Orbran

@Phil As I said, no longer interested in attempts to explain. Feeling better already. Fin.

I am aware it isn't your perspective, it's mine. When I said it isn't widely shared here, I was including you. So don't worry, that perspective wasn't summing your view, it was summing mine. In terms of nothing being suggested, I'm now fatigued, which seems like a waste of my energy and I need to get back to eliminating that. That means I can't further assist in seeing my point of view. This isn't about accusation, its about me not wanting to spend precious currency (in the form of truth) in finding out where explorations lead that focus entirely on a non-individual self. And me equating spending that currency as being the same as spending it on organized religion. Due to the fact that I have to admit that I am now entering some logic that is repeating itself again and again, I'm afraid I'm done and have to cut short. Not because I think it is impossible for it to lead somewhere, but because I really don't want to invest just to see where it leads.

I just sort of realized it might be fruitful to say that I'm not here asserting my conclusions about mysticism to prove a point to anyone. In other words, I didn't go looking for your community on google. Before I got here, I had a discussion with a friend and they suggested I make a post here. I didn't come to find you so I could speak at you, but conversing with a friend led me to you. This may not make a difference to some, but I felt like it might be good to provide that detail in the interest of openness.

You misunderstand, Phil was not asking a question as if he did not know something, correct? He was asking that question because he wanted me to explore something. The question he asked was not to clear something up for him, or that he thought he would learn something from my answer when he asked it. It was intended as an exploration. I simply stated that I don't wish to explore it. Of course, that is my perspective on the situation and don't need or expect you or Phil to see the same. Thanks for the reply.

@Phil I appreciate that external factors and subconscious influences play a role in shaping what we think, though I understand this might not be a widely shared view here. I respect your perspective, but adopting it would require significant changes on my part that I am not ready to make. Additionally, our understanding of the 'self' that these 'thoughts' concern seems to differ, and I feel that further exploration in this direction wouldn't align with my current interests or beliefs.

I am not quite sure what you are asking and whether it is intended to be rhetorical or not. Could you possibly expand or reframe your question?

@Phil What I pointed out was where becoming was mentioned. As far as a suggestion, saying that there is no suggestion does not simply open my eyes to how there is no suggestion. So if you have further comment, I welcome it. Otherwise, defer to my responses that explain how a commitment was suggested.

@Phil

@Phil As far as someone suggesting that a person or organization should not suggest of 'becoming' something, was this meant to scold a prior instance of a member in this thread doing so (@Robed Mystic) or was this just independent and meant as general advice? I'm assuming the latter, but wanted to clarify.

@Phil Have you seemingly latched onto how you see what commitment is, such that you have forgotten what commitment conventionally means? That's okay, however conventionally commitment is considered more than a thought, and involves a conscious decision or pledge to dedicate oneself to a particular course of action, goal, relationship, or belief, often with a strong sense of determination and obligation. Suggesting that I should notice it as not by that definition but to notice it as a thought does indeed require a change on my part.

This is the suggestion that does require change (to notice commitment is the thought)

@Phil I made many points in my original post and it clearly made a one line conclusion that you can focus on if you wish: the spiritual journey towards enlightenment requires a commitment that is remarkably similar to religious faith. I stated that this is my personal stance. If the point I need to make needs to be anything other than that for your sake, I'm afraid I cannot oblige. Sharing my point of view, then welcoming any comments that may come.

Hi, @Phil To clarify, when I refer to 'commitment,' I'm speaking about the conventional understanding of the term—how it is commonly perceived and how I personally interpret it. If you have a different interpretation of commitment, that's entirely valid. However, from my perspective, commitment involves making a conscious decision and then diligently following through with that decision. This process is crucial, especially for those embarking on a new journey for the first time (if they *start* with a conventional understanding of what commitment is). Without this, one remains static, not progressing along the suggested path. As I understand it, remaining stationary is not the goal for those who advocate for change, and you do make a suggestion that does require change. Furthermore, suggesting that no path needs to be taken means that staying in place is acceptable. This, paradoxically, means that there is no need to change or reframe one's view.

To Phil, Jane, Reena, and active participants James123 and RobedMystic, hello! Thank you greeting and in some cases responding to what I have said.

The notion that mysticism can bridge the gap from subjectivity to objectivity is a fascinating one, yet it parallels the faith-based approaches seen in various religions, where commitment is premised on the unverifiable personal transformation. This "just try it" methodology lacks empirical support and hinges greatly on subjective experiences, which inherently vary from person to person. Given the unpredictable nature of such a journey and the profound commitment it entails, one must consider the logic and practicality of embarking on this path as opposed to others. How does one objectively choose mysticism—or any belief system—without clear, empirical evidence of its superiority or efficacy?

Does curiosity always need to lead to action, and how do we choose where to focus our efforts? It's not always clear how to pick the right path from the start. Deciding what's worthwhile can be tricky, and expecting to automatically know the best direction to take from our curiosity might not be realistic.

My post addresses this line of thought and suggests that it requires making an initial leap of faith. What follows is why should I if I can take a leap of faith toward Christian or Muslim beliefs, just so I can see where it leads?

The pursuit of enlightenment or a deeper understanding of oneself presents a paradox. In this pursuit, one is expected to eventually realize that there is nothing to be sought and that the seeker themselves is part of the illusion. This introduces a paradox that seems to require following a path somewhat blindly to see where it leads—a requirement not unlike those made by various religions. One could argue that this path is not about blind faith but about validating truths through direct personal experience and continual questioning. However, a significant challenge arises in that this path demands not only a relentless questioning of everything but also necessitates a fundamental change in one’s perception of the external world. While there's a certain appeal to this approach, it undeniably requires a type of commitment and a leap of faith, believing that this shift will lead to something beneficial. This commitment, in my view, parallels the blind adherence to dogma found in traditional religions, as there is no option to leave it out. At this juncture, I find myself seeking examples of individuals who have successfully navigated this path. Yet, much like religious followers who cite success without reliance on logical foundations, these personal spiritual journeys are highly individual and subjective. Success in this context is frequently touted by religious groups and spiritual teachings alike, though it's based on personal experiences that are inherently difficult to quantify or verify independently. This reliance on personal validation raises a question: why should one not be skeptical of a spiritual path that requires similar faith to that demanded by organized religions? Both paths ask for trust in the process and suggest that personal experiences can validate their truths. However, many religious claims also hinge on personal experiences that followers find validating. In conclusion, while the spiritual journey towards enlightenment offers a unique approach, it requires a commitment that is remarkably similar to religious faith. This similarity leaves me skeptical, as the inherently personal nature of such journeys seems to offer little objective evidence or reason to embark on such a path, beyond personal anecdotes and subjective experiences. I just want to emphasize that my skepticism stems from a personal perspective and I'm not dismissing your experiences or paths but expressing a personal stance. I'm open to receiving responses and value your insights.