Can spirituality exist without God?

hiddenpuma75 said:These two questions hit home for me, and I really want to share my perspective with myself and everyone else here, because to me, the logic seems perfectly clear.🙂

1) The one thing you absolutely cannot doubt is your own awareness. It is the single most certain thing we possess. It’s the ONLY spiritual truth in the entire world that no one can question. To doubt your own consciousness is, in itself, a process occurring *within* consciousness, which only serves to confirm that awareness exists.🙂

2) The reality is, we don't actually have free will. It honestly surprises me that people cling to the idea of having it when it's so easy to verify for yourself. We aren't debating abstract things like whether angels shave or if the universe has four or ten dimensions.
Since I was once (just like everyone else) under the illusion that I possessed free will,
I can now look back on it.
Here is how it became crystal clear to me that everything just happens on its own.

Notice how you don't say, "I am beating my own heart."!
Instead, you say, "The heart beats. Blood flows."

So why, then, incorrectly do we say, "I am thinking my thoughts"?
When it is blatantly obvious that both thoughts and the heartbeat simply occur by themselves.🙂

--

Consider one more mistake that almost everyone falls into.

99.9999% of people will say, "I had a dream last night."
That is technically wrong, because we didn't dream those things through our own free will; rather, we were the object being dreamed.

Therefore, it would be more accurate to say that we ARE DREAMED. 😉

So, what we should really be saying is:

A dream is happening...

Last night, I was dreamed.🙂
Or,
last night, dreaming happened through me.

Even with this belief or realization, you still insist there is something one MUST and SHOULD do: look inward, sit in silence, practice self-reflection, and constantly advise others to do the same.😉

hiddenpuma75 said:I’d like to request that the moderator close this thread. It feels like we've entered an unmonitored free-for-all where everyone is just circling the same old drain—talking about God, the universe, free will, consciousness... honestly, it’s just endless repetitive chatter.

"I believe it’s high time this topic was merged into the 'School' section." 🙂
I’m actually leaning on a previous precedent here—specifically, some wise observations and calls made by a moderator in the past.

Looking back at the historical records of this forum:

Quote:
soadfan says: The whole point of this discussion has completely evaporated.

And the moderator noted:

"I think it’s ready to be integrated into 'Master Ivanov's School of Enlightenment'." 😍

''''''This thread has become impossible to follow and has lost all connection to the original post. One 'School' is more than enough for this subforum.
🙂 ''''''

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks! 🙂

I am sorry that this discussion has drifted off-topic and that there isn't currently a way to revert to the original point. However, this thread didn't start with the vulgarity seen in your previous one, nor was it moved from another subforum for being inappropriate. Furthermore, I won't allow personal stories or private chatting here, much like what happened in your last thread where you led the way (which was quite exhausting to moderate). I also hope this doesn't turn into a two-person dialogue between a "teacher" and a "student." There is a specific "Academy" for all of those things. Please refrain from spamming the thread with these kinds of comments, as I will continue to remove them.😛 😁

Let us proceed. 🙂 Who knows where this discussion might lead, though perhaps we will eventually circle back to the beginning.😉

hiddenpuma75 said:These two questions hit home for me, and I really want to share my perspective with myself and everyone else here, because to me, the logic seems perfectly clear.🙂

1) The one thing you absolutely cannot doubt is your own awareness. It is the single most certain thing we possess. It’s the ONLY spiritual truth in the entire world that no one can question. To doubt your own consciousness is, in itself, a process occurring *within* consciousness, which only serves to confirm that awareness exists.🙂

2) The reality is, we don't actually have free will. It honestly surprises me that people cling to the idea of having it when it's so easy to verify for yourself. We aren't debating abstract things like whether angels shave or if the universe has four or ten dimensions.
Since I was once (just like everyone else) under the illusion that I possessed free will,
I can now look back on it.
Here is how it became crystal clear to me that everything just happens on its own.

Notice how you don't say, "I am beating my own heart."!
Instead, you say, "The heart beats. Blood flows."

So why, then, incorrectly do we say, "I am thinking my thoughts"?
When it is blatantly obvious that both thoughts and the heartbeat simply occur by themselves.🙂

--

Consider one more mistake that almost everyone falls into.

99.9999% of people will say, "I had a dream last night."
That is technically wrong, because we didn't dream those things through our own free will; rather, we were the object being dreamed.

Therefore, it would be more accurate to say that we ARE DREAMED. 😉

So, what we should really be saying is:

A dream is happening...

Last night, I was dreamed.🙂
Or,
last night, dreaming happened through me.

Even though one could challenge your "cogito" at this level too (for instance, how do you know you aren't just a simulated character in a computer program? But let's set that aside for now)—you are stopping at an absolutist and eternalist concept: you've placed everything into one "absolute" realm of existence—in this case, some eternal consciousness, a single One playing many roles.
(Regarding the beating of the heart, blood flow, and metabolism in the body, I assume you're somewhat familiar with anatomy😬—specifically that the motor system dictates voluntary actions, while the autonomic system handles non-voluntary processes like vasoconstriction, pupil dilation... blah blah... as well as knowing that besides consciousness, there is also a subconscious...)

Everything that becomes is conditioned—everything is relative. Nothing possesses its own inherent nature, and that includes consciousness. Being and non-being are just two sides of the same coin. Without "being," there is no "non-being."

Everything that is conditioned and lacks its own inherent nature is what we call empty. When things or phenomena are empty, why speculate about the finite or the infinite, or one versus the other? The infinite is just as much a phantom as the finite. One phantom cancels out the other.

When Nadia speaks of emptiness, she isn't describing some ultimate reality or preaching nihilism; she's describing the principle of relativity and providing the best explanation for how all phenomena are conditioned.

To treat emptiness as a "thing" is ridiculous. Emptiness isn't a thought, but the absence of thought; it isn't a theory, but the absence of theory. It seems simple... and it is. There is no transcendent realm waiting to be revealed, no ultimate knowledge we need to achieve, and no spiritual powers we can possess. The only thing we can do is liberate ourselves: by understanding the true nature of things. Selfhood isn't a real, existing thing; it only exists at a limited level. When the sphere of thought vanishes, "you" vanish too. A shift in perception. That's it.A truly enlightened individual won't kickstart the whole cycle of suffering just because they think they’ve grasped some ultimate truth.

There is no such thing as a heaven of absolute consciousness. Think about it: if something has an inherent essence, it shouldn't be subject to change, right? But the moment you perceive change happening, you're essentially witnessing the absence of a permanent self-nature. Honestly, clinging to that idea isn't much different from any other religious dogma—or even those rigid materialist views about a fundamental physical substrate. Nirvana, much like the phenomena we experience, doesn't exist as a standalone thing. They are merely isolated constructs, brought into being by a mind that insists on drawing lines and creating distinctions.

mistybison said:Even with this belief or realization, you still insist there is something one MUST and SHOULD do: look inward, sit in silence, practice self-reflection, and constantly advise others to do the same.😉

I am sorry that this discussion has drifted off-topic and that there isn't currently a way to revert to the original point. However, this thread didn't start with the vulgarity seen in your previous one, nor was it moved from another subforum for being inappropriate. Furthermore, I won't allow personal stories or private chatting here, much like what happened in your last thread where you led the way (which was quite exhausting to moderate). I also hope this doesn't turn into a two-person dialogue between a "teacher" and a "student." There is a specific "Academy" for all of those things. Please refrain from spamming the thread with these kinds of comments, as I will continue to remove them.😛 😁

Let us proceed. 🙂 Who knows where this discussion might lead, though perhaps we will eventually circle back to the beginning.😉

Even though we both speak English, let's stick to it so the rest of the world can follow along! 😍It looks like we’re just not on the same wavelength.
They say repetition is the mother of all learning, so let's give this one more go—this time from a few different angles.

Haven't I mentioned a few times now that I try to be generous and act with a bit of humanity?

"If you want in, you're in—no pressure."
"If they don't want to, they won't—and besides, the fruit will ripen on its own." Honestly, where is the sense of obligation or necessity in that?

2)

Maybe I didn't express myself very clearly before, so let me try to approach this from a different angle and take a softer, more indirect route to get my point across.

Since I’ve noticed that knowing what a grain of sand is doesn't actually make you an expert on the desert, I wanted to point out that true understanding isn't some final destination—it’s more like a theoretical philosophical position. Simply "understanding" something isn't enough to grasp the practical reality of how things actually work, like knowing exactly how a pepper grinder operates or the intricate details of someone's daily chores. 😍
Sometimes I find myself wishing I could take the wisdom shared by Buddha and express it with a bit more grace—something more vivid, more poetic, and perhaps a little wiser than my own clumsy attempts at words.

All our posts on this forum about this world are a lot like little chicks that...
"Inside the egg, it’s just a chaotic swirl of potential, preparing for the world it's about to enter."

Or to put it simply—plain and simple.

If we haven't truly reached enlightenment by now, then we’re clearly doing something wrong—and I think even Milton and Patricia would agree with me on that!

If Buddha and the guy behind the counter at a local corner store are actually one and the same—like Nisargadatta and a neighborhood shopkeeper—then all this deep philosophizing we’re doing here is just spinning our wheels. It would mean everything we discuss in this little bubble is pretty much meaningless compared to how the world actually works outside this egg.

And that’s exactly why I say—

Who wants to sit around playing philosopher and saying, "Well, I've finally made it, there's nothing left to chase," only to wonder if there’s actually anything more out there? Honestly, let them have their moment.
Honestly, if someone doesn't bite when that bait is dangled in front of them... well, they're just missing out.
It’s pretty obvious there are two schools of thought on this... one side argues that an acorn is essentially just an oak tree in waiting, while the other insists that the actual journey from a tiny nut to a towering oak is far too long and impractical to be considered a direct connection.

I just keep coming back to this point: you can't just call any piece of wood "acorn." There are definitely some shady sellers out there trying to convince people that it doesn't matter, acting like we’re all just one big happy family of wood types!

With all due respect—that’s just pure, unadulterated pig politics. 😛

----
I’ve started to notice a troubling pattern on this forum lately: there are a ton of counterfeit $10,000 bills being circulated under the guise of legitimate currency.

I’m only here to talk to people who have actually been in the business of forgery—or are currently working it.
(forgive me for the falsification) 😁 It’s all about having a sense for agriculture—specifically when it comes to growing oak trees. You need that intuition to tell the difference between genuine substance and someone just spinning empty tales. There's a massive gap between actual results and those people who constantly brag, "I did this, and nobody else understands my genius." I'm talking about distinguishing true realization—like knowing exactly how peppercorns are ground, understanding the craft behind spinning black wool, or seeing how an acorn actually transforms into a mighty oak—from mere hot air. 🙂

Who's in? If you're interested, just say the word.
It’s pretty simple: if someone doesn't want to, they just won't.

i

There’s no blame to be found, but there’s certainly no praise to be given either.

To each their own, I suppose.
It’s a vast, open expanse.

Cheers!

mistybison said:Even with this belief or realization, you still insist there is something one MUST and SHOULD do: look inward, sit in silence, practice self-reflection, and constantly advise others to do the same.😉

I am sorry that this discussion has drifted off-topic and that there isn't currently a way to revert to the original point. However, this thread didn't start with the vulgarity seen in your previous one, nor was it moved from another subforum for being inappropriate. Furthermore, I won't allow personal stories or private chatting here, much like what happened in your last thread where you led the way (which was quite exhausting to moderate). I also hope this doesn't turn into a two-person dialogue between a "teacher" and a "student." There is a specific "Academy" for all of those things. Please refrain from spamming the thread with these kinds of comments, as I will continue to remove them.😛 😁

Let us proceed. 🙂 Who knows where this discussion might lead, though perhaps we will eventually circle back to the beginning.😉

Now I finally understand how it felt when Coca-Cola was shouting

IT’S UNFAIR! IT’S JUST UNFAIR! 😢

Whenever I try to keep my own thread alive, it just gets swallowed up by the endless flood of chat.
Yet, when I see other threads behaving exactly the same way, they seem to stay perfectly afloat.

IT'S UNFAIR 😢

So, let's get back to the heart of the matter—is it actually possible to be spiritual without God?

If we’re making that a prerequisite, then maybe we should just scrap the word 'spirituality' altogether (to be honest, I’ve never been a huge fan of that term either) and just call it 'faith.'😁

***
Dear Enzo, I have to say, hiddenpuma75 makes a great point here—when someone is that opinionated, they can hardly start a conversation without it veering off track or getting swallowed up by their own bias.

You really ought to restore his original thread about the futility of philosophy and everything else as its own separate discussion. It just isn't fair to merge them like this.

Let's keep moving. Who knows where this conversation might lead us? We might even end up circling right back to where we started.

That is such a well-put sentiment.

mistybison said:Even with this belief or realization, you still insist there is something one MUST and SHOULD do: look inward, sit in silence, practice self-reflection, and constantly advise others to do the same.😉

I am sorry that this discussion has drifted off-topic and that there isn't currently a way to revert to the original point. However, this thread didn't start with the vulgarity seen in your previous one, nor was it moved from another subforum for being inappropriate. Furthermore, I won't allow personal stories or private chatting here, much like what happened in your last thread where you led the way (which was quite exhausting to moderate). I also hope this doesn't turn into a two-person dialogue between a "teacher" and a "student." There is a specific "Academy" for all of those things. Please refrain from spamming the thread with these kinds of comments, as I will continue to remove them.😛 😁

Let us proceed. 🙂 Who knows where this discussion might lead, though perhaps we will eventually circle back to the beginning.😉

Do you think things would be different if we restarted from scratch, given how wildly differently everyone interprets the topic title? Just the definition of God creates a massive divide between people. For some, it's the ultimate source; for others, it's the manifestation of that source representing the final mystery. There is no "meeting halfway" on that. Conflict is inevitable.

Brenda Cook4 said:So, let's get back to the heart of the matter—is it actually possible to be spiritual without God?

If we’re making that a prerequisite, then maybe we should just scrap the word 'spirituality' altogether (to be honest, I’ve never been a huge fan of that term either) and just call it 'faith.'😁

***
Dear Enzo, I have to say, hiddenpuma75 makes a great point here—when someone is that opinionated, they can hardly start a conversation without it veering off track or getting swallowed up by their own bias.

You really ought to restore his original thread about the futility of philosophy and everything else as its own separate discussion. It just isn't fair to merge them like this.

Let's keep moving. Who knows where this conversation might lead us? We might even end up circling right back to where we started.

That is such a well-put sentiment.

Define spirituality and God for me. To this day, I fail to grasp what people actually mean by "spirituality" outside of mere physical health—which, unfortunately, has nothing to do with any sense of mystery.

hiddenpuma75 said:Even though we both speak English, let's stick to it so the rest of the world can follow along! 😍It looks like we’re just not on the same wavelength.
They say repetition is the mother of all learning, so let's give this one more go—this time from a few different angles.

Haven't I mentioned a few times now that I try to be generous and act with a bit of humanity?

"If you want in, you're in—no pressure."
"If they don't want to, they won't—and besides, the fruit will ripen on its own." Honestly, where is the sense of obligation or necessity in that?

2)

Maybe I didn't express myself very clearly before, so let me try to approach this from a different angle and take a softer, more indirect route to get my point across.

Since I’ve noticed that knowing what a grain of sand is doesn't actually make you an expert on the desert, I wanted to point out that true understanding isn't some final destination—it’s more like a theoretical philosophical position. Simply "understanding" something isn't enough to grasp the practical reality of how things actually work, like knowing exactly how a pepper grinder operates or the intricate details of someone's daily chores. 😍
Sometimes I find myself wishing I could take the wisdom shared by Buddha and express it with a bit more grace—something more vivid, more poetic, and perhaps a little wiser than my own clumsy attempts at words.

All our posts on this forum about this world are a lot like little chicks that...
"Inside the egg, it’s just a chaotic swirl of potential, preparing for the world it's about to enter."

Or to put it simply—plain and simple.

If we haven't truly reached enlightenment by now, then we’re clearly doing something wrong—and I think even Milton and Patricia would agree with me on that!

If Buddha and the guy behind the counter at a local corner store are actually one and the same—like Nisargadatta and a neighborhood shopkeeper—then all this deep philosophizing we’re doing here is just spinning our wheels. It would mean everything we discuss in this little bubble is pretty much meaningless compared to how the world actually works outside this egg.

And that’s exactly why I say—

Who wants to sit around playing philosopher and saying, "Well, I've finally made it, there's nothing left to chase," only to wonder if there’s actually anything more out there? Honestly, let them have their moment.
Honestly, if someone doesn't bite when that bait is dangled in front of them... well, they're just missing out.
It’s pretty obvious there are two schools of thought on this... one side argues that an acorn is essentially just an oak tree in waiting, while the other insists that the actual journey from a tiny nut to a towering oak is far too long and impractical to be considered a direct connection.

I just keep coming back to this point: you can't just call any piece of wood "acorn." There are definitely some shady sellers out there trying to convince people that it doesn't matter, acting like we’re all just one big happy family of wood types!

With all due respect—that’s just pure, unadulterated pig politics. 😛

----
I’ve started to notice a troubling pattern on this forum lately: there are a ton of counterfeit $10,000 bills being circulated under the guise of legitimate currency.

I’m only here to talk to people who have actually been in the business of forgery—or are currently working it.
(forgive me for the falsification) 😁 It’s all about having a sense for agriculture—specifically when it comes to growing oak trees. You need that intuition to tell the difference between genuine substance and someone just spinning empty tales. There's a massive gap between actual results and those people who constantly brag, "I did this, and nobody else understands my genius." I'm talking about distinguishing true realization—like knowing exactly how peppercorns are ground, understanding the craft behind spinning black wool, or seeing how an acorn actually transforms into a mighty oak—from mere hot air. 🙂

Who's in? If you're interested, just say the word.
It’s pretty simple: if someone doesn't want to, they just won't.

i

There’s no blame to be found, but there’s certainly no praise to be given either.

To each their own, I suppose.
It’s a vast, open expanse.

Cheers!

The contradiction lies in starting with the premise that a person chooses to 'want' or 'not want,' while simultaneously claiming free will doesn't exist. If there is no free will, choice is an illusion and one simply exists as they are in any given moment. However, if we can work toward becoming an 'oak' instead of just an 'acorn'—then free will certainly exists.

If we aren't TRULY enlightened here (and it's obvious to both Milton and Priscilla that we aren't

while Buddha and the clerk at the local corner store—Nisargadatta and Aunt Bernadette—are), then all this philosophizing is just spinning our wheels compared to how the world actually functions outside this little bubble of a forum.

But what if it isn't?
What would become of our (non)enlightenment if we had never heard the stories of that clerk or his aunt?
You see that, in the end, everything comes down to FAITH. 🙂 (And just like that, we are back to the beginning of the topic. 😛 ) Many people embark on a 'spiritual path' because they believe someone else has walked it before and reached the destination. But consider these possibilities:
1) No one has actually achieved 'liberation,' but rather just one of many possible mental or physical experiences attainable through training and effort—experiences that are never final, as one experience always leads to another.
2) People have achieved 'liberation,' but not through their own striving; instead, it simply 'happened' to them, like a glitch in the matrix of their holographic program 😍 which they then interpreted as 'enlightenment' and began teaching others about.
?
There are endless possibilities, all of which should be considered; we can test them all, but clinging to them creates limitations. 🙂 It is much the same with all these theories of consciousness. They are all fascinating, but if we discard them all—what remains? Any entanglement in ideas is similar, whether they are scientific, religious, spiritual, or philosophical 'truths.'

It is clear there are two schools of thought... one saying the acorn is essentially the oak, and another that rejects that idea.

I believe there are far more than just those two schools. 🙂 There is also the school that rejected the entire debate regarding acorns and oaks altogether. 😉

Brenda Cook4 said:So, let's get back to the heart of the matter—is it actually possible to be spiritual without God?

If we’re making that a prerequisite, then maybe we should just scrap the word 'spirituality' altogether (to be honest, I’ve never been a huge fan of that term either) and just call it 'faith.'😁

***
Dear Enzo, I have to say, hiddenpuma75 makes a great point here—when someone is that opinionated, they can hardly start a conversation without it veering off track or getting swallowed up by their own bias.

You really ought to restore his original thread about the futility of philosophy and everything else as its own separate discussion. It just isn't fair to merge them like this.

Let's keep moving. Who knows where this conversation might lead us? We might even end up circling right back to where we started.

That is such a well-put sentiment.

I intend to eventually take the time😛 to pull out the high-quality posts and split them into two separate threads—one on the meaninglessness of philosophy and one on consciousness (which was my original plan anyway). 🙂Right now, we are in the middle of a site reorganization, so I will handle it once that is complete.

Brenda Cook4 said:Even though one could challenge your "cogito" at this level too (for instance, how do you know you aren't just a simulated character in a computer program? But let's set that aside for now)—you are stopping at an absolutist and eternalist concept: you've placed everything into one "absolute" realm of existence—in this case, some eternal consciousness, a single One playing many roles.
(Regarding the beating of the heart, blood flow, and metabolism in the body, I assume you're somewhat familiar with anatomy😬—specifically that the motor system dictates voluntary actions, while the autonomic system handles non-voluntary processes like vasoconstriction, pupil dilation... blah blah... as well as knowing that besides consciousness, there is also a subconscious...)

Everything that becomes is conditioned—everything is relative. Nothing possesses its own inherent nature, and that includes consciousness. Being and non-being are just two sides of the same coin. Without "being," there is no "non-being."

Everything that is conditioned and lacks its own inherent nature is what we call empty. When things or phenomena are empty, why speculate about the finite or the infinite, or one versus the other? The infinite is just as much a phantom as the finite. One phantom cancels out the other.

When Nadia speaks of emptiness, she isn't describing some ultimate reality or preaching nihilism; she's describing the principle of relativity and providing the best explanation for how all phenomena are conditioned.

To treat emptiness as a "thing" is ridiculous. Emptiness isn't a thought, but the absence of thought; it isn't a theory, but the absence of theory. It seems simple... and it is. There is no transcendent realm waiting to be revealed, no ultimate knowledge we need to achieve, and no spiritual powers we can possess. The only thing we can do is liberate ourselves: by understanding the true nature of things. Selfhood isn't a real, existing thing; it only exists at a limited level. When the sphere of thought vanishes, "you" vanish too. A shift in perception. That's it.A truly enlightened individual won't kickstart the whole cycle of suffering just because they think they’ve grasped some ultimate truth.

There is no such thing as a heaven of absolute consciousness. Think about it: if something has an inherent essence, it shouldn't be subject to change, right? But the moment you perceive change happening, you're essentially witnessing the absence of a permanent self-nature. Honestly, clinging to that idea isn't much different from any other religious dogma—or even those rigid materialist views about a fundamental physical substrate. Nirvana, much like the phenomena we experience, doesn't exist as a standalone thing. They are merely isolated constructs, brought into being by a mind that insists on drawing lines and creating distinctions.

That’s beside the point. The only thing I truly possess—and the one thing I cannot doubt—is my own consciousness.

...just as you would have to acknowledge that beyond consciousness, there is also a subconsciousness...)

That is pure speculation regarding some "subconscious." Honestly, bravo to you!! You've managed to do what no one else ever
-has split consciousness into pieces.🙏 It seems obvious to me that there is only ONE simple, undivided, everyday consciousness, regardless of gender.

Everything that comes to be is conditional—everything is relative. Nothing possesses an inherent nature, and that includes consciousness.

That is nothing more than your own conjecture, much like a chick inside an egg guessing what the world looks like on the outside.
Since neither I nor anyone else here actually KNOWS the true source of your consciousness—meaning you haven't actually experienced it firsthand—it all remains mere guesswork.

It's speculative in the same way that certain phrases are speculative—like saying "Jesus loves you."

Maybe Jesus really does exist and loves us all, but until a person experiences that for themselves, it's just an empty story. It's the same as talking about a subconscious or claiming an acorn is actually an oak tree.

ACHIEVE SOMETHING. EXPERIENCE the love of Jesus, grow from an acorn into an oak, and then you can talk about it!
Those who have actually achieved it describe it with absolute clarity.

They stand apart from philosophers because they offer a wealth of evidence that is impossible to ignore.😉

hiddenpuma75 said:That’s beside the point. The only thing I truly possess—and the one thing I cannot doubt—is my own consciousness.

...just as you would have to acknowledge that beyond consciousness, there is also a subconsciousness...)

That is pure speculation regarding some "subconscious." Honestly, bravo to you!! You've managed to do what no one else ever
-has split consciousness into pieces.🙏 It seems obvious to me that there is only ONE simple, undivided, everyday consciousness, regardless of gender.

Everything that comes to be is conditional—everything is relative. Nothing possesses an inherent nature, and that includes consciousness.

That is nothing more than your own conjecture, much like a chick inside an egg guessing what the world looks like on the outside.
Since neither I nor anyone else here actually KNOWS the true source of your consciousness—meaning you haven't actually experienced it firsthand—it all remains mere guesswork.

It's speculative in the same way that certain phrases are speculative—like saying "Jesus loves you."

Maybe Jesus really does exist and loves us all, but until a person experiences that for themselves, it's just an empty story. It's the same as talking about a subconscious or claiming an acorn is actually an oak tree.

ACHIEVE SOMETHING. EXPERIENCE the love of Jesus, grow from an acorn into an oak, and then you can talk about it!
Those who have actually achieved it describe it with absolute clarity.

They stand apart from philosophers because they offer a wealth of evidence that is impossible to ignore.😉

Parsifal—look, I’m asking you, please, just come back to my post and give it the serious attention it actually deserves.

What absolute truth? What Jesus? What kind of achievement are we even talking about here? It’s all just the flip side of the same coin. Everything is conditional and causal, plain and simple. We’re just trapped in the same endless loop—a loop that’s fueling your passionate attraction to some imaginary "absolute truth," or even worse, feeding into a belief in some eternalist idea.

What’s all this fuss about splitting consciousness? Honestly, it feels like we're overcomplicating things. To me, it’s just a technical way to describe how a phenomenon works—it's a functional breakdown, nothing more. The real issue here is that you're treating consciousness as if it has some kind of mystical essence, when really, it's just mechanics.

You’re really out here theorizing and philosophizing like that, aren't you? It’s one thing, but then you go even further—veering straight into speculative mysticism. Honestly, what problem are you actually solving with all this talk about absolute consciousness, or love, or "becoming"? It feels like you're just shifting the goalposts. You move a tiny fraction of an inch away from the point, and suddenly, there's nothing left to explain.

Becoming and vanishing... it isn’t about evolving or merging into some kind of eternal consciousness. Think about it this way: when a fire burns out, where does that flame actually go? Does it drift left or right? Does it sink down or rise up? Does it head north or south? It doesn't "go" anywhere. It just ceases to be.

So, I’m really trying to draw your attention back to your take on eternalism—specifically that whole straightforward slice of phenomenalism you use to explain how things work:

If things existed eternally, they’d essentially be frozen in time. Think about it—if an object had a permanent, unchanging identity, it couldn't actually *do* anything. There would be no movement, no growth, no shifts in state. It would just be a static, lifeless concept, totally stripped of any actual presence in our reality. On the flip side, you can't just claim that things pop into existence out of thin air as brand-new phenomena. If an effect is completely disconnected from what triggered it, then it isn't really caused by anything at all; it’s just a random glitch in the universe. That leaves us with dependent arising. It’s the only logical way to explain how one thing leads to another without falling into the trap of eternalism or pure randomness. It bridges the gap. It's like a feedback loop where everything is intertwined. As Nagarjuna points out when discussing the relationship between an actor and their actions, the cause relies on the effect just as much as the effect relies on the cause. We don't have any other way to truly pin down how these things connect.

@shamantrixx,
Look, if "I" am not actually the one thinking my thoughts—if instead those damn thoughts are the ones doing the thinking *to* me—then free will belongs to the thoughts, not to "me." In that scenario, there isn't even a conscious "self," just a bunch of thoughts that think they're "me," being aware of this supposed single identity.

@parsifal
If "I" don't control my own thoughts, and those thoughts are actually driving the bus, then yeah, "I" definitely don't have free will. But here’s the kicker: if I don't have free will, then all those deep questions I ask myself aren't even *my* questions—they’re just questions that were posed *to* a single "I." So, that whole idea of "Is doubting your own consciousness just a process within consciousness that proves you're conscious?"—well, that's also just a question being thrown at a single "I." It basically means the "I" isn't self-aware; it's just the thoughts running the show, being aware of the "person" they're using to exist.
.........

(If life were some straight line, we could always look at the past to predict the future—you know, find the cause and pinpoint the exact result.
It’s really only in the last 50 years or so that we finally realized life is non-linear, which is why we can't ever be 100% sure what kind of mess a specific cause is going to trigger.
)
Nowadays, we even know that chaos itself is deterministic, meaning a single cause can spiral into incredibly complex, totally chaotic behavior. Honestly, that chaos almost proves free will exists, because even when chaos unfolds, it does so freely, even if it follows certain rules.
Which leads to this: if God created the world, He left room for independent thought—for free will, basically. It’s like that old saying: man proposes, and God disposes.
..........

Lately, these kinds of thoughts have been circling my brain like vultures. But whose thoughts are they, really? Whose are they? Is it even possible they belong to me? 😕😁

mistybison said:The contradiction lies in starting with the premise that a person chooses to 'want' or 'not want,' while simultaneously claiming free will doesn't exist. If there is no free will, choice is an illusion and one simply exists as they are in any given moment. However, if we can work toward becoming an 'oak' instead of just an 'acorn'—then free will certainly exists.

If we aren't TRULY enlightened here (and it's obvious to both Milton and Priscilla that we aren't

while Buddha and the clerk at the local corner store—Nisargadatta and Aunt Bernadette—are), then all this philosophizing is just spinning our wheels compared to how the world actually functions outside this little bubble of a forum.

But what if it isn't?
What would become of our (non)enlightenment if we had never heard the stories of that clerk or his aunt?
You see that, in the end, everything comes down to FAITH. 🙂 (And just like that, we are back to the beginning of the topic. 😛 ) Many people embark on a 'spiritual path' because they believe someone else has walked it before and reached the destination. But consider these possibilities:
1) No one has actually achieved 'liberation,' but rather just one of many possible mental or physical experiences attainable through training and effort—experiences that are never final, as one experience always leads to another.
2) People have achieved 'liberation,' but not through their own striving; instead, it simply 'happened' to them, like a glitch in the matrix of their holographic program 😍 which they then interpreted as 'enlightenment' and began teaching others about.
?
There are endless possibilities, all of which should be considered; we can test them all, but clinging to them creates limitations. 🙂 It is much the same with all these theories of consciousness. They are all fascinating, but if we discard them all—what remains? Any entanglement in ideas is similar, whether they are scientific, religious, spiritual, or philosophical 'truths.'

It is clear there are two schools of thought... one saying the acorn is essentially the oak, and another that rejects that idea.

I believe there are far more than just those two schools. 🙂 There is also the school that rejected the entire debate regarding acorns and oaks altogether. 😉

I intend to eventually take the time😛 to pull out the high-quality posts and split them into two separate threads—one on the meaninglessness of philosophy and one on consciousness (which was my original plan anyway). 🙂Right now, we are in the middle of a site reorganization, so I will handle it once that is complete.

But let's be honest—it isn't quite that simple. Some people are just wired to evolve.
It feels like you’ve artificially split everything into two extremes just to limit the options, all in an attempt to avoid taking the plunge. By constantly questioning every move, you’re essentially undermining anyone who actually wants to dive into the deep end and step out of their comfort zone.

Quincy:

But what if it isn't? What would our collective state of "enlightenment" even look like if we had never been exposed to that one salesman and his aunt with all their endless stories?

If we didn't have this place to hang out, we’d probably just be sleeping all day or spending our lives endlessly typing away in some lonely cave.
Anyone who ever catches a glimpse of an exit from this digital cave we’re all stuck in? They’ll never forget it, and they’ll spend every waking moment trying to find their way out. That’s just how this game is programmed. We've got all sorts of characters in here, too.
It feels like your whole persona is hardwired to loop through endless, trivial questions just to avoid actually stepping out into the real world. Meanwhile, I seem to be programmed to tell everyone exactly how much I want to get out there and experience it all.
And that’s that.

Quincy:

It feels like, when you strip everything else away, it all eventually boils down to FAITH. 🙂

Look, I wasn't even trying to dispute that! I truly believe there is a whole world existing outside the "cave" of this forum, yet you and many others seem determined to cloud the issue, preferring to stay tucked away in here and just keep posting. I only take issue with your claim that you and all these other armchair philosophers... You know. If there were no hope to hold onto—if everything you’ve achieved was truly the end of the road—I’d be in trouble. But my belief is that while your knowledge is incredible, it’s the faith that actually carries us through. It takes both.

Quincy:

But what if we look at it this way: 1... 2... 3... ?

You can ask a thousand questions if you want, but at this point, none of them really matter.
The only thing that actually matters is why you’re choosing to stay holed up in that cave.

The reason is simple.

There are really only three reasons why anyone would ever want to leave the cave and step out into the light.

First off, it’s all about having empathy for the struggles of others. Honestly, people like that are few and far between.
Let’s be honest: you, me, and everyone else reading this are just as callous and hypocritical as anyone else. We see someone else's suffering, and frankly, we don't let it move us one bit.
The proof is right there in how we can just sit here, blissfully enjoying our lunch, completely unbothered while thousands of people elsewhere are suffering through starvation at this very same moment.

If we were truly enlightened—and I’m certainly not talking about those people who pretend to be while just looking down on everyone else—we would actually feel the weight of other people's suffering. 😉
It’s not just about what we say—it’s much deeper than that. We aren't just failing to speak up; we're actively pushing others around and being disrespectful. 👎

The second reason? It’s our own suffering.

Thirdly—and this is actually the positive part—there’s the element of scientific curiosity. It’s that deep-seated drive to find answers to the big questions: Who are we? What exactly are we made of? And where on earth are we all heading?

----------------------------------------

This whole game—this entire stretch of history—is really just a clash between those who say yes and those who say no. 😉

mistybison said:The contradiction lies in starting with the premise that a person chooses to 'want' or 'not want,' while simultaneously claiming free will doesn't exist. If there is no free will, choice is an illusion and one simply exists as they are in any given moment. However, if we can work toward becoming an 'oak' instead of just an 'acorn'—then free will certainly exists.

If we aren't TRULY enlightened here (and it's obvious to both Milton and Priscilla that we aren't

while Buddha and the clerk at the local corner store—Nisargadatta and Aunt Bernadette—are), then all this philosophizing is just spinning our wheels compared to how the world actually functions outside this little bubble of a forum.

But what if it isn't?
What would become of our (non)enlightenment if we had never heard the stories of that clerk or his aunt?
You see that, in the end, everything comes down to FAITH. 🙂 (And just like that, we are back to the beginning of the topic. 😛 ) Many people embark on a 'spiritual path' because they believe someone else has walked it before and reached the destination. But consider these possibilities:
1) No one has actually achieved 'liberation,' but rather just one of many possible mental or physical experiences attainable through training and effort—experiences that are never final, as one experience always leads to another.
2) People have achieved 'liberation,' but not through their own striving; instead, it simply 'happened' to them, like a glitch in the matrix of their holographic program 😍 which they then interpreted as 'enlightenment' and began teaching others about.
?
There are endless possibilities, all of which should be considered; we can test them all, but clinging to them creates limitations. 🙂 It is much the same with all these theories of consciousness. They are all fascinating, but if we discard them all—what remains? Any entanglement in ideas is similar, whether they are scientific, religious, spiritual, or philosophical 'truths.'

It is clear there are two schools of thought... one saying the acorn is essentially the oak, and another that rejects that idea.

I believe there are far more than just those two schools. 🙂 There is also the school that rejected the entire debate regarding acorns and oaks altogether. 😉

I intend to eventually take the time😛 to pull out the high-quality posts and split them into two separate threads—one on the meaninglessness of philosophy and one on consciousness (which was my original plan anyway). 🙂Right now, we are in the middle of a site reorganization, so I will handle it once that is complete.

I am totally digging what you wrote here.

mistybison said:The contradiction lies in starting with the premise that a person chooses to 'want' or 'not want,' while simultaneously claiming free will doesn't exist. If there is no free will, choice is an illusion and one simply exists as they are in any given moment. However, if we can work toward becoming an 'oak' instead of just an 'acorn'—then free will certainly exists.

If we aren't TRULY enlightened here (and it's obvious to both Milton and Priscilla that we aren't

while Buddha and the clerk at the local corner store—Nisargadatta and Aunt Bernadette—are), then all this philosophizing is just spinning our wheels compared to how the world actually functions outside this little bubble of a forum.

But what if it isn't?
What would become of our (non)enlightenment if we had never heard the stories of that clerk or his aunt?
You see that, in the end, everything comes down to FAITH. 🙂 (And just like that, we are back to the beginning of the topic. 😛 ) Many people embark on a 'spiritual path' because they believe someone else has walked it before and reached the destination. But consider these possibilities:
1) No one has actually achieved 'liberation,' but rather just one of many possible mental or physical experiences attainable through training and effort—experiences that are never final, as one experience always leads to another.
2) People have achieved 'liberation,' but not through their own striving; instead, it simply 'happened' to them, like a glitch in the matrix of their holographic program 😍 which they then interpreted as 'enlightenment' and began teaching others about.
?
There are endless possibilities, all of which should be considered; we can test them all, but clinging to them creates limitations. 🙂 It is much the same with all these theories of consciousness. They are all fascinating, but if we discard them all—what remains? Any entanglement in ideas is similar, whether they are scientific, religious, spiritual, or philosophical 'truths.'

It is clear there are two schools of thought... one saying the acorn is essentially the oak, and another that rejects that idea.

I believe there are far more than just those two schools. 🙂 There is also the school that rejected the entire debate regarding acorns and oaks altogether. 😉

I intend to eventually take the time😛 to pull out the high-quality posts and split them into two separate threads—one on the meaninglessness of philosophy and one on consciousness (which was my original plan anyway). 🙂Right now, we are in the middle of a site reorganization, so I will handle it once that is complete.

Nice one—honestly, I don't lose any sleep over it as long as you're the moderator.🙂

jademarlin26 said:If it makes you feel any better, I also felt completely paralyzed. In my attempt to untangle the relationship between freedom and choice, I ended up staring blankly at a shelf of laundry detergent, spiraling into a dozen different distractions. 🤔

Trapped by the sheer number of options. That was precisely my point.

It’s like that "paradox of being," as those folks over at the BBC might put it.😁

And honestly? If it would make things easier for me—not gonna happen.🤣

hiddenpuma75 said:But let's be honest—it isn't quite that simple. Some people are just wired to evolve.
It feels like you’ve artificially split everything into two extremes just to limit the options, all in an attempt to avoid taking the plunge. By constantly questioning every move, you’re essentially undermining anyone who actually wants to dive into the deep end and step out of their comfort zone.

Quincy:

But what if it isn't? What would our collective state of "enlightenment" even look like if we had never been exposed to that one salesman and his aunt with all their endless stories?

If we didn't have this place to hang out, we’d probably just be sleeping all day or spending our lives endlessly typing away in some lonely cave.
Anyone who ever catches a glimpse of an exit from this digital cave we’re all stuck in? They’ll never forget it, and they’ll spend every waking moment trying to find their way out. That’s just how this game is programmed. We've got all sorts of characters in here, too.
It feels like your whole persona is hardwired to loop through endless, trivial questions just to avoid actually stepping out into the real world. Meanwhile, I seem to be programmed to tell everyone exactly how much I want to get out there and experience it all.
And that’s that.

Quincy:

It feels like, when you strip everything else away, it all eventually boils down to FAITH. 🙂

Look, I wasn't even trying to dispute that! I truly believe there is a whole world existing outside the "cave" of this forum, yet you and many others seem determined to cloud the issue, preferring to stay tucked away in here and just keep posting. I only take issue with your claim that you and all these other armchair philosophers... You know. If there were no hope to hold onto—if everything you’ve achieved was truly the end of the road—I’d be in trouble. But my belief is that while your knowledge is incredible, it’s the faith that actually carries us through. It takes both.

Quincy:

But what if we look at it this way: 1... 2... 3... ?

You can ask a thousand questions if you want, but at this point, none of them really matter.
The only thing that actually matters is why you’re choosing to stay holed up in that cave.

The reason is simple.

There are really only three reasons why anyone would ever want to leave the cave and step out into the light.

First off, it’s all about having empathy for the struggles of others. Honestly, people like that are few and far between.
Let’s be honest: you, me, and everyone else reading this are just as callous and hypocritical as anyone else. We see someone else's suffering, and frankly, we don't let it move us one bit.
The proof is right there in how we can just sit here, blissfully enjoying our lunch, completely unbothered while thousands of people elsewhere are suffering through starvation at this very same moment.

If we were truly enlightened—and I’m certainly not talking about those people who pretend to be while just looking down on everyone else—we would actually feel the weight of other people's suffering. 😉
It’s not just about what we say—it’s much deeper than that. We aren't just failing to speak up; we're actively pushing others around and being disrespectful. 👎

The second reason? It’s our own suffering.

Thirdly—and this is actually the positive part—there’s the element of scientific curiosity. It’s that deep-seated drive to find answers to the big questions: Who are we? What exactly are we made of? And where on earth are we all heading?

----------------------------------------

This whole game—this entire stretch of history—is really just a clash between those who say yes and those who say no. 😉

It seems my previous points were misunderstood. 🙂
All "knowledge" is essentially just "faith in knowledge." It remains relative and subject to change, much like anything else in this material world. Even if one were to achieve "liberation"—assuming such a thing is possible—one could never truly say, "I know," because doing so would create an internal contradiction. 😉

Do you believe it is necessary to trust in the experiences, insights, and instructions of others just to be considered someone on a "spiritual path" toward enlightenment? If so, is there really any distinction between a believer following the teachings of Bernadette or Jesus (who also taught that the Kingdom of God is accessible to all and provided a roadmap to get there)? Does being spiritual mean having faith and working toward its fulfillment? Or does it mean simply existing within a comfortable web of ideas we've constructed for ourselves? Perhaps it is something else entirely.

placidharbor7 said:Grooooooooooooooo - ho - ho - ho - hot - hot - hot...
grooooooooooooooo - ho - ho - ho - hot - hot - hot...

Just one single thought—but a perfectly sufficient amount of CORPUS DELICTI—to let a New York City chimney sweep know exactly as much as an invisible mole underground!
When people mistake a mere "glimpse" for the ultimate truth, why on earth would you be surprised by Ma Gangaja or L. Cohen? Besides, placidharbor7 warned us about both those "gangsters" (get it? "GANG-aji," "L. COIN") a long time ago!

Our esteemed moderator, please know that placidharbor7 kindly declines to mix this chaotic mess of shamanic ignorance and cheap tricks with his dignified school of thought.
Let someone else take over this thread for "Ljubi"; even his mentor, Master Pathotepa, was busy cleaning up both of them right here years ago—hiddenpuma7 knows the score. Shamantrika, go find that record!

Do you honestly think N. M. feels that way? I don't. He said that out of pure pity. He knows the questioner can't wrap their head around the fact that free will doesn't exist in any capacity whatsoever, but what's the point in hitting them over the head with that right away?
He’s just feeding him enough to swallow at once, otherwise why would N. M. even bother talking to him? Before a real conversation can even start, this person has to agree to certain compromises... otherwise, a dialogue wouldn't be possible at all.

hiddenpuma75 said:But let's be honest—it isn't quite that simple. Some people are just wired to evolve.
It feels like you’ve artificially split everything into two extremes just to limit the options, all in an attempt to avoid taking the plunge. By constantly questioning every move, you’re essentially undermining anyone who actually wants to dive into the deep end and step out of their comfort zone.

Quincy:

But what if it isn't? What would our collective state of "enlightenment" even look like if we had never been exposed to that one salesman and his aunt with all their endless stories?

If we didn't have this place to hang out, we’d probably just be sleeping all day or spending our lives endlessly typing away in some lonely cave.
Anyone who ever catches a glimpse of an exit from this digital cave we’re all stuck in? They’ll never forget it, and they’ll spend every waking moment trying to find their way out. That’s just how this game is programmed. We've got all sorts of characters in here, too.
It feels like your whole persona is hardwired to loop through endless, trivial questions just to avoid actually stepping out into the real world. Meanwhile, I seem to be programmed to tell everyone exactly how much I want to get out there and experience it all.
And that’s that.

Quincy:

It feels like, when you strip everything else away, it all eventually boils down to FAITH. 🙂

Look, I wasn't even trying to dispute that! I truly believe there is a whole world existing outside the "cave" of this forum, yet you and many others seem determined to cloud the issue, preferring to stay tucked away in here and just keep posting. I only take issue with your claim that you and all these other armchair philosophers... You know. If there were no hope to hold onto—if everything you’ve achieved was truly the end of the road—I’d be in trouble. But my belief is that while your knowledge is incredible, it’s the faith that actually carries us through. It takes both.

Quincy:

But what if we look at it this way: 1... 2... 3... ?

You can ask a thousand questions if you want, but at this point, none of them really matter.
The only thing that actually matters is why you’re choosing to stay holed up in that cave.

The reason is simple.

There are really only three reasons why anyone would ever want to leave the cave and step out into the light.

First off, it’s all about having empathy for the struggles of others. Honestly, people like that are few and far between.
Let’s be honest: you, me, and everyone else reading this are just as callous and hypocritical as anyone else. We see someone else's suffering, and frankly, we don't let it move us one bit.
The proof is right there in how we can just sit here, blissfully enjoying our lunch, completely unbothered while thousands of people elsewhere are suffering through starvation at this very same moment.

If we were truly enlightened—and I’m certainly not talking about those people who pretend to be while just looking down on everyone else—we would actually feel the weight of other people's suffering. 😉
It’s not just about what we say—it’s much deeper than that. We aren't just failing to speak up; we're actively pushing others around and being disrespectful. 👎

The second reason? It’s our own suffering.

Thirdly—and this is actually the positive part—there’s the element of scientific curiosity. It’s that deep-seated drive to find answers to the big questions: Who are we? What exactly are we made of? And where on earth are we all heading?

----------------------------------------

This whole game—this entire stretch of history—is really just a clash between those who say yes and those who say no. 😉

Aside from that one shady dealer who claims, "You can't control the future unless it's strictly technical matters."

Sorry, buddy, but you're missing the forest for the trees on this one!

Kenneth Peterson5 said:@shamantrixx,
Look, if "I" am not actually the one thinking my thoughts—if instead those damn thoughts are the ones doing the thinking *to* me—then free will belongs to the thoughts, not to "me." In that scenario, there isn't even a conscious "self," just a bunch of thoughts that think they're "me," being aware of this supposed single identity.

@parsifal
If "I" don't control my own thoughts, and those thoughts are actually driving the bus, then yeah, "I" definitely don't have free will. But here’s the kicker: if I don't have free will, then all those deep questions I ask myself aren't even *my* questions—they’re just questions that were posed *to* a single "I." So, that whole idea of "Is doubting your own consciousness just a process within consciousness that proves you're conscious?"—well, that's also just a question being thrown at a single "I." It basically means the "I" isn't self-aware; it's just the thoughts running the show, being aware of the "person" they're using to exist.
.........

(If life were some straight line, we could always look at the past to predict the future—you know, find the cause and pinpoint the exact result.
It’s really only in the last 50 years or so that we finally realized life is non-linear, which is why we can't ever be 100% sure what kind of mess a specific cause is going to trigger.
)
Nowadays, we even know that chaos itself is deterministic, meaning a single cause can spiral into incredibly complex, totally chaotic behavior. Honestly, that chaos almost proves free will exists, because even when chaos unfolds, it does so freely, even if it follows certain rules.
Which leads to this: if God created the world, He left room for independent thought—for free will, basically. It’s like that old saying: man proposes, and God disposes.
..........

Lately, these kinds of thoughts have been circling my brain like vultures. But whose thoughts are they, really? Whose are they? Is it even possible they belong to me? 😕😁

Come on, admit it—that sentence sounds like something straight out of a heavy literary novel. I wasn't saying it was bad, just that it was a bit muddy. There were way too many layers to the construction.

Look.

The "I" doesn't exist. It's just a concept.
Free will doesn't exist either. Just a concept.
Meaning doesn't exist—another concept.

The only thing that's undeniably real is your consciousness, mine, and everyone else's simple, raw awareness.Why shouldn't we just stay right there—within it, with it, surrounding it? If it's the only truly valuable thing we possess, and the very reason we EXIST, 🙂

Consciousness comes first. It is undeniably real.

Then comes the "I," free will, and the whole search for meaning.

Those things might be real, or they might not; 😉 in other words, they're distractions.

Let's just stick to pure existence—to the fact that I AM. 🙂

.........

Lately, I've been having these kinds of thoughts drifting through my head. Whose thoughts are they, anyway? Are they really mine? 😕😁

Don't give them any attention. 🙂
If they keep coming, just bypass them, much like you'd walk past strangers on a busy street in New York.
You don't stop to stare at every person you pass or interview them to find out who they are and what they want.
You just keep moving.🙂

Joseph Ramos11 said:Do you honestly think N. M. feels that way? I don't. He said that out of pure pity. He knows the questioner can't wrap their head around the fact that free will doesn't exist in any capacity whatsoever, but what's the point in hitting them over the head with that right away?
He’s just feeding him enough to swallow at once, otherwise why would N. M. even bother talking to him? Before a real conversation can even start, this person has to agree to certain compromises... otherwise, a dialogue wouldn't be possible at all.

Let's bring this ball back down to "earth" for a second.
Even if everything you're saying is true, making a "concession" like that to a flesh-and-blood The Seeker causes a million times more damage "after the fact" than any supposed "benefit" provides to N. M.'s interlocutor.

When we look at these kinds of "calculations," isn't it worth reflecting on the massive difference between a living teacher and dead letters on a page?

It’s a different pair of shoes entirely! placidharbor7 "thinks" and knows that a truly awakened teacher wouldn't dream of such an impropriety. They would hold back, or perhaps simply remain silent on the "heavier" passages.

Only a false teacher would "starve" The Seeker's intellect by withholding the truth during direct contact. For those who understand, direct work with a student is the very pinnacle of mastery.
Nisargadatta doesn't KNOW, so in this case, we aren't looking at a "concession," but rather at
the limits of the teacher's spiritual reach. You're being a bit shallow here, Joseph Ramos11.

"Quote:"

mistybison said:It seems my previous points were misunderstood. 🙂
All "knowledge" is essentially just "faith in knowledge." It remains relative and subject to change, much like anything else in this material world. Even if one were to achieve "liberation"—assuming such a thing is possible—one could never truly say, "I know," because doing so would create an internal contradiction. 😉

Do you believe it is necessary to trust in the experiences, insights, and instructions of others just to be considered someone on a "spiritual path" toward enlightenment? If so, is there really any distinction between a believer following the teachings of Bernadette or Jesus (who also taught that the Kingdom of God is accessible to all and provided a roadmap to get there)? Does being spiritual mean having faith and working toward its fulfillment? Or does it mean simply existing within a comfortable web of ideas we've constructed for ourselves? Perhaps it is something else entirely.

How can you possibly know what something is like if you haven't actually experienced it? You're essentially just building up this mental concept of something without ever having had a taste of it.

"Quote:"

Do you really think it’s necessary to rely on everyone else's experiences?

Not at all! I truly believe that someone else's experiences should only be treated as guideposts.
We walk our own paths. We achieve our own goals.Only if we actually give it a shot.
We can't even get off the starting line or actually experience anything if we spend all our time throwing a thousand questions and obstacles in the way like you do.

"Quote:"

So, does it actually make any difference whether you’re a believer in Saint Bernadetta or Jesus? I mean, Jesus explicitly said that the Kingdom of God is within reach for everyone, and he even left us a roadmap on how to get there. It makes me wonder: does being spiritual truly mean being a person of faith—someone who actively works to manifest their core beliefs? Or is spirituality just about settling into a comfortable web of ideas we've spun for ourselves, feeling cozy within our own intellectual cocoons? Or is it something else entirely?

You forgot to mention those followers of the faith who believe we’ve all already reached enlightenment and can just sit back and do nothing. It's that specific kind of belief system that hits you with a thousand questions the moment you actually try to step out of the cave.
It feels to me like you practice that faith with incredible intensity.

To truly experience—to actually live and breathe—what you set out to achieve, mere belief just isn't enough. In my eyes, there is only one way to make it happen: you have to step out of the cave.

To the sun! 🙂