texts instead of just commentaries, then stop acting so high and mighty about how certain writings "corrupt" people.

wiredcanyon6 said:@Edward Flores4
🙂 Whatever, man. I should’ve known your ego wouldn't let a little advice slide. You just see it as an intellectual attack and try to win by nitpicking my exact wording while totally missing the point. And now you're hung up on me calling things "sacred."
To me, they're sacred because those words come from God. They're invaluable to me and always inspire me. I never said YOU had to treat them as sacred or follow them as authority, and I definitely didn't imply that. It's my right to see them that way if I want to, regardless of what anyone else thinks. Honestly, I don't care what you think about it. You claim you can strip away the layers and read these types of texts, but tell me—what have you actually read besides philosophy and critiques? Nothing. Absolutely nothing, buddy. It’s obvious. Just pick up something like The Bible or some Apocrypha, like the Gospel of Johnson. Those are easy to find. Read the actual texts instead of just commentaries, then stop acting so high and mighty about how certain writings "corrupt" people.

What an absolutely stunning projection!

It sounds like you’re getting all worked up because someone called you out on a massive logical fallacy—specifically, that little trick where people take someone else's interpretation of a text, pretend it’s their own profound realization, and then act like they reached that conclusion through deep meditation or intense contemplation. It's a classic move: you misrepresent what the "scripture" actually says to build this image of your own enlightened perspective, and then when someone points out the flaw, you lash out. You start projecting your own emotional turbulence onto the other person just so you can stay in denial about how hollow the whole concept really is. It’s basically a defense mechanism—you suppress your own reaction and flip it back on your conversational partner just to protect a belief system that isn't even holding up under scrutiny. And honestly, the worst part of it? To make that work, you have to treat me like I’m some kind of idiot or just completely slow. That seems to be the only way you can dismiss valid arguments that suggest you're actually just stuck—not on a spiritual journey, but in a loop of copying things that have nothing to do with true spirituality. At the end of the day, it looks less like growth and more like you're just using these borrowed ideas to patch up holes in your own ego. 😉

Honestly, I couldn't care less what you think about that...
What have you actually read, besides philosophy and endless critiques? Nothing. Absolutely nothing, my friend—and honestly, it’s pretty obvious from where I’m sitting.

Well... now that we’ve finally traded some honest perspectives, I have to say—I’m actually pretty glad you aren't taking me all that seriously, and it’s a relief to see that my take on things didn't hit a nerve with you. Honestly? It works for me. And look, it goes both ways—it doesn't bother me one bit if you want to voice your own opinions about me. We can just be healthy critics of one another without turning everything into some unnecessary, over-the-top soap opera drama.

Look, I’m telling you—I’m really going to take issue with this whole concept of what’s considered "sacred."
To me, "holy" just means anything that carries those words straight from God...

Of course they seem sacred to you—but that’s only because you treat everyone else's opinion as gospel, especially when those people are the very ones who slapped the "holy" label on those books in the first place. It was always going to turn out this way, wasn't it?

Look, at the end of the day, it’s my call—I have every right to see things exactly how I see them, even if everyone else in the room disagrees. It’s my perspective, and frankly, I don't feel like I need anyone's permission to hold it.

What is going on with you guys lately? Seriously, I’m just sitting here scratching my head—I honestly don't get it!

It seems like every single time I express an opinion that rubs someone the wrong way, they immediately start hiding behind that whole "freedom of speech" argument. It’s become this instant reflex. But let me be clear—have I ever actually suggested that anyone *doesn't* have the right to hold their own views? Not once. There's a massive difference between respecting someone's right to think what they want and having to agree with them, and I feel like people tend to blur those lines the moment things get uncomfortable.

Why does it feel like any time I offer a different perspective, you immediately jump to claiming I'm "threatening your right to have an opinion"? Honestly, I’m struggling to see where the threat is—in what way am I actually infringing on that right?

In other words... what exactly are you getting at here?

Look, why don't you just suggest someone start with The Bible or maybe some of the Apocrypha from the Gospel of Johnson, and then go ahead and act all high and mighty telling everyone that these texts are what corrupt people?

I honestly can’t wrap my head around what you're trying to pull here... but just out of pure curiosity, I have to ask:
what exactly led you to decide that I haven't read any of those books, and what makes you think—based on "posts from this month"—that I only ever touch philosophy and nothing else? I'm genuinely curious... please, be straight with me and don't hold back. I'll take it as honest, good-faith feedback from a fellow conversationalist.

Honestly... it bothers me how you constantly insert your own interpretations into other people's quotes. It feels pretty tacky and immature, especially coming from someone with your intellect. Here’s a perfect example from your last post:
"it's obvious that you turn "scriptures" into a caricature of someone else's "sacred" views, then pretend you reached them through thinking, meditation, or contemplation"
I mean... how do you know that? Where is this "obvious" part? Have you been following my personal journey? Where's the proof? Even today, I read all sorts of "sacred" texts, but I don't consider them sacred just because they say so; I use my own judgment instead of adopting someone else's. You can give me whatever presentation you want, but it won't convince me unless I study it myself and feel those connections in my heart and mind through my own experiences and reality. Nobody ever forced anything on me or lectured me. In fact, the first part of the Vedas I ever read was The Quran, which a friend found in his dad's old shed
"I was cleaning out the garage. Found this in the shed, don't really get it so I brought it to you... since you love that psychological stuff (back then I was deep into metaphysics, parapsychology, and psychology). Even if some things weren't directly practical for my life, they still helped broaden my perspective. Some things felt sacred to me because the meaning went beyond my expectations and opened up entirely new ways of seeing things."
Get what I'm saying? You're basically clinging to the idea that everything was imposed on me and that I'm just conditioned. But I know that isn't true. This is my life. I lived it, and I'm living it. I can guarantee it's not like that. If you had gone through it yourself, you could guarantee it too, because you'd see there's nothing external that can change you from the inside except yourself.
Basically, telling people on this forum that scriptures delude us or dictate our views is way more cult-like than someone simply saying, "go study them."
Anyone who lacks integrity or absorbs everything without thinking could be misled by anything in this world... even the Republican Party. Not that I care about them. I'm not going to be afraid to try new things just because of them if I believe in myself.

I learned from you that sharing an opinion on this forum makes you open to criticism, and that's fine. I respect your stance. I was just sharing my own view regarding yours for the sake of the others here searching for truth. (Check my first post in this thread)

First off... I just realized I completely missed the mark there. Somehow, I mixed you up with Brian Foster3, and at one point, I even brought up the Kabbalah for no real reason. My bad—sorry for the confusion! Honestly, though, the whole debate about authority figures and how we interpret the Bible is such a massive topic on its own that it doesn't really change where we stand here.

wiredcanyon6 said:Honestly... it bothers me how you constantly insert your own interpretations into other people's quotes. It feels pretty tacky and immature, especially coming from someone with your intellect. Here’s a perfect example from your last post:
"it's obvious that you turn "scriptures" into a caricature of someone else's "sacred" views, then pretend you reached them through thinking, meditation, or contemplation"
I mean... how do you know that? Where is this "obvious" part? Have you been following my personal journey? Where's the proof? Even today, I read all sorts of "sacred" texts, but I don't consider them sacred just because they say so; I use my own judgment instead of adopting someone else's. You can give me whatever presentation you want, but it won't convince me unless I study it myself and feel those connections in my heart and mind through my own experiences and reality. Nobody ever forced anything on me or lectured me. In fact, the first part of the Vedas I ever read was The Quran, which a friend found in his dad's old shed
"I was cleaning out the garage. Found this in the shed, don't really get it so I brought it to you... since you love that psychological stuff (back then I was deep into metaphysics, parapsychology, and psychology). Even if some things weren't directly practical for my life, they still helped broaden my perspective. Some things felt sacred to me because the meaning went beyond my expectations and opened up entirely new ways of seeing things."
Get what I'm saying? You're basically clinging to the idea that everything was imposed on me and that I'm just conditioned. But I know that isn't true. This is my life. I lived it, and I'm living it. I can guarantee it's not like that. If you had gone through it yourself, you could guarantee it too, because you'd see there's nothing external that can change you from the inside except yourself.
Basically, telling people on this forum that scriptures delude us or dictate our views is way more cult-like than someone simply saying, "go study them."
Anyone who lacks integrity or absorbs everything without thinking could be misled by anything in this world... even the Republican Party. Not that I care about them. I'm not going to be afraid to try new things just because of them if I believe in myself.

I learned from you that sharing an opinion on this forum makes you open to criticism, and that's fine. I respect your stance. I was just sharing my own view regarding yours for the sake of the others here searching for truth. (Check my first post in this thread)

I feel like I’m obligated to bring us back to what we were talking about earlier—you know, that whole discussion regarding monasteries and those highly institutionalized spiritual or religious setups where followers are essentially walled off from the rest of society. It’s that dynamic where people are handed a set of "sacred texts" to serve as the sole foundation for what they consider their "own" independent thoughts. It wasn't until you pointed out that you actually view certain books as holy that it finally clicked for me—that this necessity exists because you aren't just reading these authors, you’re actually reflecting them and resonating with their very essence.

I can see why you’re skeptical—it probably feels like I'm just throwing around words without any real proof—but if you sit with the idea for a second, it becomes pretty clear. Take the concept of "holiness," for instance. It isn't like looking at a bright blue sky, feeling the texture of soft silk, or catching a sudden chill from a cold breeze; those are sensory things you can actually point to. Think about it this way: when you look at something blue, and someone tells you, "Hey, that color is called blue," you’ve suddenly connected a visual sensation to a specific concept. You can see it, verify it, and learn the label. But with something like "holiness," we run into a bit of a wall. How do you actually know that the profound sensation you're experiencing is what we call "holiness"? Unlike a color or a physical feeling, there’s no way to physically demonstrate that internal spark to someone else to prove that the label fits. There's no way to show someone the "color" of a spiritual experience to teach them the definition.

It’s funny how that works—you get this overwhelming feeling that what you’re reading is "sacred," but if you really stop to think about it, it feels like someone else planted that seed in your head. Without that external nudge, you’d probably just describe the book as interesting, or maybe gripping, practical, or wise... you know, just a really good read. But labeling it as "sacred"? That feels less like a personal discovery and more like an opinion that was handed to you. It’s the same logic I’d use if I stepped up and claimed something was "sacred"—it wouldn't necessarily make it true. Anyone can slap that label on something, whether it's me or anyone else out there. 😉

So, where’s the actual proof? I mean, seriously—where is it?

I just handed them over to you. 😁

Do you see what you're doing there? You’re basically treating me like some kind of broken record—insisting that my entire perspective has been forced on me, or that I've been conditioned to think this way. It's almost like you're convinced I don't have any agency left in my own head.

Look, nobody forced that book on you—we’ve actually touched on this before, haven't we? That whole idea of how "sacred texts" get pushed into organized spiritual practices. But here’s the thing: even if you picked up the book entirely on your own terms, the mere act of reading it forces a whole cascade of concepts and frameworks into your head. It’s like an unsolicited mental download. Let’s be real here—this happens to everyone, not just you. There are only a few rare exceptions, and those are usually people who are deeply aware of the actual "mechanics" behind the curtain—people who understand how language works, the nature of text, and the specific way print functions as a medium. I really want to emphasize the word *print* there, too. Reading a handwritten manuscript is a completely different cognitive process; you have to actively decipher it. With printed text, you aren't really decoding—you're just recognizing it. It's a subtle distinction, but it changes everything.

If you really want to dig deeper into this, I’d suggest picking up "Understanding Media" by Marshall McLuhan—it might just help you move past the idea that our thoughts are purely our own after we spend time reading or watching TV 😉

But look, I know that isn't true. At the end of the day, this is my life. I've lived through it, and I'm living through it now. I can personally guarantee you that's not how it works. If you had gone through the same things I have, you could guarantee it too—you'd see there’s nothing external out there that can change who you are on the inside, except for yourself.

Believe whatever helps you sleep at night, really—but that kind of absolute certainty can be a pretty expensive mistake to make in life. Even this little back-and-forth we're having right now has already left its mark on you, whether you intended it to or not. Every single line of text you read shapes you in some way, and certain people just happen to be better at writing things that hit deep—which, honestly, it seems like you've already experienced firsthand.

So... you're saying that telling people on this forum that these texts can enchant, condition, or even alter our views is somehow more "cultish" than simply telling someone, "Hey, go study them."

I'll say it again, though... the issue isn't the act of reading itself, but rather the "sanctity" we assign to the text—basically, how you perceive what you've read.

What I've gathered from you is that when someone shares an opinion on this forum, they're open to criticism, and that's perfectly fine. I respect your perspective. I was just offering my own take on it for the sake of everyone else here who is looking for the truth.

All five of us... look, I don't mind at all if you have your own opinions. But since we're on the subject... you still haven't actually answered my question: why on earth do you think I haven't read anything besides philosophy? What makes it so obvious to you from "out in space"!?

Brian Foster3 said:I'm not defending you. It's the institutions that shape the people.

👎

Ashley Ramirez41 said:👎

Look, institutions are just sets of rules and organized relationships—they don't actually create the people themselves.

Look, I get the legalistic side of it. 🙂

But let me add something here because this is driving me nuts: when you look at how people actually behave within those big corporate or government systems, they’re constantly finding ways to cut corners or just go through the motions to suit their own selfish agendas, which honestly just proves my point that an institution is nothing more than the sum of the people running the show. 🙂

@Edward Flores4
Whether it's imposed or not is nonsense. By that logic, Marshall McLuhan basically forced his whole concept of information intake on you. As a sane person, I always have the freedom to choose. I don't need anyone telling me how to study texts. Studying them has worked for me. I soak up the good stuff and toss out the garbage. I’ve defined my own sense of what is sacred, and I’m happy with it. Just to be clear: to me, something is sacred if I conclude it has a divine origin—something far beyond human speculation or philosophy.
I’m quoting you because of this thread, but also because of our past talks where your main move was accusing me of blind copying, mindless acceptance, or fanaticism.
We name things in this world just to make communication easier; otherwise, we’d just be barking at each other like dogs. The evidence you laid out isn't actually an answer to my questions. It’s just a senseless theory you use to shield yourself from any argument. Personally, I have no use for it.
Since you want to emphasize your point, I'll emphasize mine. What I consider sacred scripture might just be "books" to someone else. I was explicitly saying that people shouldn't limit themselves by not reading or researching. Debating your obsession with holiness feels trivial. It’s like me saying I love a book, and you telling me I only love it because of my flawed perception, the cover, or the font without even having read the thing... yet you're bothered by my use of the word "love."

You can see things from the moon that you can't see up close. Similarly, based on everything we've discussed, I can tell that true spirituality hasn't even entered your dreams, let alone your vision. You're clearly a smart person, and I know that if you had ever encountered the original teachings of Bhagavan, you wouldn't be pushing concepts born purely from human motives, weaknesses, and conditioning. Just as the original OM vibration awakens our chakras, his words awaken higher spheres of understanding and perception. This ancient, practical wisdom existed before all religions, exists now, and will remain unchanged forever.

Brian Foster3 said:Look, I get the legalistic side of it. 🙂

But let me add something here because this is driving me nuts: when you look at how people actually behave within those big corporate or government systems, they’re constantly finding ways to cut corners or just go through the motions to suit their own selfish agendas, which honestly just proves my point that an institution is nothing more than the sum of the people running the show. 🙂

👎

Edward Flores4 said:It looks like you might not be all that familiar with Parkinson’s Law—which basically suggests that any institution once it's fully established is going to keep pushing itself forward and justifying its own existence, even if the original reason it was ever created has completely vanished into thin air. It's like those massive corporate bureaucracies we see in places like DC or New York—they just keep expanding and spinning their wheels regardless of whether they're actually accomplishing anything anymore.

It really speaks volumes about the institutions themselves—and I mean this in a way that’s pretty independent of their actual intentions. Even if their initial goals weren't necessarily bad to begin with, you can see how things have drifted. It's like when a small, well-meaning local charity starts growing too fast; they might start out just wanting to help the neighborhood, but once they become this massive, bureaucratic machine, the original mission gets lost in all the red tape and systemic momentum. You end up looking at the structure of the organization rather than the heart of why it was built in the first place.

But look, that whole assumption is basically unshakeable—even if it feels pretty arbitrary when you really sit down and think about it.

So, let me get this straight—you’re suggesting that because gravity is non-invertible, it somehow makes the whole force arbitrary? That's an interesting way to look at it. But it raises a massive question: does this "arbitrariness" actually weaken the pull, or does it still slam you into the ground just as hard regardless of whether we call it random or divine?

Look, here’s the thing—no matter how many examples you throw at me of people setting up institutions like hospitals or universities specifically to help others, you can always twist the narrative to claim they were actually just looking out for themselves. It’s one of those things where, if you try hard enough, you can argue that personal gain was the underlying motive behind any act of charity or public service. Because you can always find some way to frame it that way, I just think the whole thesis is pretty arbitrary. It really comes down to how you choose to spin the story.

You really have a way of keeping me on my toes... I mean, you're pointing out that in one thread I’m arguing schools are basically just indoctrination machines for the masses, but then in another, I’m holding them up as a prime example of the "greater good." It’s a bit of a head-scratcher, isn't it?

I’ve always felt that schools function more like state-run temples than actual centers of learning—where the classrooms are basically just the priest's vestments. The reality is that the students themselves? They aren't even the priority. At no point in this whole setup has their actual benefit been the main focus. Instead, everything seems to be secondary, arbitrary, and frankly, pretty hit-or-miss.

I actually see things a bit differently—I truly believe that people can build institutions with the best possible intentions toward their fellow citizens, and that, from time to time, those organizations actually end up doing exactly what they were designed to do.

Just because a slap to the face might occasionally wake someone up—doesn't mean I have any business going around slapping people whenever I feel like it.

When it comes to the Dalai Lama...
Honestly, I don't think it's even that easy to put a finger on exactly what we're looking at here—it’s one of those things where you try to wrap your head around it, but the more you dig, the harder it gets to make a solid call.

Hypocrisy is one of those things you can spot from a mile away—honestly, it’s practically glowing under a spotlight. It’s just so incredibly easy to see when someone isn't walking the walk.

Nah. The whole gravity thing wasn't really about testing it here on Earth—where, you know, it basically acts on everything pretty much the same way—but more about how planets actually behave in relation to the sun. Once Isaac Newton saw that his formula perfectly explained why planets orbit the sun the way they do, that’s when he really proved his theory was on the money.
So, I guess gravity is basically falsifiable. Like, it’s actually pretty easy to imagine what kind of experiment would prove the law of gravity wrong. The only reason we still call it a law is because nobody has actually pulled off an experiment like that yet. It just shows the law works... for now.
Honestly, I don't think there's any experience out there powerful enough to make you realize that the idea "EVERY institution exists primarily to serve its founders" is actually wrong. I mean, maybe I'm tripping, but I just can't see it happening.

You totally fascinate me... I mean, one minute you're wrapping up a thread by saying schools are just tools to indoctrinate the masses, and then in another one, you’re out here using them as the prime example of the "greater good." I guess I'm just confused.

So, I actually meant universities. But whatever, you kind of glossed over my whole point there. I feel like schools in today's society are just broken, mostly because the society itself is pretty messed up. That doesn't mean that every single society is necessarily sick, or that any society with schools is automatically doomed, I guess.

Just because a slap might wake someone up sometimes... doesn't mean it's okay for me to go around slapping people all the time. I guess.

But hey, that alone is enough to totally wreck the whole "you NEVER need to give someone a slap" argument. I mean, the entire debate basically boils down to your "EVERYTHING" stance.

Ashley Ramirez41 said:👎

No way in hell! People inside these big institutions are nothing more than tiny little cogs in this massive, soul-crushing machine...
they don't have any real say in anything important—unless you're one of those big shots sitting at the very top.

That’s just more than enough to push me over the edge. 😉

Even the little guys can push their own agendas if they play it right... honestly, what do you think? Where do all those "connections" come from? They come from right there. 😉

wiredcanyon6 said:@Edward Flores4
Whether it's imposed or not is nonsense. By that logic, Marshall McLuhan basically forced his whole concept of information intake on you. As a sane person, I always have the freedom to choose. I don't need anyone telling me how to study texts. Studying them has worked for me. I soak up the good stuff and toss out the garbage. I’ve defined my own sense of what is sacred, and I’m happy with it. Just to be clear: to me, something is sacred if I conclude it has a divine origin—something far beyond human speculation or philosophy.
I’m quoting you because of this thread, but also because of our past talks where your main move was accusing me of blind copying, mindless acceptance, or fanaticism.
We name things in this world just to make communication easier; otherwise, we’d just be barking at each other like dogs. The evidence you laid out isn't actually an answer to my questions. It’s just a senseless theory you use to shield yourself from any argument. Personally, I have no use for it.
Since you want to emphasize your point, I'll emphasize mine. What I consider sacred scripture might just be "books" to someone else. I was explicitly saying that people shouldn't limit themselves by not reading or researching. Debating your obsession with holiness feels trivial. It’s like me saying I love a book, and you telling me I only love it because of my flawed perception, the cover, or the font without even having read the thing... yet you're bothered by my use of the word "love."

You can see things from the moon that you can't see up close. Similarly, based on everything we've discussed, I can tell that true spirituality hasn't even entered your dreams, let alone your vision. You're clearly a smart person, and I know that if you had ever encountered the original teachings of Bhagavan, you wouldn't be pushing concepts born purely from human motives, weaknesses, and conditioning. Just as the original OM vibration awakens our chakras, his words awaken higher spheres of understanding and perception. This ancient, practical wisdom existed before all religions, exists now, and will remain unchanged forever.

It’s pretty obvious you haven't quite grasped what we're talking about here—I mean, you're dropping terms like "information reception concepts" and Marshall McLuhan in the very same breath. It just doesn't track. Honestly, go ahead and read whatever you want... there's plenty of time... maybe you'll finally wrap your head around it in another life, if not this one. 😉

I’ve finally laid out my own take on what holiness actually means—it’s a bit of a deep dive, I know—but honestly? I'm pretty happy with how it turned out.

Look, it’s all five out of five for me. At the end of the day, the only thing that really matters is whether this makes sense to you—if you can sit back, look at your own logic and explanations, and actually feel satisfied with them. As far as I’m concerned, you’re perfectly free to ignore the obvious until the day you die if that's what you choose. If you want to live inside that little bubble of yours—this sort of prose-heavy, "sacred" concept that supposedly exists for "all time"—then go right ahead. Honestly, I don't have any problem with that at all.

Honestly, dragging out these debates about how obsessed you are with everything being "sacred" feels pretty trivial at this point...

So, you’re telling me that what you consider "sacred" is actually just trivial to you? I honestly find that hard to swallow... because if it were truly trivial—just some minor, everyday thing—you wouldn't be labeling it as sacred in the first place. 🙂

Based on everything we’ve talked about up to this point, I’ve come to a pretty solid conclusion—true spirituality hasn't even brushed against your dreams, let alone actually opened your eyes to it.

So, it sounds like you think I’ve got some patented, official handbook on what constitutes "real spirituality" tucked away somewhere! If that's the case—go ahead and pass it along to the rest of us—but honestly, I don't have a formal manifesto. I guess what I mean is, if you want me to break it down, I’d say true spirituality is less about following a specific set of rules or checking off boxes in a manual, and more about an internal alignment—sort of like how a finely tuned engine just runs smoothly without you constantly having to tinker with the carburetor. It’s that quiet, steady sense of connection to something larger than yourself, which stays consistent whether you're sitting in meditation or just stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic on the I-95. On the flip side, when people talk about "false spirituality," they’re usually describing something that feels performative or transactional. You know the type—it’s like someone buying a luxury SUV just to feel like they’ve "arrived," when really they’re just chasing a status symbol. False spirituality often relies on external validation, rigid dogmas, or this idea that if you just perform the right rituals or buy the right crystals, you can bypass the actual work of being a decent human being. It’s all surface-level stuff, much like a flashy Hollywood movie that looks great but has zero substance once the credits roll. One is about depth and authenticity, while the other is just a high-end imitation of the real thing.

I’m genuinely curious about this one.

I honestly think you’re a sharp person—really bright, actually—and because of that, I can't help but feel that if you had ever truly encountered the original teachings of Bhagavan, you wouldn't be floating these kinds of concepts around. To me, what you're saying feels like it stems purely from human motives, our little weaknesses, and all those layers of conditioning we pick up along the way.

If I were actually that brilliant, I probably wouldn't be sitting here going back and forth with you right now... right?

Anyway... one day you’re going to look back on this conversation and honestly wonder how you couldn't see the trees for the forest. It’ll be one of those "lightbulb moments" where everything clicks—and in that moment, it’s going to make perfect sense why someone would eventually "outgrow" sacred texts. You'll realize it because, sooner or later, you'll find yourself outgrowing them too.

There’s an old story—or at least, that's how the myth goes—about someone asking Buddha if he could boil down the entire essence of Buddhism into just two sentences. He supposedly replied that he could actually do it in one:

Whoever actually realizes that nothing in this world can truly be called... Yeah. or I guess you could say it’s all about how we carry ourselves—it's really down to our own personal way of doing things, isn't it? It’s that deeply personal touch we bring to everything we touch. (which includes and... Look, I’ve got my own take on this.At this point, he doesn't even need Buddhism anymore.

You’re still there, staring at the finger pointing toward the moon and calling it some kind of "sacred finger"... honestly, you aren't the first person to do this, and you certainly won't be the last. 😉

It’s honestly just like the original OM syllable—that specific vibration that stirs up our chakras—his words act as a catalyst, waking up those higher levels of understanding and how we perceive reality. This kind of ancient, hands-on wisdom was here long before any organized religion even started, and it’ll still be here, totally unchanged, forever.

Look, can you please spare me this cheap, surface-level mysticism? I’m not some kid—I’ve read way too many of these watered-down spiritual "lemonades" to fall for it now.

James Lee77 said:Nah. The whole gravity thing wasn't really about testing it here on Earth—where, you know, it basically acts on everything pretty much the same way—but more about how planets actually behave in relation to the sun. Once Isaac Newton saw that his formula perfectly explained why planets orbit the sun the way they do, that’s when he really proved his theory was on the money.
So, I guess gravity is basically falsifiable. Like, it’s actually pretty easy to imagine what kind of experiment would prove the law of gravity wrong. The only reason we still call it a law is because nobody has actually pulled off an experiment like that yet. It just shows the law works... for now.
Honestly, I don't think there's any experience out there powerful enough to make you realize that the idea "EVERY institution exists primarily to serve its founders" is actually wrong. I mean, maybe I'm tripping, but I just can't see it happening.

You totally fascinate me... I mean, one minute you're wrapping up a thread by saying schools are just tools to indoctrinate the masses, and then in another one, you’re out here using them as the prime example of the "greater good." I guess I'm just confused.

So, I actually meant universities. But whatever, you kind of glossed over my whole point there. I feel like schools in today's society are just broken, mostly because the society itself is pretty messed up. That doesn't mean that every single society is necessarily sick, or that any society with schools is automatically doomed, I guess.

Just because a slap might wake someone up sometimes... doesn't mean it's okay for me to go around slapping people all the time. I guess.

But hey, that alone is enough to totally wreck the whole "you NEVER need to give someone a slap" argument. I mean, the entire debate basically boils down to your "EVERYTHING" stance.

You've got a point there... there might be other cultures out there—places we don't even know about—that have educational systems and religious traditions that aren't broken. So, when we're sitting here debating the state of our own society, we really ought to keep those other potential ways of living in mind as a point of comparison.🙄

@Edward Flores4
Good to see you back at it with the wordplay and dodging the point. Honestly, I don't even feel the need to reply to your post anymore because it's clearly just about feeding your ego.
Bdw, don't sweat it... I won't be thinking about this conversation later since I didn't learn anything new or encounter anything I haven't seen before.
Best.

Telema!
Life is just a gateway to death, and death is the gateway to life. Change, change, change... it’s the only constant in this entire material universe. Even the Dalai Lama changes, his people change, and the priorities of the leaders in Tibet shift along with them. It’s all just cause and effect🙂; plus the fact that people who are actually "living" focus strictly on the present moment. Every event and every choice carries its own logic; they are the individual threads making up the tapestry of life. But to understand the "role and purpose" of any single thread, you have to step back and look at the whole rug... you need to see the big picture created by the collective weave. For instance, the tragedy in Tibet ended up being a massive win for the world at large. "Tibet" lost, but "humanity" gained. Teachings that were once gated away started spreading across the globe. Tibet was forced to "open up" to the international community, forced to break the long-standing matrix of its existence and way of life that hadn't budged for centuries. Non-violence is a great concept, sure, but it only works until you run headfirst into violence. Fighting for freedom is the most honest struggle there is; freedom is the essential foundation for anything to grow. Especially spirituality—there is no spirituality without freedom, there is nothing without freedom. Mahatma Gandhi fought with non-violence because he didn't have any other option; who knows if he would have picked up a weapon if he had been sitting on an arsenal? He used what India had in endless supply: persistence and numbers. You can't kill them faster than they can be born.🙂But the Tibetans can't play that same game, since they don't have the sheer numbers that China does🙂; which means assimilation is a threat at every level. For centuries, Tibetans have been building and working for humanity on higher, invisible planes, but clearly, "humanity"—meaning the global community—isn't going to step up and protect them on a material level. Unfortunately, world political leaders are oblivious to the Tibetan "work." Their only solution seems to be using their "spiritual" weapons to turn the Chinese "from the inside" into "Tibetans"🙂; much like how Neo-One did to Mr. Smith in part III of the Matrix. Beyond that, all they have left is a 24/7 guerrilla-style struggle, continuing until Tibet finally wins its independence. Along with its other natural resources, Tibet holds some of the largest freshwater reserves in the world, so given current global trends, it's hardly surprising that China is desperate to get its hands on that golden goose. Young Tibetans are ready to fight for their freedom and their rights; they are the children of the modern era—of Horus's era. The time has come for them to pair their "spiritual" freedom with "material" freedom so they can truly be free in every sense. Peace and non-violence are for civilizations that have already reached a certain level of existence and communication; but for those whose freedom and independence are under fire, the power of the beast is there to assist in the fight, teaching them how to base their freedom on the sword!
Agape!

wiredcanyon6 said:@Edward Flores4
Good to see you back at it with the wordplay and dodging the point. Honestly, I don't even feel the need to reply to your post anymore because it's clearly just about feeding your ego.
Bdw, don't sweat it... I won't be thinking about this conversation later since I didn't learn anything new or encounter anything I haven't seen before.
Best.

Well, you’re commenting on it right now... which makes it pretty obvious you felt the need to, even if you’re trying to paint this "image" of yourself where you don't. Now, I have to wonder—where exactly are you seeing ego here, and whose ego are you actually looking at? Honestly, even the FBI couldn't untangle that logic.😁

unknown. Don't sweat it... I won't be dwelling on this conversation down the road since I haven't learned anything new or encountered anything I haven't seen a thousand times before.

I'm not sweating it... but you clearly are! Are you trying to convince me, or are you just trying to talk yourself into believing it?

It's a rhetorical question, really, because I'm assuming (just like you said) that you aren't going to keep this discussion going...

So, cheers to you, my friend. 😉