Enlightened Jeff

That represents a certain level of intellectual rigor, though, in his own estimation, he is entirely correct!
It boils down to the basic "logic" of how one single consciousness could possibly contain billions of versions of itself.

This entire chain of reasoning emerged quite by accident 😁

George Wood2 said:That represents a certain level of intellectual rigor, though, in his own estimation, he is entirely correct!
It boils down to the basic "logic" of how one single consciousness could possibly contain billions of versions of itself.

This entire chain of reasoning emerged quite by accident 😁

Nobody is actually wrong or right here; it's just a fundamentally flawed and unsolvable premise to begin with. That isn't even the point.

Paul Rogers94 said:Nobody is actually wrong or right here; it's just a fundamentally flawed and unsolvable premise to begin with. That isn't even the point.

Of course nobody is at fault when everything is supposedly "settled."
The issue is precisely that—it is about something, yet simultaneously about absolutely nothing.

Kevin Ruiz36 said:One principle of the Law of Attraction is giving. To receive on a massive scale, you have to put something out there first. You look at how much influence and wealth certain Jewish communities have built up; their faith emphasizes the moral necessity of charitable giving through Tzedakah. It’s a cycle where the money they give comes back multiplied, allowing them to keep more while still being able to donate even larger amounts. It's the Law of Attraction in action. There's a similar concept within Christianity, though it's mostly practiced by specific groups who follow certain mathematical principles when donating. They believe that giving a calculated amount can trigger a windfall that scales into millions or even billions—what some call giving and receiving in Christ. Essentially, you can multiply the energy of your donations through a specific principle to manifest significant wealth.

Reality, truth, is not to be recognized. For truth to come, belief, knowledge, experiencing, the pursuit of virtue—all this must go. The virtuous person who is conscious of pursuing virtue can never find reality. He may be a very decent person; but that is entirely different from being a man of truth, a man who understands. To the man of truth, truth has come into being. A virtuous man is a righteous man, and a righteous man can never understand what is truth because virtue to him is the covering of the self, the strengthening of the self, because he is pursuing virtue. When he says “I must be without greed”, the state of non-greed which he experiences only strengthens the self. That is why it is so important to be poor, not only in the things of the world but also in belief and in knowledge. A man with worldly riches or a man rich in knowledge and belief will never know anything but darkness and will be the centre of all mischief and misery. But if you and I, as individuals, can see this whole working of the self, then we shall know what love is. I assure you that is the only reformation which can possibly change the world. Love is not of the self. Self cannot recognize love. You say “I love”; but then, in the very saying of it, in the very experiencing of it, love is not. But, when you know love, self is not. When there is Love, self is not. — Krishnamurti from the book The First and Last Freedom
⠀
From the book The First and Last Freedom

Paul Rogers94 said:I don't see any distinction between the individual and collective levels because there isn't one; a collective is just made up of individuals, if I'm not mistaken... or is it? 🤔And again, the question remains: who decided these societies are oppressed, impoverished, and broken, and why were they labeled "underdeveloped"? Forgive me, but that feels like a twisted perspective to me. And obviously, nobody is an angel without an ego—as for whether they'd swap places, that's pure speculation, just projecting one's own traits onto others. It sounds like a cheap excuse to me.

It’s pretty obvious how colonial powers became powerful and developed—by systematically tearing everything else apart.

Dammit, someone with even a shred of a soul can't even fathom the heartlessness of a psychopath. The real question is whether that ruthlessness brings the psychopath happiness, satisfaction, or peace—or whatever it is they're chasing and calling "success" or "progress."

There’s no such thing as collective spiritual insight or collective self-work. That's why the answer lies with the individual, not the group—whether it's a nation, a state, a religion, or some political party.

🤔But then you have to ask who decides which societies are oppressed, impoverished, or broken and labeled as "underdeveloped." Sorry, but that feels like a warped perspective to me. Obviously, nobody is an angel free from ego. If we swapped places, who knows? It's all just speculation and projecting your own traits onto others. Sounds like a cheap excuse to me.

I wasn't trying to justify anyone or equate the victim with the aggressor. I guess I expected people to misinterpret me.

It’s pretty obvious how colonial powers got so strong and developed—by completely wrecking everything in their path.

Yeah. And? What does my personal growth have to do with "colonial powers"?
Am I supposed to join a class struggle or something? 😁

Man, anyone with even a shred of a soul can't even fathom the soullessness of a psychopath. The question is whether that brings them happiness, satisfaction, or peace—whatever they think counts as success or progress.

Ideologies like communism and the rest saw exploitation and built a system to fix it, but they ended up falling into the exact same trap.
Why?
No matter how "humane" an ideology looks on paper, it can't facilitate individual growth or change a person at a level deep enough to create actual change. It’s all surface-level stuff; you just end up changing the facade without touching the core. The ego just latches onto the idea of "humanity and progress" to justify its own violence. The violence doesn't go away; it just changes masks. The chaos keeps spinning. Action and reaction. One side goes down, the other goes up, and the cycle repeats. ☕

Anthony Perez9 said:There’s no such thing as collective spiritual insight or collective self-work. That's why the answer lies with the individual, not the group—whether it's a nation, a state, a religion, or some political party.

🤔But then you have to ask who decides which societies are oppressed, impoverished, or broken and labeled as "underdeveloped." Sorry, but that feels like a warped perspective to me. Obviously, nobody is an angel free from ego. If we swapped places, who knows? It's all just speculation and projecting your own traits onto others. Sounds like a cheap excuse to me.

I wasn't trying to justify anyone or equate the victim with the aggressor. I guess I expected people to misinterpret me.

It’s pretty obvious how colonial powers got so strong and developed—by completely wrecking everything in their path.

Yeah. And? What does my personal growth have to do with "colonial powers"?
Am I supposed to join a class struggle or something? 😁

Man, anyone with even a shred of a soul can't even fathom the soullessness of a psychopath. The question is whether that brings them happiness, satisfaction, or peace—whatever they think counts as success or progress.

Ideologies like communism and the rest saw exploitation and built a system to fix it, but they ended up falling into the exact same trap.
Why?
No matter how "humane" an ideology looks on paper, it can't facilitate individual growth or change a person at a level deep enough to create actual change. It’s all surface-level stuff; you just end up changing the facade without touching the core. The ego just latches onto the idea of "humanity and progress" to justify its own violence. The violence doesn't go away; it just changes masks. The chaos keeps spinning. Action and reaction. One side goes down, the other goes up, and the cycle repeats. ☕

Schizophrenia is nothing more than extreme hypocrisy...
For instance, fighting against certain ideologies day and night, only to suddenly align oneself with American ideology as if it were the great liberator...

Jamie Bailey said:Schizophrenia is nothing more than extreme hypocrisy...
For instance, fighting against certain ideologies day and night, only to suddenly align oneself with American ideology as if it were the great liberator...

Whatever...

Like when you're fighting an ideology 24/7, 365 days a year

?

And then you suddenly side with American ideology as if they're the liberators.

Who’s siding with some ideology here?
When someone breaks into your house threatening to kill you or worse, you don't need an ideology to defend yourself and your family. You just do it. Same goes for helping the victim. ☕

Betty Chavez2 said:Reality, truth, is not to be recognized. For truth to come, belief, knowledge, experiencing, the pursuit of virtue—all this must go. The virtuous person who is conscious of pursuing virtue can never find reality. He may be a very decent person; but that is entirely different from being a man of truth, a man who understands. To the man of truth, truth has come into being. A virtuous man is a righteous man, and a righteous man can never understand what is truth because virtue to him is the covering of the self, the strengthening of the self, because he is pursuing virtue. When he says “I must be without greed”, the state of non-greed which he experiences only strengthens the self. That is why it is so important to be poor, not only in the things of the world but also in belief and in knowledge. A man with worldly riches or a man rich in knowledge and belief will never know anything but darkness and will be the centre of all mischief and misery. But if you and I, as individuals, can see this whole working of the self, then we shall know what love is. I assure you that is the only reformation which can possibly change the world. Love is not of the self. Self cannot recognize love. You say “I love”; but then, in the very saying of it, in the very experiencing of it, love is not. But, when you know love, self is not. When there is Love, self is not. — Krishnamurti from the book The First and Last Freedom
⠀
From the book The First and Last Freedom

Did Krishnamurti ever actually live in extreme poverty to know if there's anything noble about it, or did he just sell his philosophy while living comfortably in abundance?

Kevin Ruiz36 said:Did Krishnamurti ever actually live in extreme poverty to know if there's anything noble about it, or did he just sell his philosophy while living comfortably in abundance?

Yeah, so? What's the issue? 🤔

Paul Rogers94 said:Yeah, so? What's the issue? 🤔

Even if his father and mentor were abusive during his childhood, he wasn't lacking anything materially; after all, he was part of the upper class in India. Later in life, he was a respected philosopher who earned enough to live quite comfortably.

I don't see how someone living in extreme poverty on the streets can meaningfully help anyone. When you're just struggling to survive the day, you have nothing left to give.

That’s why I maintain there’s nothing noble about being destitute. In most cases, a person ends up in that position because of their own choices and the lifestyle that led them to ruin.

So, basically, Krishnamurti is the root cause of all poverty and suffering—he's honestly being incredibly rude about it...

Kevin Ruiz36 said:Did Krishnamurti ever actually live in extreme poverty to know if there's anything noble about it, or did he just sell his philosophy while living comfortably in abundance?

I don't think poverty helps anyone grow spiritually either. Honestly, everyone should be living in abundance—there's enough for everyone to have that kind of life.

There's this thing Martinus calls a 'fake business principle' that only works because of the 'bank account.'
As long as life is built on those two things, we'll never reach an ideal society where everyone lives in plenty.

That fake principle lets wealth get distributed unfairly, letting some people get rich while others live in poverty or even face starvation.
It was cooked up by the wealthy who write the laws, and they aren't going to let it go easily. But as consciousness evolves, we'll eventually see this principle and the whole bank account system phased out.

That's really the only path to peace. Without justice, you'll never have peace.

So, if someone claims to be spiritual, they need to care about everyone's well-being. Getting rid of that fake business principle is the foundation for actual world peace.

Betty Chavez2 said:I don't think poverty helps anyone grow spiritually either. Honestly, everyone should be living in abundance—there's enough for everyone to have that kind of life.

There's this thing Martinus calls a 'fake business principle' that only works because of the 'bank account.'
As long as life is built on those two things, we'll never reach an ideal society where everyone lives in plenty.

That fake principle lets wealth get distributed unfairly, letting some people get rich while others live in poverty or even face starvation.
It was cooked up by the wealthy who write the laws, and they aren't going to let it go easily. But as consciousness evolves, we'll eventually see this principle and the whole bank account system phased out.

That's really the only path to peace. Without justice, you'll never have peace.

So, if someone claims to be spiritual, they need to care about everyone's well-being. Getting rid of that fake business principle is the foundation for actual world peace.

Money will always exist, which means banks and accounts will too, but the money doesn't actually belong to the banks or the government. There's always an ultimate owner; the rest of us—from the working class to the ultra-rich—are just users. I remember watching a Bob Proctor video where he breaks down how 96% of people trade their time for money, working those standard eight-hour shifts. About 3% invest money to try and make more, often losing it all on high risks. Then you have that top 1% who control 96% of the world's wealth. Their secret? They build multiple streams of income, mostly passive ones. It's about having money flowing into the account from various places. For now, though, we don't have a viable alternative to the current banking or state systems.

The science of the middle path has never truly been laid bare...

Jamie Bailey said:The science of the middle path has never truly been laid bare...

How, then, would you propose to outline that middle path, even if only in broad strokes?

George Wood2 said:How, then, would you propose to outline that middle path, even if only in broad strokes?

I'm clearly out of the loop here, as I think I only ever heard a passing mention of it in some book somewhere...