What's with the "spiritual gurus" on this forum!?

Thanks, everyone! Honestly, I was pretty shocked seeing how much people can extract from just a few sentences—only to turn it into an entire speech that says absolutely nothing. It’s been quite the inspiration. In a very blunt way (thankfully without any real-world consequences, since this is just a forum), you've confirmed what I've been thinking about lately. I deal with this kind of thing at work all the time... so my takeaway is this: the winners are usually the ones who can talk and talk without actually saying anything or accomplishing a single thing. On one hand, they're smiling and giving you a pat on the back, but the second you turn around, they're sticking a knife in your back. And then—with total grace—they wrap it up so nicely that they convince you that the stabbing was actually just another friendly pat on the shoulder. I'm not thrilled about having to play along, but given my career path, I might have to start acting like a career politician... I'm off to study, and I'll be back once I've mastered enough material for this PDF. Then we can see who's more "spiritual." Such a complete paradox. 🤣

Brian Foster3 said:I'll keep this short.

Everything we do is ultimately for ourselves. We never actually step outside our own egos; we're just selfish, plain and simple, and there’s no way to just grab hold of ourselves and somehow "rise above" that inherent selfishness. Even all this talk about "spirituality" on these forums is just another manifestation of an egoistic craving to be spiritual. Honestly, wanting to be spiritual is probably the most sophisticated, highly developed form of egoism there is.

True spirituality is anything that exists entirely outside the ego. Which means it's completely out of our reach and inaccessible to us. All we ever get are these tiny, fleeting glimpses through momentary flashes of love.

To truly *be* love—to put others before yourself and love them as much as you love yourself—that is the only actual spirituality. That's it. Period. But none of us are capable of it, and let's be real, none of us even want to do it. We just want to satisfy our own damn selves.

Here's a good Quote:

An excerpt from the book "One Taste."
Shangri-La, 2000. copyright Ken Wilber.

Great yogis, saints, and sages reached those heights precisely because they weren't some withdrawn, tiny little nobodies. They were actually big, powerful egos, deeply integrated into the dynamic Ground and Purpose of the Cosmos itself. It’s actually because the ego, the soul, and the Self can exist simultaneously that we can better grasp what "selflessness" truly means—a concept that seems to cause an unusual amount of confusion. But selflessness doesn't mean the absence of a functional ego or Self (that would just be a psychotic, not a sage); rather, it means that a person is no longer exclusively identified with that ego or Self.

One reason we struggle so much with the idea of being "selfless" is that people just want their "selfless sages" to act out some fantasy of what's "holy" or "spiritual." Usually, that just means a state of total numbness from the neck down—no physical needs, no desires, just a constant, faint smile. Everything people actually struggle with—money, food, sex, relationships, longing—is exactly what they expect their saints to be stripped of. They want these "selfless saints" who have shed the ego and sit "above it all." They’re looking for disembodied illusions. I guess people believe religion will simply wipe away all those lower instincts and drives. So, instead of looking for advice on how to live a life full of enthusiasm, they turn to religion to find ways to bypass it, suppress it, or just avoid it altogether.

In other words, the average person wants a spiritual sage to be "less than a person." We seem to want them stripped of all those messy, juicy, complex, and primal drives that move most human beings. It’s like we expect our saints to be nothing more than an absence of everything that drives us. All those things that scare us, confuse us, or overwhelm us—we just want our saints to have absolutely nothing to do with them. And I guess that sense of detachment, that void, that "less than a person" quality... maybe that is exactly what we mean when we talk about being "egoless" or "selfless."

Being "ego-less" doesn't mean losing your sense of self. It isn't about subtracting your personality; I guess it's more like adding to it. It’s a personal plus, not a personal minus—taking all those standard individual traits and layering on some transpersonal depth. You might look at the great yogis, saints, and sages for perspective. Think about figures like Moses, Christ, or even Padmasambhava.
They weren't some weak, helpless wretches. They were fierce drivers of change—from wielding authority within the Temple to conquering entire nations. They shook the world by playing its own game, not through some sheltered, timid piety. Many of them ignited massive social revolutions that lasted for millennia. And they didn't do this by avoiding the physical, emotional, or mental dimensions of being human, nor by shunning the ego that served as their vehicle. Rather, they dove headlong into those realms with a will and an energy that shook the very foundations of the world.
There's no doubt about it. They were also engaged with the soul—that deeper psychic realm—and the spirit, which is that formless Self and the ultimate source of their power. But they manifested that strength through tangible results, mostly because they delved so deeply into those lower dimensions where that power speaks a language everyone can actually understand.
These major movers and shakers weren't small-minded egoists. They were great egoists, in the best sense of the term—simply because the ego (the functional vehicle of the gross realm) can exist alongside the soul (the subtle vehicle) and the Self (the causal vehicle). Since these great teachers were operating within the gross realm, they used their egos to do it, as the ego is the necessary medium for that level of reality. However, they didn't just identify with their egos—which would be narcissism—but rather, they channeled their entire ego into the brilliant Cosmic source.
The great yogis, saints, and sages achieved so much precisely because they weren't shrinking, petty individuals, but expansive egoists, anchored into the dynamic Ground and Purpose of the Cosmos itself, merged into their higher Self, living in pure Atman (pure I-I), or oneness with Brahman; they spoke, and the world trembled, fell to its knees, and beheld its radiant God.

The rest of the translation (which I definitely recommend) can be found at the link below:

http://www.integralworld.net/en/crokwego.html

I guess... is it even possible to achieve spiritual realization without first experiencing the ego?

silentcyclist3 said:Here's a good Quote:

An excerpt from the book "One Taste."
Shangri-La, 2000. copyright Ken Wilber.

Great yogis, saints, and sages reached those heights precisely because they weren't some withdrawn, tiny little nobodies. They were actually big, powerful egos, deeply integrated into the dynamic Ground and Purpose of the Cosmos itself. It’s actually because the ego, the soul, and the Self can exist simultaneously that we can better grasp what "selflessness" truly means—a concept that seems to cause an unusual amount of confusion. But selflessness doesn't mean the absence of a functional ego or Self (that would just be a psychotic, not a sage); rather, it means that a person is no longer exclusively identified with that ego or Self.

One reason we struggle so much with the idea of being "selfless" is that people just want their "selfless sages" to act out some fantasy of what's "holy" or "spiritual." Usually, that just means a state of total numbness from the neck down—no physical needs, no desires, just a constant, faint smile. Everything people actually struggle with—money, food, sex, relationships, longing—is exactly what they expect their saints to be stripped of. They want these "selfless saints" who have shed the ego and sit "above it all." They’re looking for disembodied illusions. I guess people believe religion will simply wipe away all those lower instincts and drives. So, instead of looking for advice on how to live a life full of enthusiasm, they turn to religion to find ways to bypass it, suppress it, or just avoid it altogether.

In other words, the average person wants a spiritual sage to be "less than a person." We seem to want them stripped of all those messy, juicy, complex, and primal drives that move most human beings. It’s like we expect our saints to be nothing more than an absence of everything that drives us. All those things that scare us, confuse us, or overwhelm us—we just want our saints to have absolutely nothing to do with them. And I guess that sense of detachment, that void, that "less than a person" quality... maybe that is exactly what we mean when we talk about being "egoless" or "selfless."

Being "ego-less" doesn't mean losing your sense of self. It isn't about subtracting your personality; I guess it's more like adding to it. It’s a personal plus, not a personal minus—taking all those standard individual traits and layering on some transpersonal depth. You might look at the great yogis, saints, and sages for perspective. Think about figures like Moses, Christ, or even Padmasambhava.
They weren't some weak, helpless wretches. They were fierce drivers of change—from wielding authority within the Temple to conquering entire nations. They shook the world by playing its own game, not through some sheltered, timid piety. Many of them ignited massive social revolutions that lasted for millennia. And they didn't do this by avoiding the physical, emotional, or mental dimensions of being human, nor by shunning the ego that served as their vehicle. Rather, they dove headlong into those realms with a will and an energy that shook the very foundations of the world.
There's no doubt about it. They were also engaged with the soul—that deeper psychic realm—and the spirit, which is that formless Self and the ultimate source of their power. But they manifested that strength through tangible results, mostly because they delved so deeply into those lower dimensions where that power speaks a language everyone can actually understand.
These major movers and shakers weren't small-minded egoists. They were great egoists, in the best sense of the term—simply because the ego (the functional vehicle of the gross realm) can exist alongside the soul (the subtle vehicle) and the Self (the causal vehicle). Since these great teachers were operating within the gross realm, they used their egos to do it, as the ego is the necessary medium for that level of reality. However, they didn't just identify with their egos—which would be narcissism—but rather, they channeled their entire ego into the brilliant Cosmic source.
The great yogis, saints, and sages achieved so much precisely because they weren't shrinking, petty individuals, but expansive egoists, anchored into the dynamic Ground and Purpose of the Cosmos itself, merged into their higher Self, living in pure Atman (pure I-I), or oneness with Brahman; they spoke, and the world trembled, fell to its knees, and beheld its radiant God.

The rest of the translation (which I definitely recommend) can be found at the link below:

http://www.integralworld.net/en/crokwego.html

I guess... is it even possible to achieve spiritual realization without first experiencing the ego?

The whole "catch as catch Ken Wilber" thing is basically a global plague. Honestly, he’ll only start making sense once—and if—he actually wakes up.
It's all just endless babble about purpose, meaning, energy, and entrepreneurship. "Spiritual"? Give me a break!

Brian Foster3 said:I'll keep this short.

Everything we do is ultimately for ourselves. We never actually step outside our own egos; we're just selfish, plain and simple, and there’s no way to just grab hold of ourselves and somehow "rise above" that inherent selfishness. Even all this talk about "spirituality" on these forums is just another manifestation of an egoistic craving to be spiritual. Honestly, wanting to be spiritual is probably the most sophisticated, highly developed form of egoism there is.

True spirituality is anything that exists entirely outside the ego. Which means it's completely out of our reach and inaccessible to us. All we ever get are these tiny, fleeting glimpses through momentary flashes of love.

To truly *be* love—to put others before yourself and love them as much as you love yourself—that is the only actual spirituality. That's it. Period. But none of us are capable of it, and let's be real, none of us even want to do it. We just want to satisfy our own damn selves.

So, if that's the case, what kind of impulse or motivation is driving us to do what we do, truth seeker?

placidharbor7 said:The whole "catch as catch Ken Wilber" thing is basically a global plague. Honestly, he’ll only start making sense once—and if—he actually wakes up.
It's all just endless babble about purpose, meaning, energy, and entrepreneurship. "Spiritual"? Give me a break!

Is this really your take on what was quoted?

silentcyclist3 said:Is this really your take on what was quoted?

Yeah—honestly, there’s no point in getting into the weeds here. It’s not like anyone in this thread has the depth to actually grasp Wilber’s trademark superficiality anyway. Well, except for those "V.S.P.Z.S." experts, I suppose! 🙄

placidharbor7 said:Yeah—honestly, there’s no point in getting into the weeds here. It’s not like anyone in this thread has the depth to actually grasp Wilber’s trademark superficiality anyway. Well, except for those "V.S.P.Z.S." experts, I suppose! 🙄

Fine then. I guess just keep clinging to that "V.S.P.Z.S." if the rest of the world doesn't get you. 🤷

You provide the synthesis—I handle the analysis. But without one, the other simply doesn't exist... let me attempt to explain why.😁

silentcyclist3 said:Do you honestly believe life wouldn't exist if there wasn't someone there to "regulate" the balance by allowing or disallowing certain things?
Would the sun collapse? Would it burn the earth?
Would all living things just descend into chaotic imbalance?

Destructive thoughts and actions lead to destructive consequences for the person committing them. Predators, rogue doctors 😈 and anyone else acting out of malice—they create their own destruction, much like how we deal with our own messes. It is hard to predict exactly how the house of cards will eventually fall.
People are meant to strive for what is best for themselves and others, even when they know their efforts might fail because some higher purpose requires a "tragic" conclusion.
Once you realize that, you shouldn't destroy your own life by denying your spirit, simply because you feel disillusioned with "God's justice."

The answer to your question might be this: if an individual is causing a cycle of misery for those around them, then they should be stopped, based on the principle of doing good for oneself and others. But who carries that out, how, and under what circumstances... I guess that isn't something worth discussing right now.

Toward peace.

I don't mean that literally, because collective social intelligence these days is about as smart as a baboon's backside—and I know that's probably an insult to the baboon, but I'm struggling for better wording right now. You can't really rely on it to foster any real understanding.

I agree.

Yes, refusal can come from understanding, but then that refusal isn't really about tolerance (which is more like passively enduring a situation), it becomes a matter of action.

The state of the world is probably what it needs to be, which makes it optimal, even if I personally find it hard to accept sometimes.

😁
I don't mean to suggest things would be quite as dramatic as your vivid description implies—perhaps life would actually be more harmonious without humanity entirely... My questions are aimed at this instead—and please, don't take this the wrong way regarding your apparent "acceptance" in your posts—I don't mean that negatively; rather, I see it as a byproduct of your capacity for synthesis—that "intuitive" quality you mentioned earlier—but how much do you believe a person can (or cannot) influence their existence through action—or even inaction—as you noted below? Can small shifts truly make life on this planet more beautiful or comfortable, or are we simply left to the whims of a higher power—God, the Cosmos, the Absolute, the One... whichever term resonates most with you?

Destructive thoughts and actions inevitably trigger destructive consequences for the one who commits them—take pedophiles or those "evil" doctors, for instance... 😈 And all those who feel that same way—they’re just crafting their own destruction, much like we do with our own messes... It is difficult to predict exactly what kind of twist of fate will trigger the collapse of the house of cards.

Destruction exists for a reason, doesn't it? What I’m actually wondering—which is essentially the same question as the one above—is whether humanity will always have to be just as destructive as it tries to be "constructive"... though I find that term difficult to even wrap my head around... in order to maintain that balance we discussed earlier. If that's the case, then everything is functioning exactly as it should, isn't it?

One is tasked with always striving for the greatest good—for oneself and for others—even when one knows the effort is futile because the outcome must be "tragic" for some higher purpose...

I agree regarding these "higher reasons"—though I wonder... what exactly do you imagine those "higher reasons" might be?

Once you finally grasp that—once you realize there is no such thing as "divine justice"—you stop sabotaging your own life by denying the one thing that actually matters... your spirit.

My imagination is far too vivid for my own good—I can conjure up a million different scenarios that feel equally plausible... though, much like yourself, I find myself wondering if this "synthesis" I'm picturing is actually real—or just another one of my delusions.
The reason I’m hitting you with these heavy questions is that—unlike the usual preachy, surface-level spiritualists out there—you actually seem authentic... which is a rare find.😁

according to one's own peace.

For a spirit that is restless by its very "nature," what does this "peace" even signify?
What does that peace mean to you—could you elaborate?

I don't mean that at all, because today's collective social intelligence is roughly on par with the IQ of a baboon's backside—and I realize that might be an insult to the baboon's backside, but inspiration is currently lacking—so one cannot rely on it to reach any higher understanding.

I agree, but isn't that just a consequence of that interplay between activity and passivity—that tension between destruction and creation?

Yes, refusal can stem from true understanding, in which case it ceases to be a matter of tolerance—merely passively enduring a situation—and becomes a matter of action.

Precisely—an active engagement with the living fabric around you, or rather, with a specific situation. Tolerance, nowadays, feels more like a fashion statement.

The state of the world is likely exactly as it ought to be, making it optimal—regardless of how difficult that is for me personally to accept at times.

Well, that "likely" suggests you aren't entirely certain whether it is so or not.
I feel much the same way...
Yet, many visitors to this forum are absolutely convinced they have everything figured out!😁

Edit: Oh, look, Master Ivan has joined us... this is getting interesting. 😁

silentcyclist3 said:Fine then. I guess just keep clinging to that "V.S.P.Z.S." if the rest of the world doesn't get you. 🤷

"Don't get upset, man" — "The unAwakened simply cannot recognize the Awakened." (placidharbor7)

Why not try asking for things "step by step" instead?

briskraven28 said:You provide the synthesis—I handle the analysis. But without one, the other simply doesn't exist... let me attempt to explain why.😁

😁
I don't mean to suggest things would be quite as dramatic as your vivid description implies—perhaps life would actually be more harmonious without humanity entirely... My questions are aimed at this instead—and please, don't take this the wrong way regarding your apparent "acceptance" in your posts—I don't mean that negatively; rather, I see it as a byproduct of your capacity for synthesis—that "intuitive" quality you mentioned earlier—but how much do you believe a person can (or cannot) influence their existence through action—or even inaction—as you noted below? Can small shifts truly make life on this planet more beautiful or comfortable, or are we simply left to the whims of a higher power—God, the Cosmos, the Absolute, the One... whichever term resonates most with you?

Destructive thoughts and actions inevitably trigger destructive consequences for the one who commits them—take pedophiles or those "evil" doctors, for instance... 😈 And all those who feel that same way—they’re just crafting their own destruction, much like we do with our own messes... It is difficult to predict exactly what kind of twist of fate will trigger the collapse of the house of cards.

Destruction exists for a reason, doesn't it? What I’m actually wondering—which is essentially the same question as the one above—is whether humanity will always have to be just as destructive as it tries to be "constructive"... though I find that term difficult to even wrap my head around... in order to maintain that balance we discussed earlier. If that's the case, then everything is functioning exactly as it should, isn't it?

One is tasked with always striving for the greatest good—for oneself and for others—even when one knows the effort is futile because the outcome must be "tragic" for some higher purpose...

I agree regarding these "higher reasons"—though I wonder... what exactly do you imagine those "higher reasons" might be?

Once you finally grasp that—once you realize there is no such thing as "divine justice"—you stop sabotaging your own life by denying the one thing that actually matters... your spirit.

My imagination is far too vivid for my own good—I can conjure up a million different scenarios that feel equally plausible... though, much like yourself, I find myself wondering if this "synthesis" I'm picturing is actually real—or just another one of my delusions.
The reason I’m hitting you with these heavy questions is that—unlike the usual preachy, surface-level spiritualists out there—you actually seem authentic... which is a rare find.😁

according to one's own peace.

For a spirit that is restless by its very "nature," what does this "peace" even signify?
What does that peace mean to you—could you elaborate?

I don't mean that at all, because today's collective social intelligence is roughly on par with the IQ of a baboon's backside—and I realize that might be an insult to the baboon's backside, but inspiration is currently lacking—so one cannot rely on it to reach any higher understanding.

I agree, but isn't that just a consequence of that interplay between activity and passivity—that tension between destruction and creation?

Yes, refusal can stem from true understanding, in which case it ceases to be a matter of tolerance—merely passively enduring a situation—and becomes a matter of action.

Precisely—an active engagement with the living fabric around you, or rather, with a specific situation. Tolerance, nowadays, feels more like a fashion statement.

The state of the world is likely exactly as it ought to be, making it optimal—regardless of how difficult that is for me personally to accept at times.

Well, that "likely" suggests you aren't entirely certain whether it is so or not.
I feel much the same way...
Yet, many visitors to this forum are absolutely convinced they have everything figured out!😁

Edit: Oh, look, Master Ivan has joined us... this is getting interesting. 😁

briskraven28🤣, how on earth do you manage to raise such sharp objections against the "peripheral"? Your opponent's arguments rely heavily on the concept of "free will," which is honestly enough nonsense to justify just ignoring them altogether. They clearly don't know nearly as much as you do.

placidharbor7 said:briskraven28🤣, how on earth do you manage to raise such sharp objections against the "peripheral"? Your opponent's arguments rely heavily on the concept of "free will," which is honestly enough nonsense to justify just ignoring them altogether. They clearly don't know nearly as much as you do.

Master Ivan...I have some "secular" and "peripheral" work to attend to—so I'll be able to give you all my attention a bit later... This isn't exactly my priority right now.😉

Hmm, looks like I’m being a bit clumsy with my words... maybe.🙂

briskraven28 said:You provide the synthesis—I handle the analysis. But without one, the other simply doesn't exist... let me attempt to explain why.😁

😁
I don't mean to suggest things would be quite as dramatic as your vivid description implies—perhaps life would actually be more harmonious without humanity entirely... My questions are aimed at this instead—and please, don't take this the wrong way regarding your apparent "acceptance" in your posts—I don't mean that negatively; rather, I see it as a byproduct of your capacity for synthesis—that "intuitive" quality you mentioned earlier—but how much do you believe a person can (or cannot) influence their existence through action—or even inaction—as you noted below? Can small shifts truly make life on this planet more beautiful or comfortable, or are we simply left to the whims of a higher power—God, the Cosmos, the Absolute, the One... whichever term resonates most with you?

Destructive thoughts and actions inevitably trigger destructive consequences for the one who commits them—take pedophiles or those "evil" doctors, for instance... 😈 And all those who feel that same way—they’re just crafting their own destruction, much like we do with our own messes... It is difficult to predict exactly what kind of twist of fate will trigger the collapse of the house of cards.

Destruction exists for a reason, doesn't it? What I’m actually wondering—which is essentially the same question as the one above—is whether humanity will always have to be just as destructive as it tries to be "constructive"... though I find that term difficult to even wrap my head around... in order to maintain that balance we discussed earlier. If that's the case, then everything is functioning exactly as it should, isn't it?

One is tasked with always striving for the greatest good—for oneself and for others—even when one knows the effort is futile because the outcome must be "tragic" for some higher purpose...

I agree regarding these "higher reasons"—though I wonder... what exactly do you imagine those "higher reasons" might be?

Once you finally grasp that—once you realize there is no such thing as "divine justice"—you stop sabotaging your own life by denying the one thing that actually matters... your spirit.

My imagination is far too vivid for my own good—I can conjure up a million different scenarios that feel equally plausible... though, much like yourself, I find myself wondering if this "synthesis" I'm picturing is actually real—or just another one of my delusions.
The reason I’m hitting you with these heavy questions is that—unlike the usual preachy, surface-level spiritualists out there—you actually seem authentic... which is a rare find.😁

according to one's own peace.

For a spirit that is restless by its very "nature," what does this "peace" even signify?
What does that peace mean to you—could you elaborate?

I don't mean that at all, because today's collective social intelligence is roughly on par with the IQ of a baboon's backside—and I realize that might be an insult to the baboon's backside, but inspiration is currently lacking—so one cannot rely on it to reach any higher understanding.

I agree, but isn't that just a consequence of that interplay between activity and passivity—that tension between destruction and creation?

Yes, refusal can stem from true understanding, in which case it ceases to be a matter of tolerance—merely passively enduring a situation—and becomes a matter of action.

Precisely—an active engagement with the living fabric around you, or rather, with a specific situation. Tolerance, nowadays, feels more like a fashion statement.

The state of the world is likely exactly as it ought to be, making it optimal—regardless of how difficult that is for me personally to accept at times.

Well, that "likely" suggests you aren't entirely certain whether it is so or not.
I feel much the same way...
Yet, many visitors to this forum are absolutely convinced they have everything figured out!😁

Edit: Oh, look, Master Ivan has joined us... this is getting interesting. 😁

I’ll say it again. A person should just try to do what's best for themselves and everyone else. I guess that means being active, or maybe... just staying still. It's all part of it.
Awareness regarding how balance is maintained through creation and destruction... I guess it involves understanding. And maybe that understanding itself is peace.
If you ever find yourself wondering why bother doing anything at all when you know the whole thing is destined to fail—simply because that destructive side of balance exists—then I guess my take would be this:

By acting for the greater good, a person builds, frees, cleanses, and strengthens their connection to the "pure spirit." I guess that means there is always a necessity to act, or perhaps, to refrain from acting.
When, what, and how much we should—or shouldn't—do... I guess that all comes down to the framework we operate within. It’s mostly determined by those factors I mentioned earlier, I suppose.

In short, we just do what we can. The rest... I guess we just leave it to the forces beyond our control.

briskraven28 said:You provide the synthesis—I handle the analysis. But without one, the other simply doesn't exist... let me attempt to explain why.😁

😁
I don't mean to suggest things would be quite as dramatic as your vivid description implies—perhaps life would actually be more harmonious without humanity entirely... My questions are aimed at this instead—and please, don't take this the wrong way regarding your apparent "acceptance" in your posts—I don't mean that negatively; rather, I see it as a byproduct of your capacity for synthesis—that "intuitive" quality you mentioned earlier—but how much do you believe a person can (or cannot) influence their existence through action—or even inaction—as you noted below? Can small shifts truly make life on this planet more beautiful or comfortable, or are we simply left to the whims of a higher power—God, the Cosmos, the Absolute, the One... whichever term resonates most with you?

Destructive thoughts and actions inevitably trigger destructive consequences for the one who commits them—take pedophiles or those "evil" doctors, for instance... 😈 And all those who feel that same way—they’re just crafting their own destruction, much like we do with our own messes... It is difficult to predict exactly what kind of twist of fate will trigger the collapse of the house of cards.

Destruction exists for a reason, doesn't it? What I’m actually wondering—which is essentially the same question as the one above—is whether humanity will always have to be just as destructive as it tries to be "constructive"... though I find that term difficult to even wrap my head around... in order to maintain that balance we discussed earlier. If that's the case, then everything is functioning exactly as it should, isn't it?

One is tasked with always striving for the greatest good—for oneself and for others—even when one knows the effort is futile because the outcome must be "tragic" for some higher purpose...

I agree regarding these "higher reasons"—though I wonder... what exactly do you imagine those "higher reasons" might be?

Once you finally grasp that—once you realize there is no such thing as "divine justice"—you stop sabotaging your own life by denying the one thing that actually matters... your spirit.

My imagination is far too vivid for my own good—I can conjure up a million different scenarios that feel equally plausible... though, much like yourself, I find myself wondering if this "synthesis" I'm picturing is actually real—or just another one of my delusions.
The reason I’m hitting you with these heavy questions is that—unlike the usual preachy, surface-level spiritualists out there—you actually seem authentic... which is a rare find.😁

according to one's own peace.

For a spirit that is restless by its very "nature," what does this "peace" even signify?
What does that peace mean to you—could you elaborate?

I don't mean that at all, because today's collective social intelligence is roughly on par with the IQ of a baboon's backside—and I realize that might be an insult to the baboon's backside, but inspiration is currently lacking—so one cannot rely on it to reach any higher understanding.

I agree, but isn't that just a consequence of that interplay between activity and passivity—that tension between destruction and creation?

Yes, refusal can stem from true understanding, in which case it ceases to be a matter of tolerance—merely passively enduring a situation—and becomes a matter of action.

Precisely—an active engagement with the living fabric around you, or rather, with a specific situation. Tolerance, nowadays, feels more like a fashion statement.

The state of the world is likely exactly as it ought to be, making it optimal—regardless of how difficult that is for me personally to accept at times.

Well, that "likely" suggests you aren't entirely certain whether it is so or not.
I feel much the same way...
Yet, many visitors to this forum are absolutely convinced they have everything figured out!😁

Edit: Oh, look, Master Ivan has joined us... this is getting interesting. 😁

Balance, and who knows what else. If I actually knew the answer to that question, I guess I’d be communicating with you through dreams instead.

briskraven28 said:You provide the synthesis—I handle the analysis. But without one, the other simply doesn't exist... let me attempt to explain why.😁

😁
I don't mean to suggest things would be quite as dramatic as your vivid description implies—perhaps life would actually be more harmonious without humanity entirely... My questions are aimed at this instead—and please, don't take this the wrong way regarding your apparent "acceptance" in your posts—I don't mean that negatively; rather, I see it as a byproduct of your capacity for synthesis—that "intuitive" quality you mentioned earlier—but how much do you believe a person can (or cannot) influence their existence through action—or even inaction—as you noted below? Can small shifts truly make life on this planet more beautiful or comfortable, or are we simply left to the whims of a higher power—God, the Cosmos, the Absolute, the One... whichever term resonates most with you?

Destructive thoughts and actions inevitably trigger destructive consequences for the one who commits them—take pedophiles or those "evil" doctors, for instance... 😈 And all those who feel that same way—they’re just crafting their own destruction, much like we do with our own messes... It is difficult to predict exactly what kind of twist of fate will trigger the collapse of the house of cards.

Destruction exists for a reason, doesn't it? What I’m actually wondering—which is essentially the same question as the one above—is whether humanity will always have to be just as destructive as it tries to be "constructive"... though I find that term difficult to even wrap my head around... in order to maintain that balance we discussed earlier. If that's the case, then everything is functioning exactly as it should, isn't it?

One is tasked with always striving for the greatest good—for oneself and for others—even when one knows the effort is futile because the outcome must be "tragic" for some higher purpose...

I agree regarding these "higher reasons"—though I wonder... what exactly do you imagine those "higher reasons" might be?

Once you finally grasp that—once you realize there is no such thing as "divine justice"—you stop sabotaging your own life by denying the one thing that actually matters... your spirit.

My imagination is far too vivid for my own good—I can conjure up a million different scenarios that feel equally plausible... though, much like yourself, I find myself wondering if this "synthesis" I'm picturing is actually real—or just another one of my delusions.
The reason I’m hitting you with these heavy questions is that—unlike the usual preachy, surface-level spiritualists out there—you actually seem authentic... which is a rare find.😁

according to one's own peace.

For a spirit that is restless by its very "nature," what does this "peace" even signify?
What does that peace mean to you—could you elaborate?

I don't mean that at all, because today's collective social intelligence is roughly on par with the IQ of a baboon's backside—and I realize that might be an insult to the baboon's backside, but inspiration is currently lacking—so one cannot rely on it to reach any higher understanding.

I agree, but isn't that just a consequence of that interplay between activity and passivity—that tension between destruction and creation?

Yes, refusal can stem from true understanding, in which case it ceases to be a matter of tolerance—merely passively enduring a situation—and becomes a matter of action.

Precisely—an active engagement with the living fabric around you, or rather, with a specific situation. Tolerance, nowadays, feels more like a fashion statement.

The state of the world is likely exactly as it ought to be, making it optimal—regardless of how difficult that is for me personally to accept at times.

Well, that "likely" suggests you aren't entirely certain whether it is so or not.
I feel much the same way...
Yet, many visitors to this forum are absolutely convinced they have everything figured out!😁

Edit: Oh, look, Master Ivan has joined us... this is getting interesting. 😁

Imagination can take you anywhere, I guess. Or nowhere at all. 😉

briskraven28 said:You provide the synthesis—I handle the analysis. But without one, the other simply doesn't exist... let me attempt to explain why.😁

😁
I don't mean to suggest things would be quite as dramatic as your vivid description implies—perhaps life would actually be more harmonious without humanity entirely... My questions are aimed at this instead—and please, don't take this the wrong way regarding your apparent "acceptance" in your posts—I don't mean that negatively; rather, I see it as a byproduct of your capacity for synthesis—that "intuitive" quality you mentioned earlier—but how much do you believe a person can (or cannot) influence their existence through action—or even inaction—as you noted below? Can small shifts truly make life on this planet more beautiful or comfortable, or are we simply left to the whims of a higher power—God, the Cosmos, the Absolute, the One... whichever term resonates most with you?

Destructive thoughts and actions inevitably trigger destructive consequences for the one who commits them—take pedophiles or those "evil" doctors, for instance... 😈 And all those who feel that same way—they’re just crafting their own destruction, much like we do with our own messes... It is difficult to predict exactly what kind of twist of fate will trigger the collapse of the house of cards.

Destruction exists for a reason, doesn't it? What I’m actually wondering—which is essentially the same question as the one above—is whether humanity will always have to be just as destructive as it tries to be "constructive"... though I find that term difficult to even wrap my head around... in order to maintain that balance we discussed earlier. If that's the case, then everything is functioning exactly as it should, isn't it?

One is tasked with always striving for the greatest good—for oneself and for others—even when one knows the effort is futile because the outcome must be "tragic" for some higher purpose...

I agree regarding these "higher reasons"—though I wonder... what exactly do you imagine those "higher reasons" might be?

Once you finally grasp that—once you realize there is no such thing as "divine justice"—you stop sabotaging your own life by denying the one thing that actually matters... your spirit.

My imagination is far too vivid for my own good—I can conjure up a million different scenarios that feel equally plausible... though, much like yourself, I find myself wondering if this "synthesis" I'm picturing is actually real—or just another one of my delusions.
The reason I’m hitting you with these heavy questions is that—unlike the usual preachy, surface-level spiritualists out there—you actually seem authentic... which is a rare find.😁

according to one's own peace.

For a spirit that is restless by its very "nature," what does this "peace" even signify?
What does that peace mean to you—could you elaborate?

I don't mean that at all, because today's collective social intelligence is roughly on par with the IQ of a baboon's backside—and I realize that might be an insult to the baboon's backside, but inspiration is currently lacking—so one cannot rely on it to reach any higher understanding.

I agree, but isn't that just a consequence of that interplay between activity and passivity—that tension between destruction and creation?

Yes, refusal can stem from true understanding, in which case it ceases to be a matter of tolerance—merely passively enduring a situation—and becomes a matter of action.

Precisely—an active engagement with the living fabric around you, or rather, with a specific situation. Tolerance, nowadays, feels more like a fashion statement.

The state of the world is likely exactly as it ought to be, making it optimal—regardless of how difficult that is for me personally to accept at times.

Well, that "likely" suggests you aren't entirely certain whether it is so or not.
I feel much the same way...
Yet, many visitors to this forum are absolutely convinced they have everything figured out!😁

Edit: Oh, look, Master Ivan has joined us... this is getting interesting. 😁

Everyone has their own sphere of influence. I guess no one is ever just one thing.
A virus is essentially a disease—a form of destruction. I guess that's just its purpose, given what it is.
But he also finds survival and balance within his own world, I guess.

True peace is peace. It’s different from that surface-level calm because it’s absolute. I guess.

briskraven28 said:You provide the synthesis—I handle the analysis. But without one, the other simply doesn't exist... let me attempt to explain why.😁

😁
I don't mean to suggest things would be quite as dramatic as your vivid description implies—perhaps life would actually be more harmonious without humanity entirely... My questions are aimed at this instead—and please, don't take this the wrong way regarding your apparent "acceptance" in your posts—I don't mean that negatively; rather, I see it as a byproduct of your capacity for synthesis—that "intuitive" quality you mentioned earlier—but how much do you believe a person can (or cannot) influence their existence through action—or even inaction—as you noted below? Can small shifts truly make life on this planet more beautiful or comfortable, or are we simply left to the whims of a higher power—God, the Cosmos, the Absolute, the One... whichever term resonates most with you?

Destructive thoughts and actions inevitably trigger destructive consequences for the one who commits them—take pedophiles or those "evil" doctors, for instance... 😈 And all those who feel that same way—they’re just crafting their own destruction, much like we do with our own messes... It is difficult to predict exactly what kind of twist of fate will trigger the collapse of the house of cards.

Destruction exists for a reason, doesn't it? What I’m actually wondering—which is essentially the same question as the one above—is whether humanity will always have to be just as destructive as it tries to be "constructive"... though I find that term difficult to even wrap my head around... in order to maintain that balance we discussed earlier. If that's the case, then everything is functioning exactly as it should, isn't it?

One is tasked with always striving for the greatest good—for oneself and for others—even when one knows the effort is futile because the outcome must be "tragic" for some higher purpose...

I agree regarding these "higher reasons"—though I wonder... what exactly do you imagine those "higher reasons" might be?

Once you finally grasp that—once you realize there is no such thing as "divine justice"—you stop sabotaging your own life by denying the one thing that actually matters... your spirit.

My imagination is far too vivid for my own good—I can conjure up a million different scenarios that feel equally plausible... though, much like yourself, I find myself wondering if this "synthesis" I'm picturing is actually real—or just another one of my delusions.
The reason I’m hitting you with these heavy questions is that—unlike the usual preachy, surface-level spiritualists out there—you actually seem authentic... which is a rare find.😁

according to one's own peace.

For a spirit that is restless by its very "nature," what does this "peace" even signify?
What does that peace mean to you—could you elaborate?

I don't mean that at all, because today's collective social intelligence is roughly on par with the IQ of a baboon's backside—and I realize that might be an insult to the baboon's backside, but inspiration is currently lacking—so one cannot rely on it to reach any higher understanding.

I agree, but isn't that just a consequence of that interplay between activity and passivity—that tension between destruction and creation?

Yes, refusal can stem from true understanding, in which case it ceases to be a matter of tolerance—merely passively enduring a situation—and becomes a matter of action.

Precisely—an active engagement with the living fabric around you, or rather, with a specific situation. Tolerance, nowadays, feels more like a fashion statement.

The state of the world is likely exactly as it ought to be, making it optimal—regardless of how difficult that is for me personally to accept at times.

Well, that "likely" suggests you aren't entirely certain whether it is so or not.
I feel much the same way...
Yet, many visitors to this forum are absolutely convinced they have everything figured out!😁

Edit: Oh, look, Master Ivan has joined us... this is getting interesting. 😁

Yeah, that's just the fallout from how things went down...🙂

briskraven28 said:You provide the synthesis—I handle the analysis. But without one, the other simply doesn't exist... let me attempt to explain why.😁

😁
I don't mean to suggest things would be quite as dramatic as your vivid description implies—perhaps life would actually be more harmonious without humanity entirely... My questions are aimed at this instead—and please, don't take this the wrong way regarding your apparent "acceptance" in your posts—I don't mean that negatively; rather, I see it as a byproduct of your capacity for synthesis—that "intuitive" quality you mentioned earlier—but how much do you believe a person can (or cannot) influence their existence through action—or even inaction—as you noted below? Can small shifts truly make life on this planet more beautiful or comfortable, or are we simply left to the whims of a higher power—God, the Cosmos, the Absolute, the One... whichever term resonates most with you?

Destructive thoughts and actions inevitably trigger destructive consequences for the one who commits them—take pedophiles or those "evil" doctors, for instance... 😈 And all those who feel that same way—they’re just crafting their own destruction, much like we do with our own messes... It is difficult to predict exactly what kind of twist of fate will trigger the collapse of the house of cards.

Destruction exists for a reason, doesn't it? What I’m actually wondering—which is essentially the same question as the one above—is whether humanity will always have to be just as destructive as it tries to be "constructive"... though I find that term difficult to even wrap my head around... in order to maintain that balance we discussed earlier. If that's the case, then everything is functioning exactly as it should, isn't it?

One is tasked with always striving for the greatest good—for oneself and for others—even when one knows the effort is futile because the outcome must be "tragic" for some higher purpose...

I agree regarding these "higher reasons"—though I wonder... what exactly do you imagine those "higher reasons" might be?

Once you finally grasp that—once you realize there is no such thing as "divine justice"—you stop sabotaging your own life by denying the one thing that actually matters... your spirit.

My imagination is far too vivid for my own good—I can conjure up a million different scenarios that feel equally plausible... though, much like yourself, I find myself wondering if this "synthesis" I'm picturing is actually real—or just another one of my delusions.
The reason I’m hitting you with these heavy questions is that—unlike the usual preachy, surface-level spiritualists out there—you actually seem authentic... which is a rare find.😁

according to one's own peace.

For a spirit that is restless by its very "nature," what does this "peace" even signify?
What does that peace mean to you—could you elaborate?

I don't mean that at all, because today's collective social intelligence is roughly on par with the IQ of a baboon's backside—and I realize that might be an insult to the baboon's backside, but inspiration is currently lacking—so one cannot rely on it to reach any higher understanding.

I agree, but isn't that just a consequence of that interplay between activity and passivity—that tension between destruction and creation?

Yes, refusal can stem from true understanding, in which case it ceases to be a matter of tolerance—merely passively enduring a situation—and becomes a matter of action.

Precisely—an active engagement with the living fabric around you, or rather, with a specific situation. Tolerance, nowadays, feels more like a fashion statement.

The state of the world is likely exactly as it ought to be, making it optimal—regardless of how difficult that is for me personally to accept at times.

Well, that "likely" suggests you aren't entirely certain whether it is so or not.
I feel much the same way...
Yet, many visitors to this forum are absolutely convinced they have everything figured out!😁

Edit: Oh, look, Master Ivan has joined us... this is getting interesting. 😁

Today’s concept of tolerance... I guess it mostly just reflects how much we've convinced ourselves that we're somehow more valuable than everyone else.

briskraven28 said:You provide the synthesis—I handle the analysis. But without one, the other simply doesn't exist... let me attempt to explain why.😁

😁
I don't mean to suggest things would be quite as dramatic as your vivid description implies—perhaps life would actually be more harmonious without humanity entirely... My questions are aimed at this instead—and please, don't take this the wrong way regarding your apparent "acceptance" in your posts—I don't mean that negatively; rather, I see it as a byproduct of your capacity for synthesis—that "intuitive" quality you mentioned earlier—but how much do you believe a person can (or cannot) influence their existence through action—or even inaction—as you noted below? Can small shifts truly make life on this planet more beautiful or comfortable, or are we simply left to the whims of a higher power—God, the Cosmos, the Absolute, the One... whichever term resonates most with you?

Destructive thoughts and actions inevitably trigger destructive consequences for the one who commits them—take pedophiles or those "evil" doctors, for instance... 😈 And all those who feel that same way—they’re just crafting their own destruction, much like we do with our own messes... It is difficult to predict exactly what kind of twist of fate will trigger the collapse of the house of cards.

Destruction exists for a reason, doesn't it? What I’m actually wondering—which is essentially the same question as the one above—is whether humanity will always have to be just as destructive as it tries to be "constructive"... though I find that term difficult to even wrap my head around... in order to maintain that balance we discussed earlier. If that's the case, then everything is functioning exactly as it should, isn't it?

One is tasked with always striving for the greatest good—for oneself and for others—even when one knows the effort is futile because the outcome must be "tragic" for some higher purpose...

I agree regarding these "higher reasons"—though I wonder... what exactly do you imagine those "higher reasons" might be?

Once you finally grasp that—once you realize there is no such thing as "divine justice"—you stop sabotaging your own life by denying the one thing that actually matters... your spirit.

My imagination is far too vivid for my own good—I can conjure up a million different scenarios that feel equally plausible... though, much like yourself, I find myself wondering if this "synthesis" I'm picturing is actually real—or just another one of my delusions.
The reason I’m hitting you with these heavy questions is that—unlike the usual preachy, surface-level spiritualists out there—you actually seem authentic... which is a rare find.😁

according to one's own peace.

For a spirit that is restless by its very "nature," what does this "peace" even signify?
What does that peace mean to you—could you elaborate?

I don't mean that at all, because today's collective social intelligence is roughly on par with the IQ of a baboon's backside—and I realize that might be an insult to the baboon's backside, but inspiration is currently lacking—so one cannot rely on it to reach any higher understanding.

I agree, but isn't that just a consequence of that interplay between activity and passivity—that tension between destruction and creation?

Yes, refusal can stem from true understanding, in which case it ceases to be a matter of tolerance—merely passively enduring a situation—and becomes a matter of action.

Precisely—an active engagement with the living fabric around you, or rather, with a specific situation. Tolerance, nowadays, feels more like a fashion statement.

The state of the world is likely exactly as it ought to be, making it optimal—regardless of how difficult that is for me personally to accept at times.

Well, that "likely" suggests you aren't entirely certain whether it is so or not.
I feel much the same way...
Yet, many visitors to this forum are absolutely convinced they have everything figured out!😁

Edit: Oh, look, Master Ivan has joined us... this is getting interesting. 😁

I use the word "probably" to add a bit of humanity to my statements. I guess nobody needs another self-proclaimed saint walking around this earth, acting like they have all the answers. 😉

placidharbor7 said:briskraven28🤣, how on earth do you manage to raise such sharp objections against the "peripheral"? Your opponent's arguments rely heavily on the concept of "free will," which is honestly enough nonsense to justify just ignoring them altogether. They clearly don't know nearly as much as you do.

I am truly grateful for your noble gesture. 🙂

Art for art's sake. We have reached the absolute nadir of artistic expression. 🙂

silentcyclist3 said:Here's a good Quote:

An excerpt from the book "One Taste."
Shangri-La, 2000. copyright Ken Wilber.

Great yogis, saints, and sages reached those heights precisely because they weren't some withdrawn, tiny little nobodies. They were actually big, powerful egos, deeply integrated into the dynamic Ground and Purpose of the Cosmos itself. It’s actually because the ego, the soul, and the Self can exist simultaneously that we can better grasp what "selflessness" truly means—a concept that seems to cause an unusual amount of confusion. But selflessness doesn't mean the absence of a functional ego or Self (that would just be a psychotic, not a sage); rather, it means that a person is no longer exclusively identified with that ego or Self.

One reason we struggle so much with the idea of being "selfless" is that people just want their "selfless sages" to act out some fantasy of what's "holy" or "spiritual." Usually, that just means a state of total numbness from the neck down—no physical needs, no desires, just a constant, faint smile. Everything people actually struggle with—money, food, sex, relationships, longing—is exactly what they expect their saints to be stripped of. They want these "selfless saints" who have shed the ego and sit "above it all." They’re looking for disembodied illusions. I guess people believe religion will simply wipe away all those lower instincts and drives. So, instead of looking for advice on how to live a life full of enthusiasm, they turn to religion to find ways to bypass it, suppress it, or just avoid it altogether.

In other words, the average person wants a spiritual sage to be "less than a person." We seem to want them stripped of all those messy, juicy, complex, and primal drives that move most human beings. It’s like we expect our saints to be nothing more than an absence of everything that drives us. All those things that scare us, confuse us, or overwhelm us—we just want our saints to have absolutely nothing to do with them. And I guess that sense of detachment, that void, that "less than a person" quality... maybe that is exactly what we mean when we talk about being "egoless" or "selfless."

Being "ego-less" doesn't mean losing your sense of self. It isn't about subtracting your personality; I guess it's more like adding to it. It’s a personal plus, not a personal minus—taking all those standard individual traits and layering on some transpersonal depth. You might look at the great yogis, saints, and sages for perspective. Think about figures like Moses, Christ, or even Padmasambhava.
They weren't some weak, helpless wretches. They were fierce drivers of change—from wielding authority within the Temple to conquering entire nations. They shook the world by playing its own game, not through some sheltered, timid piety. Many of them ignited massive social revolutions that lasted for millennia. And they didn't do this by avoiding the physical, emotional, or mental dimensions of being human, nor by shunning the ego that served as their vehicle. Rather, they dove headlong into those realms with a will and an energy that shook the very foundations of the world.
There's no doubt about it. They were also engaged with the soul—that deeper psychic realm—and the spirit, which is that formless Self and the ultimate source of their power. But they manifested that strength through tangible results, mostly because they delved so deeply into those lower dimensions where that power speaks a language everyone can actually understand.
These major movers and shakers weren't small-minded egoists. They were great egoists, in the best sense of the term—simply because the ego (the functional vehicle of the gross realm) can exist alongside the soul (the subtle vehicle) and the Self (the causal vehicle). Since these great teachers were operating within the gross realm, they used their egos to do it, as the ego is the necessary medium for that level of reality. However, they didn't just identify with their egos—which would be narcissism—but rather, they channeled their entire ego into the brilliant Cosmic source.
The great yogis, saints, and sages achieved so much precisely because they weren't shrinking, petty individuals, but expansive egoists, anchored into the dynamic Ground and Purpose of the Cosmos itself, merged into their higher Self, living in pure Atman (pure I-I), or oneness with Brahman; they spoke, and the world trembled, fell to its knees, and beheld its radiant God.

The rest of the translation (which I definitely recommend) can be found at the link below:

http://www.integralworld.net/en/crokwego.html

I guess... is it even possible to achieve spiritual realization without first experiencing the ego?

Hell no. Everything we wrap our heads around comes down to perceiving opposites and constantly measuring one against the other. You’ve got to let that ego grow and mature first; it’s a mandatory stage in the whole process. But honestly, this petty little earthly ego we deal with is nothing more than a tiny, insignificant speck compared to our actual spiritual egoism—something so massive we can't even begin to grasp it. And there's more...

One more thing for you to chew on: this basic, animalistic ego isn't some massive roadblock to spirituality. It doesn't even matter in the grand scheme of things, yet everyone acts like it's this huge obstacle standing in their way.

Brian Foster3 said:Hell no. Everything we wrap our heads around comes down to perceiving opposites and constantly measuring one against the other. You’ve got to let that ego grow and mature first; it’s a mandatory stage in the whole process. But honestly, this petty little earthly ego we deal with is nothing more than a tiny, insignificant speck compared to our actual spiritual egoism—something so massive we can't even begin to grasp it. And there's more...

One more thing for you to chew on: this basic, animalistic ego isn't some massive roadblock to spirituality. It doesn't even matter in the grand scheme of things, yet everyone acts like it's this huge obstacle standing in their way.

What would those opposites even be, then, if you previously mentioned that the spiritual side is "inaccessible and unreachable" to us?

placidharbor7 said:So, if that's the case, what kind of impulse or motivation is driving us to do what we do, truth seeker?

It's just nature, man. It's how we were built from day one. It isn't some "flaw" on our part—it’s just the way things are supposed to be.

silentcyclist3 I can't even deal with this right now—honestly, I’m just sitting here staring at my screen wondering how anyone can be this dense! It’s like some people wake up every single day and decide that common sense just isn't on the menu anymore, you know? I was driving down the street near Starbucks earlier today and saw someone almost cause a massive pileup because they were too busy scrolling through their phone to notice a literal stop sign, and it just reminds me of how much nonsense we have to put up with lately!
What kind of opposites are you even talking about if you just went on a whole rant about how this stuff is spiritually "out of reach and inaccessible" to us?

Look, just because we can't reach the sun doesn't mean it isn't there, right? It’s just out of our damn reach, plain and simple.

We’re basically locked out of anything spiritual as long as we stay trapped in our own selfish ways, though that doesn't mean it's a permanent ban on us reaching that higher plane. There's this massive barrier separating the physical world from the spiritual one, and honestly, it feels like no amount of material action, whether it's some grand gesture or just a fleeting thought or feeling, can ever touch the spiritual realm. But here's the kicker: the spiritual side is what actually pulls the strings on everything happening down here, staying completely unshakeable and fixed in its nature while we're all down here scrambling around.

Brian Foster3 said:

silentcyclist3 I can't even deal with this right now—honestly, I’m just sitting here staring at my screen wondering how anyone can be this dense! It’s like some people wake up every single day and decide that common sense just isn't on the menu anymore, you know? I was driving down the street near Starbucks earlier today and saw someone almost cause a massive pileup because they were too busy scrolling through their phone to notice a literal stop sign, and it just reminds me of how much nonsense we have to put up with lately!
What kind of opposites are you even talking about if you just went on a whole rant about how this stuff is spiritually "out of reach and inaccessible" to us?

Look, just because we can't reach the sun doesn't mean it isn't there, right? It’s just out of our damn reach, plain and simple.

We’re basically locked out of anything spiritual as long as we stay trapped in our own selfish ways, though that doesn't mean it's a permanent ban on us reaching that higher plane. There's this massive barrier separating the physical world from the spiritual one, and honestly, it feels like no amount of material action, whether it's some grand gesture or just a fleeting thought or feeling, can ever touch the spiritual realm. But here's the kicker: the spiritual side is what actually pulls the strings on everything happening down here, staying completely unshakeable and fixed in its nature while we're all down here scrambling around.

But still, we rely on the sun. We install solar panels, plant crops based on its cycles, and basically run our lives by daylight.

I agree. We aren't going to change the sun, but that's not really the issue.
The point is to use it—to move toward it rather than running away.

Brian Foster3 said:It's just nature, man. It's how we were built from day one. It isn't some "flaw" on our part—it’s just the way things are supposed to be.

Honestly, is there anything about being human that *isn't* natural?