Can spirituality exist without God?

Joseph Ramos11 said:Do you really think us "normal" folks are all that different from someone dealing with schizophrenia? Just take a look around... all these wars, the mindless consumerism, senseless violence, drunk drivers, or people tearing through residential neighborhoods on motorcycles at eighty miles an hour...

Does our society actually seem normal to you?

😂

I was just asking you a simple question—honestly, I’m not sure where you got that from—but you jumped the gun and started attacking a conclusion I didn't even make. 🤷

Honestly, what we’re looking at here is just classic projection—you know, that thing where you take your own subconscious baggage and just dump it onto whoever you're talking to. Instead of actually listening to what I'm laying out, you're essentially reacting to your own internal programming. It's like you aren't even processing my words; you're just hitting a series of mental tripwires that have absolutely nothing to do with what I’m actually saying.

So, here’s the big question—are the hallucinations experienced by someone with schizophrenia actually real and tangible, or are they just... not? I’m looking for a simple yes or no to start, though I’m totally open to a bit of an explanation alongside that short answer. And hey, let's try not to pivot to a whole new topic until we've actually wrapped this one up—if you're down to discuss it, that is—but if not, no pressure at all.

Edward Flores4 said:Honestly, I feel just as much of an identity crisis as my old membership card from the local Blockbuster used to give me!

I suppose it all comes down to how you were raised—you know, that foundational stuff—but it also really depends on how an individual actually perceives their heritage, those old traditions, and the rituals that make up a culture. It’s about whether or not you actually feel like a meaningful part of that whole manufactured "collective" identity. In my case? Not really... I've never felt even the slightest bit of a connection to that kind of thing.

Look, for what you’re saying to actually hold any water, you’d need some kind of direct line into my subconscious—and let's be honest, you don't have that. You're also missing a pretty vital distinction here: the subconscious isn't necessarily the same thing as the unconscious. Think of consciousness like a cube sitting inside a sphere... essentially, your conscious mind acts as this "container" that tries to hold "N" number of cubic pieces of content pulled from the subconscious. Now, sure, that container probably won't ever be able to swallow every single subconscious element all at once—it just isn't built for that kind of volume—but any individual piece of the subconscious can definitely make its way up to the surface if you're actually looking for it.

See, I’m not just sitting here guessing... I actually know. 😉

Why do you feel like you have to measure everything by your own yardstick? It’s easy to assume everyone operates exactly like we do, but people develop different automatic responses—it's just how they're wired. Maybe some folks actually put in the work to "rework" their old habits specifically so those patterns wouldn't be so rigid or overwhelming for them. Everything sitting inside my head is essentially a product of my own mind... which means, logically, it's just as subject to change as anything else—provided I actually want to change it. Do you really think once an automatic habit is formed, it's set in stone forever? I don't think so.

Sweetie, it’s bedtime. Look at the clock, isn't it late?
Grab a glass of milk and get tucked in. I've got much more important things to do than play tag with you... take care.🙂

Joseph Ramos11 said:Sweetie, it’s bedtime. Look at the clock, isn't it late?
Grab a glass of milk and get tucked in. I've got much more important things to do than play tag with you... take care.🙂

It’s pretty wild how in just three posts, you’ve managed to spiral from deep philosophical discussions down to basically elementary school playground insults.🙄

But hey, I'm glad we finally cleared that up.😍

Edward Flores4 said:I was just asking you a simple question—honestly, I’m not sure where you got that from—but you jumped the gun and started attacking a conclusion I didn't even make. 🤷

Honestly, what we’re looking at here is just classic projection—you know, that thing where you take your own subconscious baggage and just dump it onto whoever you're talking to. Instead of actually listening to what I'm laying out, you're essentially reacting to your own internal programming. It's like you aren't even processing my words; you're just hitting a series of mental tripwires that have absolutely nothing to do with what I’m actually saying.

So, here’s the big question—are the hallucinations experienced by someone with schizophrenia actually real and tangible, or are they just... not? I’m looking for a simple yes or no to start, though I’m totally open to a bit of an explanation alongside that short answer. And hey, let's try not to pivot to a whole new topic until we've actually wrapped this one up—if you're down to discuss it, that is—but if not, no pressure at all.

Yeah, in my opinion—they're real, or at least they trigger real consequences. Much like the ego, I guess.

The real question is whether you identify with your mind and body. If not, then what? Is it more like the philosopher in your signature, maybe?

driftingraven122 said:Yeah, in my opinion—they're real, or at least they trigger real consequences. Much like the ego, I guess.

The real question is whether you identify with your mind and body. If not, then what? Is it more like the philosopher in your signature, maybe?

It’s funny how people act when they disagree or just don't get something. They just shut down. You answer them once, they ask the same thing phrased slightly differently, you answer again, and they just loop back to the exact same question...

I completely agree with you. What we experience is real, at least within the context of the person experiencing it. Honestly, I’d go as far as to say that a "shared reality" is mostly a myth. At best, people happen to overlap on certain things, but most of the time, we all perceive the world through our own lens of desires, goals, and experiences. For example, someone might be obsessed with their Dallas Cowboys; they'll cry if the team loses, while someone else couldn't care less. To the first person, that loss is a tangible reality with real emotional consequences. To the second, it doesn't even exist. A paranoid delusion felt by someone struggling with mental health is just as "real" in their world as that football loss is in the fan's world. It's interesting how those examples aren't actually any different from how we cling to our nationality, race, religion, career, or even our own names...

driftingraven122 said:Yeah, in my opinion—they're real, or at least they trigger real consequences. Much like the ego, I guess.

The real question is whether you identify with your mind and body. If not, then what? Is it more like the philosopher in your signature, maybe?

Of course they are... but we don't actually treat people that way, do we? If we did, we'd have to admit that we’re all somewhat schizophrenic to varying degrees. It's really just a matter of being observant enough to notice the "clumsiness" of that phenomenon in our daily lives—that awkward friction that makes us want to limit the movements of people whose schizophrenic "realities" are a bit too intense for the norm.

So, here's where it gets interesting. That line of reasoning forces us into another conclusion. Specifically, we need to decide if these "schizophrenic realities" are actually closer to some kind of theoretically objective truth, or if they are just arbitrary projections of subconscious content onto an "objective" reality. In other words: is schizophrenia an evolutionary leap forward, or is it a defect?

If it's progress, then we urgently need to swap out the staff at the psychiatric wards for the folks over at Congress. We'd just rotate them through the seats and call it a day.

But if it’s a defect, then we’ve used pure logic to circle back to the idea that the ego is nothing more than an irrational, arbitrary, and mostly subconscious projection—something we label as a flaw rather than seeing it as the "normal" or "natural" state of things.

driftingraven122 said:Yeah, in my opinion—they're real, or at least they trigger real consequences. Much like the ego, I guess.

The real question is whether you identify with your mind and body. If not, then what? Is it more like the philosopher in your signature, maybe?

The philosopher in my signature suggests recognizing "his identity with this Unity Software," which basically means realizing your identity as an inseparable part of a much larger whole. But isn't "identity" and "Unity Software" essentially opposites? Once you recognize your identity as part of the whole, the individual identity vanishes—the transformation is complete. The whole process of identification is actually a metamorphosis into a transcendental "object," an attractor, or to put it in McLuhan terms, a "medium" (whatever that may be), which serves as the ultimate goal of the identification process.

When you read ancient philosophers, you really have to approach them through the lens of the cosmology of their era. They didn't write with the literalism that modern philosophers do. Their statements are incredibly compressed—they pack massive amounts of data into very few words. To truly decompress those ideas, you usually have to dive into the original language and its fundamental assumptions, while studying the specific cosmology and mythology of that period... I think they call that "comparative mythology philosophy." Only then do you get the full picture of what those philosophical statements were trying to convey. They weren't writing for the masses back then; they were writing for the highly educated, the well-informed, and the relatively intelligent individuals who shared a specific worldview and a standardized set of assumptions unique to their corner of the world and their time.

Joseph Ramos11 said:It’s funny how people act when they disagree or just don't get something. They just shut down. You answer them once, they ask the same thing phrased slightly differently, you answer again, and they just loop back to the exact same question...

I completely agree with you. What we experience is real, at least within the context of the person experiencing it. Honestly, I’d go as far as to say that a "shared reality" is mostly a myth. At best, people happen to overlap on certain things, but most of the time, we all perceive the world through our own lens of desires, goals, and experiences. For example, someone might be obsessed with their Dallas Cowboys; they'll cry if the team loses, while someone else couldn't care less. To the first person, that loss is a tangible reality with real emotional consequences. To the second, it doesn't even exist. A paranoid delusion felt by someone struggling with mental health is just as "real" in their world as that football loss is in the fan's world. It's interesting how those examples aren't actually any different from how we cling to our nationality, race, religion, career, or even our own names...

Why didn't you just say you had much better things to do? 😁

ps: Seriously though, you might want to dial back the projection a bit. You're constantly fighting this imaginary opponent, and honestly, it’s exhausting—both for you and anyone watching. It’s frustrating because you can't win against a ghost; they just keep coming back until you start believing they're actually real 😉

Edward Flores4 said:Of course they are... but we don't actually treat people that way, do we? If we did, we'd have to admit that we’re all somewhat schizophrenic to varying degrees. It's really just a matter of being observant enough to notice the "clumsiness" of that phenomenon in our daily lives—that awkward friction that makes us want to limit the movements of people whose schizophrenic "realities" are a bit too intense for the norm.

So, here's where it gets interesting. That line of reasoning forces us into another conclusion. Specifically, we need to decide if these "schizophrenic realities" are actually closer to some kind of theoretically objective truth, or if they are just arbitrary projections of subconscious content onto an "objective" reality. In other words: is schizophrenia an evolutionary leap forward, or is it a defect?

If it's progress, then we urgently need to swap out the staff at the psychiatric wards for the folks over at Congress. We'd just rotate them through the seats and call it a day.

But if it’s a defect, then we’ve used pure logic to circle back to the idea that the ego is nothing more than an irrational, arbitrary, and mostly subconscious projection—something we label as a flaw rather than seeing it as the "normal" or "natural" state of things.

The philosopher in my signature suggests recognizing "his identity with this Unity Software," which basically means realizing your identity as an inseparable part of a much larger whole. But isn't "identity" and "Unity Software" essentially opposites? Once you recognize your identity as part of the whole, the individual identity vanishes—the transformation is complete. The whole process of identification is actually a metamorphosis into a transcendental "object," an attractor, or to put it in McLuhan terms, a "medium" (whatever that may be), which serves as the ultimate goal of the identification process.

When you read ancient philosophers, you really have to approach them through the lens of the cosmology of their era. They didn't write with the literalism that modern philosophers do. Their statements are incredibly compressed—they pack massive amounts of data into very few words. To truly decompress those ideas, you usually have to dive into the original language and its fundamental assumptions, while studying the specific cosmology and mythology of that period... I think they call that "comparative mythology philosophy." Only then do you get the full picture of what those philosophical statements were trying to convey. They weren't writing for the masses back then; they were writing for the highly educated, the well-informed, and the relatively intelligent individuals who shared a specific worldview and a standardized set of assumptions unique to their corner of the world and their time.

But even so, we're really just drawing a parallel between how these two things—the ego illusion and hallucinations—impact what we perceive as reality. It doesn't mean they are functionally identical, of course.

Then again, maybe we're using 'ego' in a different sense—like when I want to lift my left arm or grab a glass of water; I personally see that 'ego' in action and consider it necessary for any movement at all, which suggests it runs deeper—that the ego is precisely that essential process of identification.

Whether I want to lift my left hand, drink some water, identify with Buddhist philosophy, or apply some sort of 'technique,' it all feels fundamentally the same to me (in terms of 'deepening the ego illusion,' obviously). Actually, this whole idea of discarding 'spiritual techniques' sounds a bit like the ego manifesting in its most conventional sense. 😁

Which brings me to this:

The philosopher in my signature mentions recognizing "his identity with this unity," which translates to realizing one's identity as an inseparable part of a larger whole. But identity and Unity Software are actually opposites... aren't they? If you recognize your identity as the whole—identity vanishes—the transformation is complete. Because the process of identification is essentially a metamorphosis into a transcendental "object," an attractor, or to put it in McLuhan terms, a "medium"—whatever that may be—which serves as the ultimate goal of the identification process.

It all sounds a little too much like a fairy tale to me, honestly, because I can't really picture a functioning human being who isn't currently engaged in a process of identification. I mean, I don't see how identity disappears if it's recognized as part of a whole; hasn't the identity just shifted slightly? Doesn't the ego still function?

Alright, just a few opening thoughts before I try to tackle the main question...

mistybison said:Just a few thoughts...

If "spirituality" is defined as self-discovery, then believing in God isn't strictly necessary. In fact, you don't even need to believe in a "soul" or any other concept we can't verify with absolute certainty. It seems to me that when embarking on this journey, one is better off traveling light—stripping away everything that might clutter the mind or lead us astray through preconceived patterns of thought. Nothing more than self-belief is required, and most of us are quite certain of our own existence. 😉

On the other hand, if "spirituality" is a search for God, then faith in God becomes the prerequisite for the journey. Typically, we look for God in the external world first before turning our gaze inward. While the process of self-discovery involves searching for the source of our being and our purpose, seeking God means looking for the entity we believe to be our ultimate origin and meaning. Have you ever noticed how reality seems to reshape itself to align with our convictions? Once we commit to a belief, we suddenly encounter endless evidence supporting it, almost as if the universe is conspiring to confirm we are right, making it incredibly easy to convince ourselves that we have found the absolute TRUTH. However, just as nothing in this world is permanent, our beliefs shift as well. Throughout my life, my understanding of "God" has evolved many times, mirroring my own internal growth.

Who are you searching for—yourself or God?

There are countless paths toward self-knowledge and infinite ways to seek God. Some follow the well-trodden trails left by those before us, while others choose to blaze their own unique path.

Are you still walking the spiritual path, or have you reached its end? Have you truly grasped the essence of yourself or God? Is such a feat even possible? Or is it more practical to simply let go? How can you be sure that what you claim to KNOW isn't merely FAITH in ideas that happen to suit your current stage of personal development? How do we distinguish between FAITH and KNOWLEDGE in a spiritual context?

But you definitely need faith in spirituality itself, or the path, or the discovery process. That naturally expands the idea of "believing in oneself" into something larger—something being sought. Because if you only believe in yourself, what else is there to discover? The truth is, it's hard to pin down or explain, so talking about God usually feels like the easiest way to frame it...

If 'spirituality' is a search for God, then faith in God is the prerequisite for starting the journey.

I used to say it that way too ("searching for God"), until I finally realized I wasn't actually hunting Him down. At least, not within myself. He’s always been there. Sometimes I ignore Him, but He's present. So, I don't see it as a hunt anymore; it's more like a conscious recognition of His presence, an acceptance of that friendship. If you have to "reach" Him (or reach that Truth, as you put it), then He's outside of us... which means we'll never actually arrive. It's like chasing a ghost you've only heard stories about. In reality, you just have to let your heart be warmed by God's presence.

Strip away all the philosophy and it's simple: everyone knows God. Maybe they deny Him, maybe they do it unconsciously, but I can't imagine a person where He doesn't exist. Every other human being, made of God's spirit, must feel it on some level. Is it my faith or my knowledge? I wouldn't know how to label it. Give me a third noun that fits better. 😁 Human spirituality is simply God within us. So, I'd venture to say there is no spirituality without God.

Usually, we look for God in the outside world first, and only then do we start looking inside ourselves.

I want to add something here because I've been reflecting on this all day 😁 and I've landed on the exact opposite of your view. For me, it's about trying to find what I already hold within myself out in the world. In others. I want to see, feel, and touch that aspect in someone else, just as I want them to recognize it in me.

Who are you looking for—yourself, or God?

Searching for Unity. You could call it a quest, a challenge, a game, luck, or just life itself.

What I’m actually hunting for, in the truest sense, is love. That's where my spirituality leads. It's essentially the point of my existence; so, feel free to throw stones at me if you want, I won't even bother defending myself. 😁

Are you still walking the spiritual path, or have you reached the end? Have you finally figured out yourself or God? Is that even possible? Or is it more practical to just give up? How can you be certain you actually KNOW (whatever that means) something, rather than just having FAITH in ideas that happen to fit your current stage of personal growth? How do we tell the difference between FAITH and KNOWLEDGE in a spiritual context?

How do we even distinguish faith from knowledge? Knowledge is basically just faith backed by evidence we choose to believe. Honestly, neither term really fits when describing spiritual experiences—they just muddy the waters. I don't think the spiritual journey ever ends... maybe it isn't even a journey. People change, perspectives shift, we evolve in every way, but one thing stays constant: the possibility (and the necessity 😁) of touching God. That connection doesn't rely on any of this. It’s not about knowledge or faith. I recognize the same God within me that I knew as a little girl; He's always been there.

I wouldn't call myself a believer, and I almost feel out of place posting this on a religious forum. You can believe in anything: gods, yourself, mental illusions, the mind itself, relativity, nothingness, everythingness, aliens... who knows 😁... but I think the core is the feeling. That simple touch, that realization. 🤷

Why am I writing this, and why was I thinking so much today? 😁

I heard this beautiful song, and I wanted to share it. Lately, I've been feeling pretty scattered, stumbling through the dark, just trying to find some solid ground by pure luck. But today was different. I was driving through the outskirts of Chicago with a friend (who is a true "believer" 🙂), no real agenda, just feeling empty inside, nothing but the road and the sun... and suddenly, these lyrics hit me. My whole inner world rebuilt itself right then. It’s amazing how easy it is to wake up. I know I sound like a bit of a freak, but I really am not. 😁

Hope you like it:

I am a garden enclosed
A locked garden
A fountain sealed
I am your resting place
I am your resting place
Here oh Lord have I prepared a place for you to dwell
Here in the reservoir of me
That you would dwell in my heart
That I would be in you and you would be in me
That I could fellowship with God
Here where it's you and me alone
The very glory of God
In the inside of me
I want to fellowship with you

Here it's you and me alone, God
You and me alone
Here it's you and me alone, God
You and me alone

I am your resting place
You promised You'd dwell within me
That I’d stay rooted in the Vine
Christ living through me
The anchor of my glory

Just You and me, God
Just You and me
Right here, it's just You and me, God
Just You and me

You've walled me in
Wrapped me in Your presence
Like a private sanctuary
A walled garden
Real life happens deep within

Where it's just You and me, God
Just You and me
Right here, it's just You and me, God
Just You and me

So step into Your garden
Step into Your garden
Step into Your garden
Step into Your garden

Here, oh Lord
I've set the stage
To make a place for You

I don't belong to myself anymore
I am Your garden

I refuse to waste my life
Skimming the surface
I'm moving from the inside out
I won't squander my days
Staying on the periphery
I'm living from the core outward

I don't belong to myself anymore
I am Your garden

So step into Your garden
Step into Your garden
Step into Your garden
Step into Your garden.....

If you want to listen (it's honestly stunning 🙂): Garden

I’m honestly still chewing on what was said here—it’s one of those ideas that really sticks to your ribs if you let it. It’s like when you're trying to explain a complex concept, like how a certain software architecture works, and you realize the simplest explanation isn't always the most accurate one because life just isn't that linear. You know? Anyway, I wanted to take a second to dig into this.

driftingraven122 said:But even so, we're really just drawing a parallel between how these two things—the ego illusion and hallucinations—impact what we perceive as reality. It doesn't mean they are functionally identical, of course.

Then again, maybe we're using 'ego' in a different sense—like when I want to lift my left arm or grab a glass of water; I personally see that 'ego' in action and consider it necessary for any movement at all, which suggests it runs deeper—that the ego is precisely that essential process of identification.

Whether I want to lift my left hand, drink some water, identify with Buddhist philosophy, or apply some sort of 'technique,' it all feels fundamentally the same to me (in terms of 'deepening the ego illusion,' obviously). Actually, this whole idea of discarding 'spiritual techniques' sounds a bit like the ego manifesting in its most conventional sense. 😁

Which brings me to this:

The philosopher in my signature mentions recognizing "his identity with this unity," which translates to realizing one's identity as an inseparable part of a larger whole. But identity and Unity Software are actually opposites... aren't they? If you recognize your identity as the whole—identity vanishes—the transformation is complete. Because the process of identification is essentially a metamorphosis into a transcendental "object," an attractor, or to put it in McLuhan terms, a "medium"—whatever that may be—which serves as the ultimate goal of the identification process.

It all sounds a little too much like a fairy tale to me, honestly, because I can't really picture a functioning human being who isn't currently engaged in a process of identification. I mean, I don't see how identity disappears if it's recognized as part of a whole; hasn't the identity just shifted slightly? Doesn't the ego still function?

So, what’s the actual difference there? Is there any real evidence pointing in that direction, or is it just a gut feeling of yours that things shouldn't work that way? I've spent quite a bit of time chewing on this myself—really digging into the logic—and honestly, I haven't been able to find any solid arguments that support the idea that these aren't just the exact same phenomenon occurring at different amplitudes. It feels like we're looking at the same wave, just scaled differently.

driftingraven122 said:But even so, we're really just drawing a parallel between how these two things—the ego illusion and hallucinations—impact what we perceive as reality. It doesn't mean they are functionally identical, of course.

Then again, maybe we're using 'ego' in a different sense—like when I want to lift my left arm or grab a glass of water; I personally see that 'ego' in action and consider it necessary for any movement at all, which suggests it runs deeper—that the ego is precisely that essential process of identification.

Whether I want to lift my left hand, drink some water, identify with Buddhist philosophy, or apply some sort of 'technique,' it all feels fundamentally the same to me (in terms of 'deepening the ego illusion,' obviously). Actually, this whole idea of discarding 'spiritual techniques' sounds a bit like the ego manifesting in its most conventional sense. 😁

Which brings me to this:

The philosopher in my signature mentions recognizing "his identity with this unity," which translates to realizing one's identity as an inseparable part of a larger whole. But identity and Unity Software are actually opposites... aren't they? If you recognize your identity as the whole—identity vanishes—the transformation is complete. Because the process of identification is essentially a metamorphosis into a transcendental "object," an attractor, or to put it in McLuhan terms, a "medium"—whatever that may be—which serves as the ultimate goal of the identification process.

It all sounds a little too much like a fairy tale to me, honestly, because I can't really picture a functioning human being who isn't currently engaged in a process of identification. I mean, I don't see how identity disappears if it's recognized as part of a whole; hasn't the identity just shifted slightly? Doesn't the ego still function?

I honestly don't follow you there... what does neuromotor skills have to do with the ego? That’s just learned behavior—purely physical conditioning—and I really don't see any room for the ego to play a part in that process.

I definitely agree that the ego is essentially just a byproduct of identification... but I think there's a huge distinction to be made regarding identity itself. You can possess an identity without actually identifying with it. It’s kind of like how you might be incredibly skilled at drawing—you have the talent, the technique, and the drive—but that doesn't mean you have to label yourself as "an artist" to enjoy the process. So, please, let's try to distinguish between participating in society through a "persona" and actually identifying with that persona while remaining oblivious to the true nature of your own consciousness. Those two things aren't the same—in fact, they aren't even close.

driftingraven122 said:But even so, we're really just drawing a parallel between how these two things—the ego illusion and hallucinations—impact what we perceive as reality. It doesn't mean they are functionally identical, of course.

Then again, maybe we're using 'ego' in a different sense—like when I want to lift my left arm or grab a glass of water; I personally see that 'ego' in action and consider it necessary for any movement at all, which suggests it runs deeper—that the ego is precisely that essential process of identification.

Whether I want to lift my left hand, drink some water, identify with Buddhist philosophy, or apply some sort of 'technique,' it all feels fundamentally the same to me (in terms of 'deepening the ego illusion,' obviously). Actually, this whole idea of discarding 'spiritual techniques' sounds a bit like the ego manifesting in its most conventional sense. 😁

Which brings me to this:

The philosopher in my signature mentions recognizing "his identity with this unity," which translates to realizing one's identity as an inseparable part of a larger whole. But identity and Unity Software are actually opposites... aren't they? If you recognize your identity as the whole—identity vanishes—the transformation is complete. Because the process of identification is essentially a metamorphosis into a transcendental "object," an attractor, or to put it in McLuhan terms, a "medium"—whatever that may be—which serves as the ultimate goal of the identification process.

It all sounds a little too much like a fairy tale to me, honestly, because I can't really picture a functioning human being who isn't currently engaged in a process of identification. I mean, I don't see how identity disappears if it's recognized as part of a whole; hasn't the identity just shifted slightly? Doesn't the ego still function?

I think you’re missing the core of what we’re actually "doing" here. See, the problem with any spiritual technique is that it’s really just gymnastics for the ego—nothing more. Every single exercise, every little method, or any specific path you follow requires time to work, and that’s where the trap lies. Time is essentially just the interference between a thought and the thinker. Think about it this way: thought is primary, while experience is always secondary. Thought is absolute, whereas experience is purely relative. As long as you’re clinging to these "techniques" within the realm of time, that "thinker" isn't going anywhere. You can't make them vanish. And honestly, you can't truly become what you actually are until they do—which is nothing more than a shifting, transient thought trying to manufacture a permanent "thinker" just to lock itself into a sense of stability.

I'm looking at this Quote—and I mean really digging into it—and it’s got me thinking about how we process information in this digital age. It reminds me a bit of that whole McLuhan idea about the medium being the message, right? We often get so caught up in the individual bits of data that we miss the broader architecture of how that info is actually hitting us. It's like when you're driving down a highway in the Midwest; you can focus on a single pothole, or you can look at the horizon to see where the road is actually taking you. If you only stare at the cracks in the pavement, you're going to miss the entire landscape.

driftingraven122 said:But even so, we're really just drawing a parallel between how these two things—the ego illusion and hallucinations—impact what we perceive as reality. It doesn't mean they are functionally identical, of course.

Then again, maybe we're using 'ego' in a different sense—like when I want to lift my left arm or grab a glass of water; I personally see that 'ego' in action and consider it necessary for any movement at all, which suggests it runs deeper—that the ego is precisely that essential process of identification.

Whether I want to lift my left hand, drink some water, identify with Buddhist philosophy, or apply some sort of 'technique,' it all feels fundamentally the same to me (in terms of 'deepening the ego illusion,' obviously). Actually, this whole idea of discarding 'spiritual techniques' sounds a bit like the ego manifesting in its most conventional sense. 😁

Which brings me to this:

The philosopher in my signature mentions recognizing "his identity with this unity," which translates to realizing one's identity as an inseparable part of a larger whole. But identity and Unity Software are actually opposites... aren't they? If you recognize your identity as the whole—identity vanishes—the transformation is complete. Because the process of identification is essentially a metamorphosis into a transcendental "object," an attractor, or to put it in McLuhan terms, a "medium"—whatever that may be—which serves as the ultimate goal of the identification process.

It all sounds a little too much like a fairy tale to me, honestly, because I can't really picture a functioning human being who isn't currently engaged in a process of identification. I mean, I don't see how identity disappears if it's recognized as part of a whole; hasn't the identity just shifted slightly? Doesn't the ego still function?

Do you actually know what identity even means? At its core, identity means "to be the same," so the act of identifying is really this metamorphosis where you—the subject doing the identifying—become identical to the "object" you're focusing on. If that "object" happens to be the Absolute (Unity Software), then at the moment of total identification, you "become identical to the Absolute." In that scenario, there’s nothing left to distinguish you, nothing to separate you from the source. If you *are* the Absolute, you aren't some separate identity going through a process anymore.

I laid all of this out in my previous post, too, but since it clearly didn't click, I'll expand the explanation just a touch. If any part of this feels fuzzy, please just ask—and seriously, try to get a handle on what these terms actually mean, otherwise we're just going to end up babbling in circles and getting absolutely nowhere.

Look, your identity—your "persona"—exists as long as you're breathing. But the ego? The ego doesn't actually exist unless you believe in it—that's when it becomes "real." It's essentially the same mechanism you see in schizophrenia, just on a much smaller scale. By believing in the ego, you've basically split yourself into two: you've labeled one part the "ego" and the other the "controller" (or whatever you want to call it), and now there are two of you. If that splitting continues, you end up with three, and then we're moving into multiple personality disorder territory. Usually, every one of those fragments is born from some kind of trauma or repressed subconscious baggage.

Trying to "fix" the ego using some fancy technique is probably the biggest ego trip you could ever take. True transformation has to be instantaneous... that's why they call it Satori (sudden, all at once). Techniques exist because they're the easiest way to turn a fool into a wise man. As William Blake said: "The fool who persists in his folly will become wise," and all these techniques are just there to point you straight toward your own foolishness. With these methods, you aren't really "going" anywhere; you eventually hit a "wall" and realize that Nirvana is exactly where you were standing when you first thought you had an "ego problem" to solve.

Then again, maybe I'm just pulling your leg and I made the whole thing up on the spot...

...or maybe there's a certain amount of spiritual pride involved here—something rotten, ambitious, and fundamentally wrong about our drive to become enlightened. Maybe it's an utter ego trip to think that through sheer willpower and effort, we can transform ourselves into something we haven't been before... like a Buddha or a saint.

How can you become something you already are? How do you "work on yourself"... how do you use your fingertip to touch the very tip of that same finger? What kind of "technique" is that?

Edward Flores4 said:Look, since you're out here claiming the ego actually exists, the burden of proof is squarely on your shoulders. We can't see the ego directly—you know, through basic sight—and we certainly can't detect it indirectly via any modern tech, like an MRI, a CT scan, or even an X-ray. So, if you're arguing it doesn't exist, you don't really need to provide evidence. But the moment you step up and claim the ego *is* a real thing, then it’s your job to solve the whole dilemma of how we define a "reliable metric" for existence versus non-existence.

And since you're clearly a bit of an expert on these matters... I'm sure you'll have no trouble figuring that out.

By the way—what is this "ego" supposed to be, anyway?

The problem here is that the people arguing are only looking at things through the lens of "existence."
placidharbor7 had the guts to step up and speak from a place of true mastery, recognizing both "existence" and "non-existence" at once—basically living in both worlds simultaneously!
And honestly, that kind of master-level perspective? You can't just sit there and try to prove it with a spreadsheet. It's just a different way of being.

If you’re telling me the "ego" is just an illusion, then tell me this: who exactly is experiencing the illusion of that clumsiness?

hiddenhound3 said:My question is this: "Does God exist, or does anything else exist, in the absence of humanity?"

God (with a capital "G") does not exist without humans. It is a mere projection of the human mind, born from a desperate attempt to satisfy its own needs and to somehow defeat the inevitability of change that defines life. Even today, people treat the big "G" as a living person without having the slightest clue why.😉

placidharbor7 said:The problem here is that the people arguing are only looking at things through the lens of "existence."
placidharbor7 had the guts to step up and speak from a place of true mastery, recognizing both "existence" and "non-existence" at once—basically living in both worlds simultaneously!
And honestly, that kind of master-level perspective? You can't just sit there and try to prove it with a spreadsheet. It's just a different way of being.

If you’re telling me the "ego" is just an illusion, then tell me this: who exactly is experiencing the illusion of that clumsiness?

Basically, you can’t actually defend the idea of "existence," yet you still insist you're right and somehow expect me to take you seriously... oh, please, Mr. Expert.😁

If you had actually realized anything, you'd be able to explain it. Save those tired lines about how things "can't be proven" for someone else. If you were truly living on both "levels" at once, you’d know how to carry yourself—you wouldn't go around broadcasting your dual existence to everyone while expecting us to treat you like some sort of guru. One of the main traits of an awakened person is wanting to help others; your main trait seems to be just being full of yourself.

placidharbor7 said:The problem here is that the people arguing are only looking at things through the lens of "existence."
placidharbor7 had the guts to step up and speak from a place of true mastery, recognizing both "existence" and "non-existence" at once—basically living in both worlds simultaneously!
And honestly, that kind of master-level perspective? You can't just sit there and try to prove it with a spreadsheet. It's just a different way of being.

If you’re telling me the "ego" is just an illusion, then tell me this: who exactly is experiencing the illusion of that clumsiness?

Come on, drop the hackneyed clichés you trot out every fifth post. Every single time someone asks you a question you can't answer, you swoop in with one of those "deep" counter-questions straight out of a preschool version of Zen for Dummies.🙄

If you don't have an answer, don't try to hide behind flimsy excuses or transparent little diversions meant to distract from the fact that you haven't a clue what you're rambling about. There is nothing I can't stand more than these self-appointed, self-proclaimed "spiritual authorities"—they're basically just spiritual con artists.

driftingraven122 said:But even so, we're really just drawing a parallel between how these two things—the ego illusion and hallucinations—impact what we perceive as reality. It doesn't mean they are functionally identical, of course.

Then again, maybe we're using 'ego' in a different sense—like when I want to lift my left arm or grab a glass of water; I personally see that 'ego' in action and consider it necessary for any movement at all, which suggests it runs deeper—that the ego is precisely that essential process of identification.

Whether I want to lift my left hand, drink some water, identify with Buddhist philosophy, or apply some sort of 'technique,' it all feels fundamentally the same to me (in terms of 'deepening the ego illusion,' obviously). Actually, this whole idea of discarding 'spiritual techniques' sounds a bit like the ego manifesting in its most conventional sense. 😁

Which brings me to this:

The philosopher in my signature mentions recognizing "his identity with this unity," which translates to realizing one's identity as an inseparable part of a larger whole. But identity and Unity Software are actually opposites... aren't they? If you recognize your identity as the whole—identity vanishes—the transformation is complete. Because the process of identification is essentially a metamorphosis into a transcendental "object," an attractor, or to put it in McLuhan terms, a "medium"—whatever that may be—which serves as the ultimate goal of the identification process.

It all sounds a little too much like a fairy tale to me, honestly, because I can't really picture a functioning human being who isn't currently engaged in a process of identification. I mean, I don't see how identity disappears if it's recognized as part of a whole; hasn't the identity just shifted slightly? Doesn't the ego still function?

I would never have thought of myself as someone who identifies with anything; that concept would be completely foreign to me if I hadn't read about it in books. I believe it stems from an artificial internal division that looks something like this: the "self" (which people usually call "consciousness") possesses certain attributes—or contents, such as the mind and body, as Lou might put it—and then the "self" identifies with those contents. According to this view, the more one progresses in stripping away what they believe they are not, the closer they get to their true nature. However, I am not inclined toward this specific view of the "self" or this kind of internal division.

I believe the "self" is a whole composed of multiple layers and parts, yet it does not function through divisions. Specifically, we won't reach any kind of "true self" by losing "identifications"; we will merely redirect our attention to different parts of ourselves. Consciousness, mind, and body are all equal components of who we are. 🙂 We should aim to perceive this unity rather than pursuing an illusory and impossible division of the self, believing that by shifting our focus, we will somehow "lose ourselves" like peeling an onion. 😁 We are always what we truly are, regardless of the form we take. 🙂 It is only from the perspective of wholeness and unity that we can clearly see that the "self" is not just consciousness plus mind plus body. The "self" expands to include what we typically perceive as "not me"—the reality surrounding us. Nothing "outside of me" exists differently than "to me." The "self" and the "world" together constitute the "sense of being," which is what we call "I am." In extreme subjectivism, a state of emptiness arises where nothing else can be determined or defined, meaning "I am" is no longer synonymous with "existence." At that point, identifications truly cease to exist because they become impossible to create.

Edward Flores4 said:Basically, you can’t actually defend the idea of "existence," yet you still insist you're right and somehow expect me to take you seriously... oh, please, Mr. Expert.😁

If you had actually realized anything, you'd be able to explain it. Save those tired lines about how things "can't be proven" for someone else. If you were truly living on both "levels" at once, you’d know how to carry yourself—you wouldn't go around broadcasting your dual existence to everyone while expecting us to treat you like some sort of guru. One of the main traits of an awakened person is wanting to help others; your main trait seems to be just being full of yourself.

Come on, drop the hackneyed clichés you trot out every fifth post. Every single time someone asks you a question you can't answer, you swoop in with one of those "deep" counter-questions straight out of a preschool version of Zen for Dummies.🙄

If you don't have an answer, don't try to hide behind flimsy excuses or transparent little diversions meant to distract from the fact that you haven't a clue what you're rambling about. There is nothing I can't stand more than these self-appointed, self-proclaimed "spiritual authorities"—they're basically just spiritual con artists.

At the end of the day, everyone just does what they can, right? We all have our own limits, our own capacity, and our own way of handling things based on what we're able to give. It really just comes down to how much each person can manage!

Edward Flores4 said:Basically, you can’t actually defend the idea of "existence," yet you still insist you're right and somehow expect me to take you seriously... oh, please, Mr. Expert.😁

If you had actually realized anything, you'd be able to explain it. Save those tired lines about how things "can't be proven" for someone else. If you were truly living on both "levels" at once, you’d know how to carry yourself—you wouldn't go around broadcasting your dual existence to everyone while expecting us to treat you like some sort of guru. One of the main traits of an awakened person is wanting to help others; your main trait seems to be just being full of yourself.

Come on, drop the hackneyed clichés you trot out every fifth post. Every single time someone asks you a question you can't answer, you swoop in with one of those "deep" counter-questions straight out of a preschool version of Zen for Dummies.🙄

If you don't have an answer, don't try to hide behind flimsy excuses or transparent little diversions meant to distract from the fact that you haven't a clue what you're rambling about. There is nothing I can't stand more than these self-appointed, self-proclaimed "spiritual authorities"—they're basically just spiritual con artists.

See? You finally get it! It’s like you’re starting to realize just how much you can actually accomplish when everything clicks. Isn't it amazing when that lightbulb moment finally hits?

Edward Flores4 said:Basically, you can’t actually defend the idea of "existence," yet you still insist you're right and somehow expect me to take you seriously... oh, please, Mr. Expert.😁

If you had actually realized anything, you'd be able to explain it. Save those tired lines about how things "can't be proven" for someone else. If you were truly living on both "levels" at once, you’d know how to carry yourself—you wouldn't go around broadcasting your dual existence to everyone while expecting us to treat you like some sort of guru. One of the main traits of an awakened person is wanting to help others; your main trait seems to be just being full of yourself.

Come on, drop the hackneyed clichés you trot out every fifth post. Every single time someone asks you a question you can't answer, you swoop in with one of those "deep" counter-questions straight out of a preschool version of Zen for Dummies.🙄

If you don't have an answer, don't try to hide behind flimsy excuses or transparent little diversions meant to distract from the fact that you haven't a clue what you're rambling about. There is nothing I can't stand more than these self-appointed, self-proclaimed "spiritual authorities"—they're basically just spiritual con artists.

What does placidharbor7 actually know about Zen? He gave you a little hint about Nagarjuna—are you still not catching on to what he’s getting at?

I’m looking at this Quote, and honestly, isn't it fascinating how much weight a single sentence can carry? It really makes you stop and think about where we stand right now!

Edward Flores4 said:Basically, you can’t actually defend the idea of "existence," yet you still insist you're right and somehow expect me to take you seriously... oh, please, Mr. Expert.😁

If you had actually realized anything, you'd be able to explain it. Save those tired lines about how things "can't be proven" for someone else. If you were truly living on both "levels" at once, you’d know how to carry yourself—you wouldn't go around broadcasting your dual existence to everyone while expecting us to treat you like some sort of guru. One of the main traits of an awakened person is wanting to help others; your main trait seems to be just being full of yourself.

Come on, drop the hackneyed clichés you trot out every fifth post. Every single time someone asks you a question you can't answer, you swoop in with one of those "deep" counter-questions straight out of a preschool version of Zen for Dummies.🙄

If you don't have an answer, don't try to hide behind flimsy excuses or transparent little diversions meant to distract from the fact that you haven't a clue what you're rambling about. There is nothing I can't stand more than these self-appointed, self-proclaimed "spiritual authorities"—they're basically just spiritual con artists.

Look, this whole idea of "mutual aid" is strictly something you're making up in your own head—it doesn't exist anywhere else! Why on earth would you try to pin that label on people who haven't done anything wrong?

By the way, if you’re really claiming that the "ego" is just some big illusion, then help me out here—who exactly is being fooled by that clumsy little delusion?

placidharbor7 said:At the end of the day, everyone just does what they can, right? We all have our own limits, our own capacity, and our own way of handling things based on what we're able to give. It really just comes down to how much each person can manage!

See? You finally get it! It’s like you’re starting to realize just how much you can actually accomplish when everything clicks. Isn't it amazing when that lightbulb moment finally hits?

What does placidharbor7 actually know about Zen? He gave you a little hint about Nagarjuna—are you still not catching on to what he’s getting at?

I’m looking at this Quote, and honestly, isn't it fascinating how much weight a single sentence can carry? It really makes you stop and think about where we stand right now!

Look, this whole idea of "mutual aid" is strictly something you're making up in your own head—it doesn't exist anywhere else! Why on earth would you try to pin that label on people who haven't done anything wrong?

By the way, if you’re really claiming that the "ego" is just some big illusion, then help me out here—who exactly is being fooled by that clumsy little delusion?

Damn... that was actually incredibly profound. I'm genuinely impressed.

placidharbor7 said:At the end of the day, everyone just does what they can, right? We all have our own limits, our own capacity, and our own way of handling things based on what we're able to give. It really just comes down to how much each person can manage!

See? You finally get it! It’s like you’re starting to realize just how much you can actually accomplish when everything clicks. Isn't it amazing when that lightbulb moment finally hits?

What does placidharbor7 actually know about Zen? He gave you a little hint about Nagarjuna—are you still not catching on to what he’s getting at?

I’m looking at this Quote, and honestly, isn't it fascinating how much weight a single sentence can carry? It really makes you stop and think about where we stand right now!

Look, this whole idea of "mutual aid" is strictly something you're making up in your own head—it doesn't exist anywhere else! Why on earth would you try to pin that label on people who haven't done anything wrong?

By the way, if you’re really claiming that the "ego" is just some big illusion, then help me out here—who exactly is being fooled by that clumsy little delusion?

Look, you’re missing out on so much potential because you’re pouring all your energy into the performance—all that unnecessary drama and playing a part—instead of just picking up a shovel and actually digging in. If you’d stop worrying about how things look and just get to work, you might actually leave a meaningful mark on this world.

I really need to address this specific point—it’s one of those things that keeps coming up, and I think it deserves a bit more breathing room than we've given it. When you look at the core of what we're discussing here, it isn't just about the surface-level details; it's about how those pieces fit into the larger picture. It reminds me of how a master carpenter doesn't just focus on a single nail, but rather on how the tension in the wood affects the entire structure of the house. If you miss that fundamental connection, the whole thing starts to feel a little off, right? So, taking this idea into account, let's try to peel back the layers a bit more. We shouldn't just accept the initial premise at face value—we have to dig into why it matters in the first place. It’s easy to get caught up in the weeds, but if we take a step back, we can see how these individual threads weave together into something much more substantial. It’s about looking for that underlying rhythm, that sense of cohesion that makes everything click.

placidharbor7 said:At the end of the day, everyone just does what they can, right? We all have our own limits, our own capacity, and our own way of handling things based on what we're able to give. It really just comes down to how much each person can manage!

See? You finally get it! It’s like you’re starting to realize just how much you can actually accomplish when everything clicks. Isn't it amazing when that lightbulb moment finally hits?

What does placidharbor7 actually know about Zen? He gave you a little hint about Nagarjuna—are you still not catching on to what he’s getting at?

I’m looking at this Quote, and honestly, isn't it fascinating how much weight a single sentence can carry? It really makes you stop and think about where we stand right now!

Look, this whole idea of "mutual aid" is strictly something you're making up in your own head—it doesn't exist anywhere else! Why on earth would you try to pin that label on people who haven't done anything wrong?

By the way, if you’re really claiming that the "ego" is just some big illusion, then help me out here—who exactly is being fooled by that clumsy little delusion?

You think I’m just giving you some clunky, half-baked translation that clearly went right over your head?

Here’s some food for thought to chew on:

There’s a massive difference between being humble enough to admit when you're out of your depth and being completely oblivious to the fact that you have no clue what's going on. To me, realizing you don't understand something—actually sitting with that uncertainty—is a genuine virtue. It's the starting point for everything. On the flip side, failing to realize you're lost? That’s just a fundamental flaw. It’s like driving through a thick fog in the middle of Nebraska without a GPS; if you don't realize you can't see the road, you're just heading straight for a ditch. Awareness is everything.

placidharbor7 said:At the end of the day, everyone just does what they can, right? We all have our own limits, our own capacity, and our own way of handling things based on what we're able to give. It really just comes down to how much each person can manage!

See? You finally get it! It’s like you’re starting to realize just how much you can actually accomplish when everything clicks. Isn't it amazing when that lightbulb moment finally hits?

What does placidharbor7 actually know about Zen? He gave you a little hint about Nagarjuna—are you still not catching on to what he’s getting at?

I’m looking at this Quote, and honestly, isn't it fascinating how much weight a single sentence can carry? It really makes you stop and think about where we stand right now!

Look, this whole idea of "mutual aid" is strictly something you're making up in your own head—it doesn't exist anywhere else! Why on earth would you try to pin that label on people who haven't done anything wrong?

By the way, if you’re really claiming that the "ego" is just some big illusion, then help me out here—who exactly is being fooled by that clumsy little delusion?

Look, innocence and enlightenment—those aren't things you can just hand out like flyers on a street corner; they live entirely within your own head. You shouldn't be trying to force those states of being onto anyone else. And honestly, if you can manage it, try not to be a hypocrite—it’s a losing game that only serves to inflate that massive, tangible ego of yours. I’m starting to suspect you actually felt it during a rectal exam. 😁

I’ve been thinking a lot about this lately—how we tend to get caught up in the noise of everything happening around us—and I wanted to share a few thoughts on that specific point. It’s funny, isn't it? We spend so much energy trying to untangle these massive, complex problems, almost like we're trying to solve a Rubik's Cube while someone is shaking the table underneath us. But sometimes, if you step back and look at the bigger picture—much like how you might view a sprawling cityscape from a high-rise window in Chicago rather than getting lost in the grit of a single alleyway—you realize that the solution isn't more effort, but better perspective. There's a certain kind of mental clutter we all deal with—that constant hum of "what ifs" and "should haves"—that acts like static on a radio station. You can try to turn the volume up to hear the music better, but all you're really doing is making the static louder. It reminds me of that old idea about original sin—not in a religious sense, necessarily, but just that inherent tendency we have to stumble over our own feet before we even start running. If we could just find a way to quiet that internal static—to find that bit of clarity amidst the chaos—everything else starts to fall into place. It’s less about forcing a result and more about creating the right environment for things to happen naturally. It’s a slow process, sure, and definitely not as instant as a click of a button, but I think it's the only way to actually make progress that sticks.

placidharbor7 said:At the end of the day, everyone just does what they can, right? We all have our own limits, our own capacity, and our own way of handling things based on what we're able to give. It really just comes down to how much each person can manage!

See? You finally get it! It’s like you’re starting to realize just how much you can actually accomplish when everything clicks. Isn't it amazing when that lightbulb moment finally hits?

What does placidharbor7 actually know about Zen? He gave you a little hint about Nagarjuna—are you still not catching on to what he’s getting at?

I’m looking at this Quote, and honestly, isn't it fascinating how much weight a single sentence can carry? It really makes you stop and think about where we stand right now!

Look, this whole idea of "mutual aid" is strictly something you're making up in your own head—it doesn't exist anywhere else! Why on earth would you try to pin that label on people who haven't done anything wrong?

By the way, if you’re really claiming that the "ego" is just some big illusion, then help me out here—who exactly is being fooled by that clumsy little delusion?

I’m really not interested in engaging with anyone who sidesteps my actual points or just flat-out ignores the questions I’ve already asked—it makes for a pretty pointless conversation. Maybe this hasn't quite clicked for you yet, so let me lay it out one more time...
Keep on talking, pal, until you actually learn how to communicate without being such a hypocrite—you know, all that theatrical, condescending nonsense. Honestly, I don't need any of your little sparks in the dark, and frankly, I couldn't care less about them either.

Edward Flores4 said:

Damn... that was actually incredibly profound. I'm genuinely impressed.

Look, you’re missing out on so much potential because you’re pouring all your energy into the performance—all that unnecessary drama and playing a part—instead of just picking up a shovel and actually digging in. If you’d stop worrying about how things look and just get to work, you might actually leave a meaningful mark on this world.

I really need to address this specific point—it’s one of those things that keeps coming up, and I think it deserves a bit more breathing room than we've given it. When you look at the core of what we're discussing here, it isn't just about the surface-level details; it's about how those pieces fit into the larger picture. It reminds me of how a master carpenter doesn't just focus on a single nail, but rather on how the tension in the wood affects the entire structure of the house. If you miss that fundamental connection, the whole thing starts to feel a little off, right? So, taking this idea into account, let's try to peel back the layers a bit more. We shouldn't just accept the initial premise at face value—we have to dig into why it matters in the first place. It’s easy to get caught up in the weeds, but if we take a step back, we can see how these individual threads weave together into something much more substantial. It’s about looking for that underlying rhythm, that sense of cohesion that makes everything click.

You think I’m just giving you some clunky, half-baked translation that clearly went right over your head?

Here’s some food for thought to chew on:

There’s a massive difference between being humble enough to admit when you're out of your depth and being completely oblivious to the fact that you have no clue what's going on. To me, realizing you don't understand something—actually sitting with that uncertainty—is a genuine virtue. It's the starting point for everything. On the flip side, failing to realize you're lost? That’s just a fundamental flaw. It’s like driving through a thick fog in the middle of Nebraska without a GPS; if you don't realize you can't see the road, you're just heading straight for a ditch. Awareness is everything.

Look, innocence and enlightenment—those aren't things you can just hand out like flyers on a street corner; they live entirely within your own head. You shouldn't be trying to force those states of being onto anyone else. And honestly, if you can manage it, try not to be a hypocrite—it’s a losing game that only serves to inflate that massive, tangible ego of yours. I’m starting to suspect you actually felt it during a rectal exam. 😁

I’ve been thinking a lot about this lately—how we tend to get caught up in the noise of everything happening around us—and I wanted to share a few thoughts on that specific point. It’s funny, isn't it? We spend so much energy trying to untangle these massive, complex problems, almost like we're trying to solve a Rubik's Cube while someone is shaking the table underneath us. But sometimes, if you step back and look at the bigger picture—much like how you might view a sprawling cityscape from a high-rise window in Chicago rather than getting lost in the grit of a single alleyway—you realize that the solution isn't more effort, but better perspective. There's a certain kind of mental clutter we all deal with—that constant hum of "what ifs" and "should haves"—that acts like static on a radio station. You can try to turn the volume up to hear the music better, but all you're really doing is making the static louder. It reminds me of that old idea about original sin—not in a religious sense, necessarily, but just that inherent tendency we have to stumble over our own feet before we even start running. If we could just find a way to quiet that internal static—to find that bit of clarity amidst the chaos—everything else starts to fall into place. It’s less about forcing a result and more about creating the right environment for things to happen naturally. It’s a slow process, sure, and definitely not as instant as a click of a button, but I think it's the only way to actually make progress that sticks.

I’m really not interested in engaging with anyone who sidesteps my actual points or just flat-out ignores the questions I’ve already asked—it makes for a pretty pointless conversation. Maybe this hasn't quite clicked for you yet, so let me lay it out one more time...
Keep on talking, pal, until you actually learn how to communicate without being such a hypocrite—you know, all that theatrical, condescending nonsense. Honestly, I don't need any of your little sparks in the dark, and frankly, I couldn't care less about them either.
Damn... that was actually incredibly profound. I'm genuinely impressed.

Look, you’re missing out on so much potential because you’re pouring all your energy into the performance—all that unnecessary drama and playing a part—instead of just picking up a shovel and actually digging in. If you’d stop worrying about how things look and just get to work, you might actually leave a meaningful mark on this world.

I really need to address this specific point—it’s one of those things that keeps coming up, and I think it deserves a bit more breathing room than we've given it. When you look at the core of what we're discussing here, it isn't just about the surface-level details; it's about how those pieces fit into the larger picture. It reminds me of how a master carpenter doesn't just focus on a single nail, but rather on how the tension in the wood affects the entire structure of the house. If you miss that fundamental connection, the whole thing starts to feel a little off, right? So, taking this idea into account, let's try to peel back the layers a bit more. We shouldn't just accept the initial premise at face value—we have to dig into why it matters in the first place. It’s easy to get caught up in the weeds, but if we take a step back, we can see how these individual threads weave together into something much more substantial. It’s about looking for that underlying rhythm, that sense of cohesion that makes everything click.

You think I’m just giving you some clunky, half-baked translation that clearly went right over your head?

Here’s some food for thought to chew on:

There’s a massive difference between being humble enough to admit when you're out of your depth and being completely oblivious to the fact that you have no clue what's going on. To me, realizing you don't understand something—actually sitting with that uncertainty—is a genuine virtue. It's the starting point for everything. On the flip side, failing to realize you're lost? That’s just a fundamental flaw. It’s like driving through a thick fog in the middle of Nebraska without a GPS; if you don't realize you can't see the road, you're just heading straight for a ditch. Awareness is everything.

Look, innocence and enlightenment—those aren't things you can just hand out like flyers on a street corner; they live entirely within your own head. You shouldn't be trying to force those states of being onto anyone else. And honestly, if you can manage it, try not to be a hypocrite—it’s a losing game that only serves to inflate that massive, tangible ego of yours. I’m starting to suspect you actually felt it during a rectal exam. 😁

I’ve been thinking a lot about this lately—how we tend to get caught up in the noise of everything happening around us—and I wanted to share a few thoughts on that specific point. It’s funny, isn't it? We spend so much energy trying to untangle these massive, complex problems, almost like we're trying to solve a Rubik's Cube while someone is shaking the table underneath us. But sometimes, if you step back and look at the bigger picture—much like how you might view a sprawling cityscape from a high-rise window in Chicago rather than getting lost in the grit of a single alleyway—you realize that the solution isn't more effort, but better perspective. There's a certain kind of mental clutter we all deal with—that constant hum of "what ifs" and "should haves"—that acts like static on a radio station. You can try to turn the volume up to hear the music better, but all you're really doing is making the static louder. It reminds me of that old idea about original sin—not in a religious sense, necessarily, but just that inherent tendency we have to stumble over our own feet before we even start running. If we could just find a way to quiet that internal static—to find that bit of clarity amidst the chaos—everything else starts to fall into place. It’s less about forcing a result and more about creating the right environment for things to happen naturally. It’s a slow process, sure, and definitely not as instant as a click of a button, but I think it's the only way to actually make progress that sticks.

I’m really not interested in engaging with anyone who sidesteps my actual points or just flat-out ignores the questions I’ve already asked—it makes for a pretty pointless conversation. Maybe this hasn't quite clicked for you yet, so let me lay it out one more time...
Keep on talking, pal, until you actually learn how to communicate without being such a hypocrite—you know, all that theatrical, condescending nonsense. Honestly, I don't need any of your little sparks in the dark, and frankly, I couldn't care less about them either.
Honestly, calling it a "defect" is just a fancy way of describing original sin; you might want to sit with that for a while.

A seeker stands almost no chance of actually "realizing they haven't realized anything."
placidharbor7 is clearly talking about "the last REALIZATION."

P.S.: On a side note, if you claim the "ego" is just an illusion, then tell us—where, specifically, within you does this illusion live?

It’s actually kind of funny how you don't even realize a statement is coming from the exact same person you were just agreeing with—unless they actually put their name on it (like this one with the flaw in it).

You're being pretty pathetic here, honestly, I almost feel bad for you... but okay, jokes aside... keep up the great work, champ.

placidharbor7 said:blue bird says:...Nagarjuna essentially demonstrates that everything relies on something else just to exist. Nothing exists in a vacuum. That’s what emptiness actually means—it's all about dependent origination (pratityasamutpada).

What Nagarjuna is really getting at is this:

placidharbor7 says:
The way we humans typically "perceive" things and events is
built entirely on comparisons and dualities. Once you strip away those distinctions—whether one vanishes, the other does, or they both disappear—all you're left with is an empty void in the middle of nowhere.

Everything else you mentioned (and I don't just mean in your specific example) is honestly just extra noise.

That’s put perfectly.....sunyata-sunyata...

....in the end, we aren't absolutely confirming nor absolutely denying the existence of the self...that’s the middle way, the path between extremes...and one more thing: sunyata doesn't negate the conditioned world; it only negates the mistake of treating it as absolute. Just because you realize the sunya-nature doesn't mean the relative/conditioned world disappears—it just means ignorance is destroyed...

Since the undivided reality isn't ultimately separate from the divided, and since the core nature of the conditioned is actually the unconditioned, those who are wise don't abandon the world. They don't cling to nirvana as if it were something distinct from samsara.

jademarlin26 said:God (with a capital "G") does not exist without humans. It is a mere projection of the human mind, born from a desperate attempt to satisfy its own needs and to somehow defeat the inevitability of change that defines life. Even today, people treat the big "G" as a living person without having the slightest clue why.😉

So, we have finally unraveled the mystery—spirituality simply cannot exist without humanity.🙂