Can spirituality exist without God?

Edward Flores4 said:You aren't a duck! 😁

Pache, even with you bringing up Lao Tzu in your "signature," you’re basically serving up a plain hot dog without any mustard:

"The universe is the unity of all things. If one recognizes his identity with this unity, then the parts of his body mean no more to him than so much dirt, and death and life, end and beginning, disturb his tranquillity no more than the succession of day and night."

Of course, "his tranquility" isn't being disturbed by anything, because the wise man hasn't actually transcended the very reason he describes himself as having "his IDENTITY with this unity."

Dozens of Seekers on this forum grasp that "they" and date one are one and the same, only to fall right back into nothingness. Somewhere else, there's always a hidden catch lying in wait.

I’ve been thinking about that little bluebird we saw earlier—you know, the one perched right on the edge of the fence near the driveway? It’s funny how such a small, unassuming thing can completely shift your mood if you catch it at just the right moment. There’s something almost meditative about watching them, isn't there? It makes you slow down, even if it's just for a second, and actually notice the world around you instead of just rushing through the daily grind. I was sitting out there with my coffee this morning, just taking it all in, and seeing that flash of blue felt like a tiny, quiet reminder to stay present. It’s those little unscripted moments that really make a day feel complete. kaže:
Honestly, what you just said is nothing more than a total amateur move.😁

Honestly, when you lay out an argument that "brilliant," I can't help but crack a little smile at the sheer audacity of it all—it’s almost charming. It really makes me wonder, though... since you clearly share so many personality traits with the people you quote in your signature, maybe you should start taking credit for their words too? 😁

Honestly, I’ve just gotten used to your posts by now—they always seem to fizzle out the second someone actually asks you to back up an argument with some substance. If you really want, I can happily remind you of at least two different threads where you basically folded immediately or decided to tuck your tail between your legs and run.

Look, I’m going to be honest here—I don't really see you as someone looking for a real debate, more like a hobbyist who just enjoys hearing themselves talk. If you're happy just posting empty comments for the sake of it, go right ahead, but don't be surprised when nobody bites. I honestly don't feel any urge to engage with them. It’s just that—and I say this as gently as I can—you’ve started a few discussions now where, the moment the actual arguments start getting heavy, you sort of lose the thread and just drift away from the topic entirely. It makes it feel like everything anyone writes to you just disappears into a void. It’s frustrating because it feels like a waste of energy; I wouldn't even give your posts three minutes of my time if I didn't feel the need to clarify things for everyone else. I think it’s only fair to explain why I’m going to be skipping over your remarks. Unlike the people here who actually want to dive into a serious discussion, reading your comments feels a bit like stepping around small puddles on the sidewalk—you just move past them because they're shallow, and you realize they're just sitting there, convinced they're the center of the whole street.

Bye-bye! 🙂

placidharbor7 said:Pache, even with you bringing up Lao Tzu in your "signature," you’re basically serving up a plain hot dog without any mustard:

"The universe is the unity of all things. If one recognizes his identity with this unity, then the parts of his body mean no more to him than so much dirt, and death and life, end and beginning, disturb his tranquillity no more than the succession of day and night."

Of course, "his tranquility" isn't being disturbed by anything, because the wise man hasn't actually transcended the very reason he describes himself as having "his IDENTITY with this unity."

Dozens of Seekers on this forum grasp that "they" and date one are one and the same, only to fall right back into nothingness. Somewhere else, there's always a hidden catch lying in wait.

Man, you must be a total gutter rat according to your horoscope. It’s basically scientific proof that ambition and actual talent always move in opposite directions. 🙄

Edward Flores4 said:

I’ve been thinking about that little bluebird we saw earlier—you know, the one perched right on the edge of the fence near the driveway? It’s funny how such a small, unassuming thing can completely shift your mood if you catch it at just the right moment. There’s something almost meditative about watching them, isn't there? It makes you slow down, even if it's just for a second, and actually notice the world around you instead of just rushing through the daily grind. I was sitting out there with my coffee this morning, just taking it all in, and seeing that flash of blue felt like a tiny, quiet reminder to stay present. It’s those little unscripted moments that really make a day feel complete. kaže:
Honestly, what you just said is nothing more than a total amateur move.😁

Honestly, when you lay out an argument that "brilliant," I can't help but crack a little smile at the sheer audacity of it all—it’s almost charming. It really makes me wonder, though... since you clearly share so many personality traits with the people you quote in your signature, maybe you should start taking credit for their words too? 😁

Honestly, I’ve just gotten used to your posts by now—they always seem to fizzle out the second someone actually asks you to back up an argument with some substance. If you really want, I can happily remind you of at least two different threads where you basically folded immediately or decided to tuck your tail between your legs and run.

Look, I’m going to be honest here—I don't really see you as someone looking for a real debate, more like a hobbyist who just enjoys hearing themselves talk. If you're happy just posting empty comments for the sake of it, go right ahead, but don't be surprised when nobody bites. I honestly don't feel any urge to engage with them. It’s just that—and I say this as gently as I can—you’ve started a few discussions now where, the moment the actual arguments start getting heavy, you sort of lose the thread and just drift away from the topic entirely. It makes it feel like everything anyone writes to you just disappears into a void. It’s frustrating because it feels like a waste of energy; I wouldn't even give your posts three minutes of my time if I didn't feel the need to clarify things for everyone else. I think it’s only fair to explain why I’m going to be skipping over your remarks. Unlike the people here who actually want to dive into a serious discussion, reading your comments feels a bit like stepping around small puddles on the sidewalk—you just move past them because they're shallow, and you realize they're just sitting there, convinced they're the center of the whole street.

Bye-bye! 🙂

He he ....check out this defense 🤣 Come on, come on, you've already been answered—way more than your confused little brain can actually process.

And I agree—there’s really no need to answer me... I’m not looking to buy whatever smoke and mirrors you're selling.

Don't let it get to you too much.😁

Do I sound agitated? Am I even trying to sell anything here? Maybe my descriptions are just a bit "vague"... honestly, probably fuzzier than those "sunyata" or other fancy terms you love to throw around

Anyway... the main thing is that you get what I'm saying, even if you couldn't care less about the previous discussions I'm bringing up 😉 Look, we both know what time it is—you're just busy maintaining that "persona" of yours... since it clearly means so much to you.

Love ya 😁

Edward Flores4 said:How am I supposed to define something that doesn't even exist? I’m talking about something I can't physically feel, something that gives me zero indicators, and absolutely no way to measure or point to it using any kind of data or sensory input. It's like trying to describe a color that hasn't been invented yet—how do you even begin to put words to a complete void?

Responding to someone using their full legal name feels like such a strange social convention to me—it’s basically just a tool we use to make sure we're actually talking to the right person, keeps things organized, and makes life easier for whoever is crunching the numbers for various statistics. But honestly? I don't feel like my name is some core part of my identity. It’s more like a handshake or a basic social contract that I follow just to keep things running smoothly in public.

To be honest, my thoughts aren't even really mine... I used to think I was the one in control of them, but once you start looking closely at how things actually work, you realize that thought is the primary driver—experience is just secondary. Thought is absolute, whereas experience is always relative. And the same logic applies to the "person" having those experiences; the "I" only exists in a relative sense. I didn't just pop into existence out of thin air. Whatever it is that I actually originated from—whatever that source might be—that thing is absolute. It’s the primary reality. You could call it the Mother of all Mothers, the Absolute, the Void, or whatever terminology fits your perspective, but that's where the truth lies.

To be honest, before I really sat with this, I used to walk around thinking that "I" was the one doing all the thinking—you know, that little voice in my head driving the bus. But lately, I’ve come to realize that whole idea is just a total illusion. It’s like looking at a reflection in a moving stream and thinking you can grab it; you just can't identify the thought process with the "self"... or maybe, if we're being precise, it works the other way around. But here's the kicker: if you actually manage to identify that "I" with the Absolute, the entire mechanism of identification just... stops. It’s done. Think of it like a metamorphosis—this process where the subject (the "me" I thought I knew) transforms into a transcendental object (the Absolute). Once you truly see that you *are* the Absolute, the need to identify disappears because there's no longer a separate identity left to cling to. Everything else just falls away, leaving nothing behind but a pure point of awareness.

Awareness itself isn't really some kind of "output" from my hard work—it’s not something I manufacture. Think about it this way: if someone walks into a room carrying an umbrella, provided you actually see the person and the umbrella, can you really *not* be aware of that umbrella entering the space? Of course you can't. So, being aware of my surroundings isn't some product of intense mental effort or focused labor; it’s just a spontaneous interpretation of the shifts happening around me. In a sense, I’m more like a mirror—just a surface reflecting all the changes occurring in my environment. Now, the way we interpret those changes can be totally arbitrary, but it’s also unavoidable. It becomes arbitrary because we tend to mess it up through various levels of denial or by projecting our own stuff onto what we see. But if we could reach that ideal state—where we aren't denying what's right in front of us and aren't projecting our subconscious onto reality—then awareness of the environment is simply a consequence of change itself. And that’s something I can't even claim as "me."

Self-awareness—or what people usually call "self-awareness"—is really just a matter of resonance. Think of consciousness like a mirror; the second that consciousness catches its own reflection, you get self-awareness. It’s not some achievement you can grind for or a product of sheer willpower, either. It's more like pure interference between your consciousness and your perception—kind of like two waves overlapping to create a new pattern. And even then, once you peel back the layers, there isn't really anything left for me to actually latch onto or identify with.

After doing a little bit of "internal inspection," I’ve come to a pretty significant conclusion—consciousness isn't some sort of phenomenon that just pops up "inside" me. Instead, it feels more like the very foundation that I was built upon; it's likely the underlying substrate for my entire existence. Think of it this way: the different segments of our existence basically vary based on how much mobility they have and their general capacity to interact with everything around them. That capacity for interaction includes the ability to make choices when multiple options are on the table—which is exactly what we call free will. In my view, the choices and decisions I make are really the only things I can truly claim as "mine," and because of that, I take full responsibility for them. So, if I’m digging deep to explore the concept of "self," those specific choices are really the only candidates qualified to hold the title of the "ego." But hey, I’m not just floating in a vacuum here... there's a whole world surrounding me, too... and we definitely need to keep that in the equation, right?

So, if consciousness is really the "foundation" of everything, then I’m sharing that same "foundation" with the entirety of existence. Let’s try a metaphor—think of a massive Oak tree, and let's say my "self" is just a single leaf on that tree. Every individual leaf has its own "sense" of being itself and the ability to make decisions on a "local" level. A leaf can turn toward the sunlight, and if enough other leaves decide to turn toward the light, the whole branch will eventually pivot toward the sun. As a leaf, I might think I’m "individual" (in *individuum*—meaning divided) and experience myself as a persona (from *personae*—a voice through a mask, a dramatic mask), making choices that might actually end up hurting the tree as a whole. But since I share this "foundation" with every other leaf, every branch, the bark, the trunk, and the roots... well, that would be pretty foolish. When I make a decision, I have to account for all the other segments of my immediate surroundings that I share a foundation with. This means the "entity" I’m actually deciding in whose interest is much, much larger than this little "leaf" I physically feel like—my very survival is tied directly to the rest of the tree. In other words, I am just one of many "conscious points" on the same tree. If an "I" exists, that "I" IS the entire tree.

Just like my liver doesn't perceive my eyeball, even though they both belong to one single human organism—similarly, I am just one conscious part of the absolute consciousness that serves as the "foundation" of its own existence.

There we go... instead of giving you a dry definition of the ego, I’ve laid out a full analogy to explain why I hold the views I mentioned earlier. If you spot any flaws in that logic, I’d honestly love to sit down and hash it out with you. But as you can see, my perspective doesn't allow me to define what you call the "ego" or claim to possess it—because when I look at "myself," I simply don't find it there.

1) The concept of verifying a claim is fundamentally different from the concept of "becoming" something other than what you already are. I said that the idea of "becoming" something is an ego trip. Verifying someone else's claim (no matter what that claim is) is something else entirely. "Becoming" something and "discovering" what you truly are aren't even similar, let alone comparable concepts.

2) What kind of technique can you use to gradually wake up? How long does it take you to wake up after sleeping? One moment you're asleep, and the next you're awake... probably still groggy, sure, but awake nonetheless. There are no techniques for waking up. You just have to want to wake up RIGHT NOW. No preparation, no specific methods, and no waiting around for a period of change. Transformation is instantaneous; it doesn't require time.

Kenneth Peterson5 said:To me, "self-awareness" means being aware of oneself, whereas "consciousness" would be the current level of cognition—basically the sum total of your thoughts.

shamantrixx, what's the actual difference, in your eyes, between how you're framing this and how I am?

Edward Flores4 said:Do I sound agitated? Am I even trying to sell anything here? Maybe my descriptions are just a bit "vague"... honestly, probably fuzzier than those "sunyata" or other fancy terms you love to throw around

Anyway... the main thing is that you get what I'm saying, even if you couldn't care less about the previous discussions I'm bringing up 😉 Look, we both know what time it is—you're just busy maintaining that "persona" of yours... since it clearly means so much to you.

Love ya 😁

Fox News: Yes!😁

... and look, you know perfectly well there wasn't some massive debate going on—I simply responded to your take on consciousness with one somewhat lengthy post, and that was that (plus that other one where you were tossing out links trying to prove Bill Gates is a monster and that vaccinating kids in Africa is somehow a targeted plot to cause harm)... I honestly don't get why you're so insecure and feel this desperate need to constantly prove yourself.🤷...but I had no idea you were struggling this much, so I'm not going to waste my breath arguing with you. 😬

Just a little piece of advice—when you react this defensively (which seems to be your go-to move whenever anyone disagrees with you), you lose all credibility... even when someone is actually pointing something out to you.

Love you too, stay cool, brother.😬

Edward Flores4 said:Man, you must be a total gutter rat according to your horoscope. It’s basically scientific proof that ambition and actual talent always move in opposite directions. 🙄

placidharbor7, it's not slugs—it's caterpillars!

Brenda Cook4 said:Fox News: Yes!😁

... and look, you know perfectly well there wasn't some massive debate going on—I simply responded to your take on consciousness with one somewhat lengthy post, and that was that (plus that other one where you were tossing out links trying to prove Bill Gates is a monster and that vaccinating kids in Africa is somehow a targeted plot to cause harm)... I honestly don't get why you're so insecure and feel this desperate need to constantly prove yourself.🤷...but I had no idea you were struggling this much, so I'm not going to waste my breath arguing with you. 😬

Just a little piece of advice—when you react this defensively (which seems to be your go-to move whenever anyone disagrees with you), you lose all credibility... even when someone is actually pointing something out to you.

Love you too, stay cool, brother.😬

Prove what? It’s really just that I can't stand people who bail on a conversation the second things start getting messy—you know, when the ship starts taking on water. Look, I disagree with plenty of people on here, but I don't react to them the way I'm reacting to you. Just something to think about. 😉

Brenda Cook4 said:Fox News: Yes!😁

... and look, you know perfectly well there wasn't some massive debate going on—I simply responded to your take on consciousness with one somewhat lengthy post, and that was that (plus that other one where you were tossing out links trying to prove Bill Gates is a monster and that vaccinating kids in Africa is somehow a targeted plot to cause harm)... I honestly don't get why you're so insecure and feel this desperate need to constantly prove yourself.🤷...but I had no idea you were struggling this much, so I'm not going to waste my breath arguing with you. 😬

Just a little piece of advice—when you react this defensively (which seems to be your go-to move whenever anyone disagrees with you), you lose all credibility... even when someone is actually pointing something out to you.

Love you too, stay cool, brother.😬

Thanks for the advice... and hey, I actually think you might be right, but the thing is, I don't particularly care about my "credibility." I'm not out here trying to build a following or win over a congregation, and I'm certainly not expecting anyone to give me their trust upfront. To be honest, even I don't agree with everything I write half the time... so why would I expect anyone else to?

Alright, let's dial back the off-topic chatter. Everyone can have their own mirror at home—there's really no need to go looking for reflections of your own psyche in someone else's projection.

Edward Flores4 said:Prove what? It’s really just that I can't stand people who bail on a conversation the second things start getting messy—you know, when the ship starts taking on water. Look, I disagree with plenty of people on here, but I don't react to them the way I'm reacting to you. Just something to think about. 😉

Thanks for the advice... and hey, I actually think you might be right, but the thing is, I don't particularly care about my "credibility." I'm not out here trying to build a following or win over a congregation, and I'm certainly not expecting anyone to give me their trust upfront. To be honest, even I don't agree with everything I write half the time... so why would I expect anyone else to?

So, does that mean you never walk away from a debate?

Kenneth Peterson5 said:shamantrixx, what's the actual difference, in your eyes, between how you're framing this and how I am?

On the surface, I don't really see a distinction... but when we're diving into topics like this, you kind of have to use an analogy to back up your conclusion—otherwise, you might actually be able to spot where those differences lie.

Hannah Wilson3 said:Alright, let's dial back the off-topic chatter. Everyone can have their own mirror at home—there's really no need to go looking for reflections of your own psyche in someone else's projection.

...but then the shaman will think I'm walking away from the debate😁...and poor guy will just suffer...well, actually, on the other hand, he'll walk away feeling like he 'won.'

shaman Proving what? It's simple: I just don't like people who bail on a conversation the moment the ship starts sinking. I disagree with plenty of people, but I don't react to them the way I'm reacting to you. Think about that.

I am flabbergasted😬 (though, once again, it really comes down to your skewed perception—you tend to react this way with anyone you disagree with)....but fine, let me say it one more time: I’m flattered, even if it isn't true, that I’ve earned this "special" treatment from you despite my insignificance...who knows, maybe this will turn into a real romance.

Edward Flores4 said:On the surface, I don't really see a distinction... but when we're diving into topics like this, you kind of have to use an analogy to back up your conclusion—otherwise, you might actually be able to spot where those differences lie.

Look, I don't really have some massive, definitive stance on this whole "problematic mess"; right now, I'm just asking questions—you know, following that old school rule where curiosity doesn't kill the cat.😲😁

I’d love for you to clear a few things up for me:
If the thoughts passing through my head aren't actually *mine*—if they belong to some other "me"—then the whole concept of "self-awareness" starts looking pretty shaky, doesn't it?
Plus, it feels totally backwards to claim we have free will within a "self" that isn't even truly ours to begin with.

briskraven28 said:So, does that mean you never walk away from a debate?

"Never" is a pretty heavy word to throw around—there are plenty of reasons why someone might decide to bail on a conversation, though it’s definitely not my typical style. I'm sure there will be exceptions to the rule, of course.

Kenneth Peterson5 said:Look, I don't really have some massive, definitive stance on this whole "problematic mess"; right now, I'm just asking questions—you know, following that old school rule where curiosity doesn't kill the cat.😲😁

I’d love for you to clear a few things up for me:
If the thoughts passing through my head aren't actually *mine*—if they belong to some other "me"—then the whole concept of "self-awareness" starts looking pretty shaky, doesn't it?
Plus, it feels totally backwards to claim we have free will within a "self" that isn't even truly ours to begin with.

I was actually planning to respond to that—though I assumed Edward Flores4 was avoiding me for some reason.

Edward Flores4 said:How am I supposed to define something that doesn't even exist? I’m talking about something I can't physically feel, something that gives me zero indicators, and absolutely no way to measure or point to it using any kind of data or sensory input. It's like trying to describe a color that hasn't been invented yet—how do you even begin to put words to a complete void?

Responding to someone using their full legal name feels like such a strange social convention to me—it’s basically just a tool we use to make sure we're actually talking to the right person, keeps things organized, and makes life easier for whoever is crunching the numbers for various statistics. But honestly? I don't feel like my name is some core part of my identity. It’s more like a handshake or a basic social contract that I follow just to keep things running smoothly in public.

To be honest, my thoughts aren't even really mine... I used to think I was the one in control of them, but once you start looking closely at how things actually work, you realize that thought is the primary driver—experience is just secondary. Thought is absolute, whereas experience is always relative. And the same logic applies to the "person" having those experiences; the "I" only exists in a relative sense. I didn't just pop into existence out of thin air. Whatever it is that I actually originated from—whatever that source might be—that thing is absolute. It’s the primary reality. You could call it the Mother of all Mothers, the Absolute, the Void, or whatever terminology fits your perspective, but that's where the truth lies.

To be honest, before I really sat with this, I used to walk around thinking that "I" was the one doing all the thinking—you know, that little voice in my head driving the bus. But lately, I’ve come to realize that whole idea is just a total illusion. It’s like looking at a reflection in a moving stream and thinking you can grab it; you just can't identify the thought process with the "self"... or maybe, if we're being precise, it works the other way around. But here's the kicker: if you actually manage to identify that "I" with the Absolute, the entire mechanism of identification just... stops. It’s done. Think of it like a metamorphosis—this process where the subject (the "me" I thought I knew) transforms into a transcendental object (the Absolute). Once you truly see that you *are* the Absolute, the need to identify disappears because there's no longer a separate identity left to cling to. Everything else just falls away, leaving nothing behind but a pure point of awareness.

Awareness itself isn't really some kind of "output" from my hard work—it’s not something I manufacture. Think about it this way: if someone walks into a room carrying an umbrella, provided you actually see the person and the umbrella, can you really *not* be aware of that umbrella entering the space? Of course you can't. So, being aware of my surroundings isn't some product of intense mental effort or focused labor; it’s just a spontaneous interpretation of the shifts happening around me. In a sense, I’m more like a mirror—just a surface reflecting all the changes occurring in my environment. Now, the way we interpret those changes can be totally arbitrary, but it’s also unavoidable. It becomes arbitrary because we tend to mess it up through various levels of denial or by projecting our own stuff onto what we see. But if we could reach that ideal state—where we aren't denying what's right in front of us and aren't projecting our subconscious onto reality—then awareness of the environment is simply a consequence of change itself. And that’s something I can't even claim as "me."

Self-awareness—or what people usually call "self-awareness"—is really just a matter of resonance. Think of consciousness like a mirror; the second that consciousness catches its own reflection, you get self-awareness. It’s not some achievement you can grind for or a product of sheer willpower, either. It's more like pure interference between your consciousness and your perception—kind of like two waves overlapping to create a new pattern. And even then, once you peel back the layers, there isn't really anything left for me to actually latch onto or identify with.

After doing a little bit of "internal inspection," I’ve come to a pretty significant conclusion—consciousness isn't some sort of phenomenon that just pops up "inside" me. Instead, it feels more like the very foundation that I was built upon; it's likely the underlying substrate for my entire existence. Think of it this way: the different segments of our existence basically vary based on how much mobility they have and their general capacity to interact with everything around them. That capacity for interaction includes the ability to make choices when multiple options are on the table—which is exactly what we call free will. In my view, the choices and decisions I make are really the only things I can truly claim as "mine," and because of that, I take full responsibility for them. So, if I’m digging deep to explore the concept of "self," those specific choices are really the only candidates qualified to hold the title of the "ego." But hey, I’m not just floating in a vacuum here... there's a whole world surrounding me, too... and we definitely need to keep that in the equation, right?

So, if consciousness is really the "foundation" of everything, then I’m sharing that same "foundation" with the entirety of existence. Let’s try a metaphor—think of a massive Oak tree, and let's say my "self" is just a single leaf on that tree. Every individual leaf has its own "sense" of being itself and the ability to make decisions on a "local" level. A leaf can turn toward the sunlight, and if enough other leaves decide to turn toward the light, the whole branch will eventually pivot toward the sun. As a leaf, I might think I’m "individual" (in *individuum*—meaning divided) and experience myself as a persona (from *personae*—a voice through a mask, a dramatic mask), making choices that might actually end up hurting the tree as a whole. But since I share this "foundation" with every other leaf, every branch, the bark, the trunk, and the roots... well, that would be pretty foolish. When I make a decision, I have to account for all the other segments of my immediate surroundings that I share a foundation with. This means the "entity" I’m actually deciding in whose interest is much, much larger than this little "leaf" I physically feel like—my very survival is tied directly to the rest of the tree. In other words, I am just one of many "conscious points" on the same tree. If an "I" exists, that "I" IS the entire tree.

Just like my liver doesn't perceive my eyeball, even though they both belong to one single human organism—similarly, I am just one conscious part of the absolute consciousness that serves as the "foundation" of its own existence.

There we go... instead of giving you a dry definition of the ego, I’ve laid out a full analogy to explain why I hold the views I mentioned earlier. If you spot any flaws in that logic, I’d honestly love to sit down and hash it out with you. But as you can see, my perspective doesn't allow me to define what you call the "ego" or claim to possess it—because when I look at "myself," I simply don't find it there.

1) The concept of verifying a claim is fundamentally different from the concept of "becoming" something other than what you already are. I said that the idea of "becoming" something is an ego trip. Verifying someone else's claim (no matter what that claim is) is something else entirely. "Becoming" something and "discovering" what you truly are aren't even similar, let alone comparable concepts.

2) What kind of technique can you use to gradually wake up? How long does it take you to wake up after sleeping? One moment you're asleep, and the next you're awake... probably still groggy, sure, but awake nonetheless. There are no techniques for waking up. You just have to want to wake up RIGHT NOW. No preparation, no specific methods, and no waiting around for a period of change. Transformation is instantaneous; it doesn't require time.

When "thoughts" cease, does the "ground" remain? And does the "I" still exist once thought disappears?
If your thoughts "aren't yours," is it even possible to have "choices" or make "decisions"?
Who "within yourself" identifies with the Absolute? Or rather, who is doing the identifying?

Kenneth Peterson5 said:Look, I don't really have some massive, definitive stance on this whole "problematic mess"; right now, I'm just asking questions—you know, following that old school rule where curiosity doesn't kill the cat.😲😁

I’d love for you to clear a few things up for me:
If the thoughts passing through my head aren't actually *mine*—if they belong to some other "me"—then the whole concept of "self-awareness" starts looking pretty shaky, doesn't it?
Plus, it feels totally backwards to claim we have free will within a "self" that isn't even truly ours to begin with.

I always think of oak leaves when I try to wrap my head around "free will"—it’s probably the best metaphor out there. Every single leaf is its own thing, making its own way, but at the root level, everything is interconnected. We’re all part of the same tree, so one leaf's movement ripples through the rest because we're all drawing from that same shared foundation.

The whole free will debate is really just one big paradox. You can only really define free will by contrasting it against things that happen *against* your will—you know, those moments where stuff just happens to you without your input. In a weird way, if we didn't have those external forces acting upon us, the concept of free will wouldn't even exist. And honestly? If every single little thing happened strictly because we willed it... well, that sounds like a nightmare. You'd be stuck making a million tiny decisions every second and would probably lose your mind within thirty minutes.

At its core, free will is just the capacity to choose when an actual choice is available. If there's no option, there's no free will. Think about simpler organisms—they basically operate on a basic "action-reaction" loop. But humans? Because we have memory and complex perception, we get to operate on a much more advanced loop: "action—perception—choice—reaction."

“The spoken word was the first technology by which man was able to let go of his environment in order to grasp it in a new way. There is absolutely no inevitability as long as there is a willingness to contemplate what is happening."
Marshall McLuhan

It couldn't be put any more simply than that.

briskraven28 said:I was actually planning to respond to that—though I assumed Edward Flores4 was avoiding me for some reason.

When "thoughts" cease, does the "ground" remain? And does the "I" still exist once thought disappears?
If your thoughts "aren't yours," is it even possible to have "choices" or make "decisions"?
Who "within yourself" identifies with the Absolute? Or rather, who is doing the identifying?

Once the thoughts drop away, the "self" drops away too... but here's the thing—thoughts don't just disappear; they are the primary layer, while we are essentially secondary.

Choice isn't born from a "self"; it's a byproduct of perception. And perception? It's really just a mirror reflecting the environment back at us.

I don't identify anyone "inside myself" with the absolute. Honestly, nothing exists outside of the absolute. The "self" only exists in a relative sense—relative to "you" or "them." Think of it like this: individual leaves on a single branch, individual branches on a tree, individual trees in a vast forest, and individual forests spread across the entire planet...

And it just goes on and on... everything depends on the level of "magnification" you're using. It’s like looking at a rug. Up close, a dense, tightly woven rug looks solid and uniform, but if you look through a magnifying glass, you see a web of individual fibers that seem to vanish into one another, only to resurface as part of the whole surface again. If you focus on just one fiber, it feels solid and distinct—until you pop it under a microscope and discover the dance of molecules and complex structures. At one level, you're an individual; at another, you're just a tiny part of a much larger pattern. Instead of some "individual" at the "top" making all the calls, every single "level" makes its own local decisions for its own specific scale. This is what I call spiral dynamics, and it creates this persistent illusion of the "ego"—this little biological sack full of bones and tissue that blindly believes it's somehow separate from the rest of existence.

Edward Flores4 said:I always think of oak leaves when I try to wrap my head around "free will"—it’s probably the best metaphor out there. Every single leaf is its own thing, making its own way, but at the root level, everything is interconnected. We’re all part of the same tree, so one leaf's movement ripples through the rest because we're all drawing from that same shared foundation.

The whole free will debate is really just one big paradox. You can only really define free will by contrasting it against things that happen *against* your will—you know, those moments where stuff just happens to you without your input. In a weird way, if we didn't have those external forces acting upon us, the concept of free will wouldn't even exist. And honestly? If every single little thing happened strictly because we willed it... well, that sounds like a nightmare. You'd be stuck making a million tiny decisions every second and would probably lose your mind within thirty minutes.

At its core, free will is just the capacity to choose when an actual choice is available. If there's no option, there's no free will. Think about simpler organisms—they basically operate on a basic "action-reaction" loop. But humans? Because we have memory and complex perception, we get to operate on a much more advanced loop: "action—perception—choice—reaction."

“The spoken word was the first technology by which man was able to let go of his environment in order to grasp it in a new way. There is absolutely no inevitability as long as there is a willingness to contemplate what is happening."
Marshall McLuhan

It couldn't be put any more simply than that.

But does that mean there are actually situations out there where we have absolutely zero choice?

Edward Flores4 said:I always think of oak leaves when I try to wrap my head around "free will"—it’s probably the best metaphor out there. Every single leaf is its own thing, making its own way, but at the root level, everything is interconnected. We’re all part of the same tree, so one leaf's movement ripples through the rest because we're all drawing from that same shared foundation.

The whole free will debate is really just one big paradox. You can only really define free will by contrasting it against things that happen *against* your will—you know, those moments where stuff just happens to you without your input. In a weird way, if we didn't have those external forces acting upon us, the concept of free will wouldn't even exist. And honestly? If every single little thing happened strictly because we willed it... well, that sounds like a nightmare. You'd be stuck making a million tiny decisions every second and would probably lose your mind within thirty minutes.

At its core, free will is just the capacity to choose when an actual choice is available. If there's no option, there's no free will. Think about simpler organisms—they basically operate on a basic "action-reaction" loop. But humans? Because we have memory and complex perception, we get to operate on a much more advanced loop: "action—perception—choice—reaction."

“The spoken word was the first technology by which man was able to let go of his environment in order to grasp it in a new way. There is absolutely no inevitability as long as there is a willingness to contemplate what is happening."
Marshall McLuhan

It couldn't be put any more simply than that.

Look, I get what you're trying to say—really, I do—but I don't see how anything can even be "against my will" when this whole concept of "me" isn't even mine to begin with? It's just a collection of thoughts, and honestly, I don't even know if those thoughts are actually *mine* or just some random brain noise, so how am I supposed to know if I have free will or not?
Plus, you totally dodged my question about "self-awareness."

Look, the reason I keep hitting you with these questions is because what you're claiming is actually pretty interesting—really, it is—but it's equally "interesting" how you won't give me a straight answer and instead just dance around the point. So, hey, if I'm getting under your skin—which, by the way, maybe that nerve isn't even yours, but mine—just say so and we can drop the whole "me" vs "you" thing. This topic is one of those things where you can talk forever and never really get anywhere, and honestly, I don't even know how to finish this sentence without making it a total slog to read, which might lead to a misunderstanding, but whatever, since misunderstanding usually comes before understanding anyway... and since the whole goal is to eventually understand, I guess I'm just overcomplicating everything just to see if I can provoke you into being simple for once. 😁

Edward Flores4 said:I always think of oak leaves when I try to wrap my head around "free will"—it’s probably the best metaphor out there. Every single leaf is its own thing, making its own way, but at the root level, everything is interconnected. We’re all part of the same tree, so one leaf's movement ripples through the rest because we're all drawing from that same shared foundation.

The whole free will debate is really just one big paradox. You can only really define free will by contrasting it against things that happen *against* your will—you know, those moments where stuff just happens to you without your input. In a weird way, if we didn't have those external forces acting upon us, the concept of free will wouldn't even exist. And honestly? If every single little thing happened strictly because we willed it... well, that sounds like a nightmare. You'd be stuck making a million tiny decisions every second and would probably lose your mind within thirty minutes.

At its core, free will is just the capacity to choose when an actual choice is available. If there's no option, there's no free will. Think about simpler organisms—they basically operate on a basic "action-reaction" loop. But humans? Because we have memory and complex perception, we get to operate on a much more advanced loop: "action—perception—choice—reaction."

“The spoken word was the first technology by which man was able to let go of his environment in order to grasp it in a new way. There is absolutely no inevitability as long as there is a willingness to contemplate what is happening."
Marshall McLuhan

It couldn't be put any more simply than that.

Don't go throwing imperatives at me, come on, you know how this works. 😁