Drudaosha: A Spiritual Framework for a Changing World

[Luce NDs]

Deconstruction requires considerable reverence for the past, and the recognition of the legacy of great sages who labored throughout the centuries to counter materialist demagoguery.

While the dogmas of organized religion and scientific materialism depend on each other for their identities -eminent thinkers such as Hegel, Schelling, Goethe, Steiner, Whitehead, etc taught that parts contain wholes, that the greater exists within the lesser.

They also knew the difference between ethics and morality, conscience and law, shame and guilt.

There is a pervasive malignant psychic condition which Blake referred to as the “Mind-Forged Manacles.”

From this toxic psychological condition come the imperious institutions of conformity and indoctrination.

From these hives of group-think come the high priests of Scientific Materialism, programming the minds and hearts of those under their tutelage.

The works of the sages of old is heavily plagiarized and disfigured, or consigned to the academic dustbin.

In place of it we are assured that the brain is nothing more than a programmable machine, and that the universe is also a mechanism to be understood by intellect alone.

Throwing off this nonsense, and questioning every part of it is nigh on impossible today.

It takes too much time, time best spent having fun.

It requires reading and profound contemplation, and that’s poison today.

We prefer that other people ask the deep questions.

We look to the “expert” to explain mysteries that puzzle and disturb us.

As professor Allan Bloom and other social critics long ago realized and warned, the navigators who seized the helm of western education are steering headlong toward a precipice from which there is no return. It was apparent to Bloom that their interest isn’t education at all, but indoctrination.

I think he was right.

Personally I do not find it is an inconsequential pastime to examine the principles of Mysticism to see if they remain firm and true. I love mining through the works of these most eminent thinkers and abstracting that which makes most sense to me as a present-day seeker.

In addition if we are dipped in a world paved with lies and not allowed to question the matter ... does illusion of greatness degrade to delusion? The mind can thus act as a gravid lens ... with wrinkles ... and act as a multiple double slit device that creates variations in the ether ... something more to create questions.
Does God like to be the center or attention instead of question? May explain the celibate vs celebrity urge! Demiurge and disturbances in the mysteriously, dark unknown ... which we cannot learn because of the primal lies!

Are these literary devices to raise curiosity? Maybe we are just in an evil domain and don't know it because no one asked!

If we were fully aware (WOKE) would everybody wish to fly off and no one would be left to carry out royal gobs, etc.

Imagine that ... I understand there is a sector of life that believes everything is an illusion ... a delusion from the other perspective ... you just can't tell without probing ...

 

[Pavlos Maros]

Humanities metaphysical speculations are still wanting.

Doesn't mean we have to scrap what great men of the past said about reality.

Doesn't mean we have to abjure and replace philosophy.

Science concedes that it has been forced to "start again" many times.

Paradigms fall and get abandoned.

Let us negate the negation, and build a new thesis.

Long live the Dialectic!

You're using philosophical buzzwords to avoid the actual point. Yes, scientific paradigms shift but they shift based on better evidence, not by combining random spiritual traditions and mapping them onto chakras.
'Great men of the past' said lots of things that turned out wrong. Being historically important doesn't validate metaphysical claims, especially when we have better methods for understanding reality now.
You're arguing that because science has been wrong before, we should embrace untestable mystical beliefs. That's backwards science's self-correcting nature is exactly what makes it more reliable than unfalsifiable speculation.
If you want to 'build a new thesis,' start with evidence, not grandiose dialectical language that obscures your lack of actual argument.

 

[Luce NDs]

Did you know probes cause political retribution that is considered legal ... and the lie goes on ...?

 

[Luce NDs]

You're using philosophical buzzwords to avoid the actual point. Yes, scientific paradigms shift but they shift based on better evidence, not by combining random spiritual traditions and mapping them onto chakras.
'Great men of the past' said lots of things that turned out wrong. Being historically important doesn't validate metaphysical claims, especially when we have better methods for understanding reality now.
You're arguing that because science has been wrong before, we should embrace untestable mystical beliefs. That's backwards science's self-correcting nature is exactly what makes it more reliable than unfalsifiable speculation.
If you want to 'build a new thesis,' start with evidence, not grandiose dialectical language that obscures your lack of actual argument.

Isn't word the base of intellectual exchange of question regarding lies?

Thus further question so that God as Life can go on living the lie ... as Davidian! The world is an essential lie ... a vapor. Last week a retired psychology authority said all Freudian teaching should be thrown out as it was based on vapors ...

It appears to be deeper than expanded gas ... with some condensation! It drives and motivates thinking process ... sometimes ... if there is a good chance ... catch the lyre naked if you can so as to see the underlying factors ... understood?

God as word loves to confuse so you will linger ... allowing intelligence to be extracted! Parricidal process ... parasite? Noble beast! Reminds me of the limbic system ... mind warping juices ...

 

[Pavlos Maros]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I appreciate the time you took to lay out your concerns.



My intention here was to give different philosophies their own place so that they would not be in conflict. You do realize that these different spiritualities were not created in a vacuum. Buddhism grew out of a rejection of Vedic orthodoxy. The Dao and Brahman are very similar in concept, and eventually Taoism influenced and shaped Buddhism into Chan (Zen) Buddhism in such that Zen itself is also much like The Dao (and also Brahman). These paths have learned to get along over millennia.

As for Shamanism, perhaps you are not familiar with "Yellow Shamanism", which is an integration of Mongolian shamanism and Buddhism. There is also "Zen Shamanism". Also of note is that Taoism grew out of Wuism, which is considered to be shamanistic in nature, and referred to as "Chinese shamanism".

Now, the flavour of Shamanism I have selected for Drudaosha is Amazonian Shamanism, which is likely the epitome of a syncretic spirituality.

Rather than mix everything together, I have given each path its own space, aligned with one of the seven chakras -- a system already familiar to many.



I don’t personally think of chakras as physically existing in the body in any measurable sense. For me they’re more like symbolic focal points. Archetypes that help me organize different aspects of practice. By aligning each tradition with one chakra, I give each path its own space within a larger whole. Of course, these aspects aren’t really confined to those spaces... it’s just a framework that helps me hold things together without letting any one path dominate.



I can see why it looks ironic on the surface, and I admit, you made me smile too.

The big difference for me is that I don’t hold Drudaosha as dogma. I don’t claim these chakra-path mappings are ‘the way things are,’ but rather a symbolic framework that helps me organize and balance the traditions I resonate with. Where dogma prescribes belief as truth, I see this as more of a tool or language. Something defining but not confining. If someone else finds it useful, great. If not, that’s fine too. For me, it’s about creating space for dialogue, not closing it.


I hear what you’re saying, and I agree that science, philosophy, art, and nature already give us profound meaning.

At the same time, I don’t see a reason to close the door on possibilities beyond the purely material. Many of the wisest thinkers, (Einstein among them), were at least open-minded about mystery, wonder, and dimensions of reality beyond what we can currently explain.

For me, Drudaosha isn’t about creating dogma or demanding belief, but about giving myself a symbolic framework to hold together the existing traditions and experiences that resonate. It’s less about certainty, and more about remaining open to meaning wherever it shows itself.

You make fair historical points about syncretism, and I appreciate that you view your framework as symbolic rather than literal truth claims.
But regarding dogma, you've created a system with seven specific traditions mapped to seven specific chakras, with prescribed practices and defined meanings for each. You've even named it and are presumably planning to follow its structure consistently. That's still a rigid framework with rules, regardless of whether you call it "symbolic" or hold it "lightly."
The fact that you don't claim absolute truth doesn't eliminate the dogmatic structure, it just makes it softer dogma. You're still organizing your spiritual life around prescribed elements (Root=Druidry, Sacral=Daoism, etc.) rather than genuine openness.
Even as a "tool," you're dedicating mental energy to practices around concepts that have no empirical basis. Your Einstein reference actually supports my point - his sense of mystery was about mathematical laws governing reality, not spiritual practices.
True freedom from dogma would mean not needing any organizing spiritual framework at all. The wonder you're seeking through this complex architecture already exists in the natural world and human relationships - no metaphysical system required, however "non-dogmatic" you claim it to be.

 

[Luce NDs]

You make fair historical points about syncretism, and I appreciate that you view your framework as symbolic rather than literal truth claims.
But regarding dogma, you've created a system with seven specific traditions mapped to seven specific chakras, with prescribed practices and defined meanings for each. You've even named it and are presumably planning to follow its structure consistently. That's still a rigid framework with rules, regardless of whether you call it "symbolic" or hold it "lightly."
The fact that you don't claim absolute truth doesn't eliminate the dogmatic structure, it just makes it softer dogma. You're still organizing your spiritual life around prescribed elements (Root=Druidry, Sacral=Daoism, etc.) rather than genuine openness.
Even as a "tool," you're dedicating mental energy to practices around concepts that have no empirical basis. Your Einstein reference actually supports my point - his sense of mystery was about mathematical laws governing reality, not spiritual practices.
True freedom from dogma would mean not needing any organizing spiritual framework at all. The wonder you're seeking through this complex architecture already exists in the natural world and human relationships - no metaphysical system required, however "non-dogmatic" you claim it to be.

Its because it all started from nothing ... a dull black void without shape ... abstract?

There has to be word for it ...

 

[WhyCzar]

start with evidence, not grandiose dialectical language that obscures your lack of actual argument.

I am not arguing.

From my point of view, materialism and absurd reductionism are no match for Idealism and Mysticism when it comes to the existential questions.

The pervading, supposedly iron-clad ideologies of Materialism are disintegrating in the light of new discoveries about the brain. What can be done about the revelations of Ken Wilber, Bruce Lipton, Rupert Sheldrake, Richard Tarnas, Charles Tart, Michael Talbot, Ernest Hilgard, Kevin Ward, Raymond Tallis, Thomas Berry, Anthony Peake, Michael Cremo, Iain McGilchrist, Ervin Laszlo, Robert Lanza, and their like? Are you able to challenge their findings, or those of former dissenters such as Henri Bergson, Arthur Koestler, Ilya Prigogine, David Bohm and Karl Pribham, etc?

These are exceptionally important matters, affecting each of us on so many levels.

I am personally motivated, with all the recent paradigm-busting going on, to learn more of the great sages of the past. More and more it appears to me that there is nothing, absolutely nothing, brought forth by modern-day dissenters that wasn’t already discovered and enunciated by brilliant intellects of previous centuries.

 

[BetteTheRed]

I don’t personally think of chakras as physically existing in the body in any measurable sense.

Hmm. I have a problematic solar plexus chakra. It's definitely physical. It is the most accurate anxiety-meter in my poor anxious body.

I happen to do a lot of chakra meditations, because I find them soothing. I guess it's suggestibility, but I feel these energy centres, some more clearly than others. I feel four of the seven very physically.

 

[Kindred Seer]

Hmm. I have a problematic solar plexus chakra. It's definitely physical. It is the most accurate anxiety-meter in my poor anxious body.

I happen to do a lot of chakra meditations, because I find them soothing. I guess it's suggestibility, but I feel these energy centres, some more clearly than others. I feel four of the seven very physically.

Just to clarify what I meant earlier when I said I don’t see chakras as “physically existing in the body”: I wasn’t trying to deny that some of them correspond with real physical centers (like the solar plexus nerve cluster, or the throat and thyroid).

What I meant is that I don’t treat chakras as literal spinning disks of (physical) energy, and that doesn't mean that I am not open to them also potentially existing as spinning disks of spiritual energy -- a form of quintessence.

The solar plexus nerve cluster is most certainly associated with anxiety, and each of the chakras is associated with a physical part of the body. I was not disputing this. I was more so speaking of them in the literal sense of "spinning disks".

It is within the context of Drudaosha that I am using them more as a way to organize and give space to different aspects of life and spirituality.

 

[Pavlos Maros]

I am not arguing.

From my point of view, materialism and absurd reductionism are no match for Idealism and Mysticism when it comes to the existential questions.

The pervading, supposedly iron-clad ideologies of Materialism are disintegrating in the light of new discoveries about the brain. What can be done about the revelations of Ken Wilber, Bruce Lipton, Rupert Sheldrake, Richard Tarnas, Charles Tart, Michael Talbot, Ernest Hilgard, Kevin Ward, Raymond Tallis, Thomas Berry, Anthony Peake, Michael Cremo, Iain McGilchrist, Ervin Laszlo, Robert Lanza, and their like? Are you able to challenge their findings, or those of former dissenters such as Henri Bergson, Arthur Koestler, Ilya Prigogine, David Bohm and Karl Pribham, etc?

These are exceptionally important matters, affecting each of us on so many levels.

I am personally motivated, with all the recent paradigm-busting going on, to learn more of the great sages of the past. More and more it appears to me that there is nothing, absolutely nothing, brought forth by modern-day dissenters that wasn’t already discovered and enunciated by brilliant intellects of previous centuries.

You're name-dropping to avoid addressing the actual issues. Most of your list includes people whose work has been thoroughly critiqued or debunked - Sheldrake's "morphic resonance," Lipton's misrepresentation of epigenetics, Lanza's "biocentrism," and Wilber's unfalsifiable "integral theory" aren't taken seriously by mainstream science for good reasons.
The fact that you can list names doesn't constitute evidence. I could list thousands of scientists whose work contradicts mystical claims, but that's not how evidence works.
You claim materialism is "disintegrating" but provide no actual examples of validated findings that support mystical beliefs. Brain research continues to show that consciousness correlates with brain states, exactly what materialism predicts.
Your appeal to "great sages of the past" is particularly telling. These brilliant minds also believed in geocentric astronomy, bodily humours, and alchemy. Intelligence doesn't validate wrong ideas about reality.

If you have specific, testable evidence for mystical claims, present it. If not, you're just engaging in sophisticated wishful thinking dressed up in academic language.
The burden is on you to provide evidence for extraordinary claims, not on me to refute every name you can Google.

 

[Luce NDs]

Can a thing of metaphysical nature provide evidence if it is beyond and parallel to physicality?

That's way out there ... by a long shot ... a nit of Satyr if nothing else.

I have been told that God (love, emotions) like the daemons (knowledge, intellect, etc.) do not exist and are non-material ... in which case the change of wisdom is even farther out of the emotional domain that clouds our vision of clearer things. I find much of this echo's in mythical and cheeky literary devices as truth (virtue) cannot be told because it is uncomfortable to beasts of avarice. El Pas ZO?

That concept has hidden and Gnostic information at the axis of the spin ... then of course if concepts are in the midst of mind ... that's eliminated!

I was told at some time that mind, etc. was an abstract! Then in question; is the absolute outside or without the absolute factor? Enigmatic? Many normal people in the physical domain as absolute cannot abide by anything of fey, or Ephraim nature unless stoically restrained ...

May explain the mythology behind the witches of that Dora Magi ... Nacht in Nordic Tongues! It is like a pall where dreams and their counterparts can express themselves.

Is this an etude of rather episteme tics ... mental bugs and imperfections? Rifts pop up ... explaining continental de rifts if not larger terminal situations that present themselves in formless nature ... boogie's? Some say these are light dances or tattoos ... like St Vitas ... or the last waltz with word ... instrumental?

Myself I appreciate the lyrics as parsed ... in them layers and layers of stacked myth! The Nordic even bore gardens as Byre 'n ... polka! The stoic claim it obscene ... quite thick as close pall line!

Pauline in another representation meant humble or beneath Pall as perhaps the fire that drove heh ... hymn, whatever when the membrane was encountered ... drummed? The angles this takes are numerous ... 4 points of the compass and more when considering the thing is deep and thick ...

In one approach a Dark Moon is said to have astrological manifestations of new beginnings ... after the old ends. It doesn't really end just get obscured in the stack like the chimney cleaner ... and great smudges that travel with strange journey! Philo Sophy 'search?

It is said that often one demiurge in the pair is gone missing ... the twin or Duo as a light in the Mire! More thermodynamics ...

 

[Pavlos Maros]

Can a thing of metaphysical nature provide evidence if it is beyond and parallel to physicality?

Really simple answer. As it can't, is it really worth pursuing.

 

[WhyCzar]

Brain research continues to show that consciousness correlates with brain states, exactly what materialism predicts.

Of the 325+ Theories of Consciousness which is your favorite?

While most adherents at both ends of the Landscape of Consciousness—materialists and idealists—are confident of the ultimate vindication of their positions, this deeper question still reamains an open question.

 

[Pavlos Maros]

Of the 325+ Theories of Consciousness which is your favorite?

While most adherents at both ends of the Landscape of Consciousness—materialists and idealists—are confident of the ultimate vindication of their positions, this deeper question still reamains an open question.

Nice deflection! (It made me smile.) The existence of multiple theories of consciousness doesn't validate mystical claims any more than having multiple theories of gravity validates astrology.
The fact that we don't fully understand consciousness yet doesn't mean we should fill the gap with chakras, spiritual energy, and ancient wisdom. That's classic "god of the gaps" reasoning.
More importantly, those 325+ theories you mention are attempting to explain consciousness through natural, testable mechanisms, neural networks, information processing, quantum effects in microtubules, etc. They're not saying "consciousness proves mysticism is real."
The honest scientific position is "we don't know yet, but we're working on it with evidence based methods." Your position seems to be "we don't know yet, therefore ancient mystics were right about everything."
Mystery doesn't equal mysticism. The fact that consciousness is currently unexplained doesn't validate any specific metaphysical framework, especially ones that make unfalsifiable claims about chakras and spiritual realms.
If you want to argue that idealism better explains consciousness, present the evidence.
Don't just point to our current limitations and claim victory.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I don’t know if humans will be around long enough to figure it all out and we shouldn’t presume we can. And if we don’t, we don’t know that we (as energy when we die) won’t arrive on another plane of conscious existence and find out that both the scientists and the mystics were correct - just had different mind applications as their priorities.

 

[Luce NDs]

Really simple answer. As it can't, is it really worth pursuing.

Then if the mind is like myth as I am told how else to pursue it than through the sense of stories of folk's experience with the abstract ... a mysterious item to examine ... requires a far reach of the odd limb! Didn't CS Lewis mention something about the pain of such examination?

In one culture story there is the Pharisee (Law, protocol) vs the scholar thereof known as Sadducee and in the court of the time it was like Jude against Samuel ... a rather tough metaphor to unravel if one rejects the entire concept of metaphor, so goes omniscience and paranormal events as exceptions to the Ruel.

Are you familiar with the Semite Ruel of fire? It is a storied item that warms the heart ... like some limbic materials ... that drift from fixed cells to moving cells transposing nutrients and ... prodigal left over's ... (waste)?

I see everything as metaphor or other projection of time and space as hard natured we can't go there until in a state of transcendence ... like various endocrines balancing the caring body! With space and dynamics factored in it may manifest as quintessence if you understand some ancient words of holography that is often denied as part of thought as information stored in Nietzsche, and other fractures an grooves in normal ...

Many of the stoic would not got to such extremes as to investigate exceptions to rules ... thus we make them over and over and sensationalize then as due to our Doppelgänger .... a divined thing of paired physical and unreal qualities! I tis found in reading, writing and arithmetic as abstract bits in log series.

You can use these unconceivable topics in myth to give the Baal-ADs power ... you know of the bail attached to the upper part of the bucket expression so it can swing a bit ... gimbaled eh!

People recall nothing without a story, shanty or whatever because they initially didn't accept anything but will ... it served until the end of the first decade ... then there was huge adjustments ... that may have lasted to mid-life ... when we ask: "now what?"

Fa Rhodes ...

We return to the downhill gradient ... I'm so far into that some call me dark and negative about will in those still carrying their adolescent urges ... the spin now is of matured quality ... thicker and slower ... Moe Lasses? ephemeral bleaching ... white washing of past Eire ...

Few accept and learn from pain ... thus it continues and even goes on in scientific tests as we seem when students do painful things to their classmates ... especially in shock tests ... they cannot resist being painful to their siblings as they relate poorly to pathology! They do not believe they hurt the alternates ...

It may take unending winds to unload this mortal trait of self destruction ... the subjective never envisioning the objects's condition ... thus distant turning points ...

 

[Luce NDs]

The stuff unseen and ineffable because of blind pall's, etc. Makes the night almost go quiet ...

Might it lead to a metaphysical exodus after the rumored exegesis that involves critical expansion of scripts .... they can be numerous ... and all must be encompassed!

Sadly humans eliminate to excess ... like Eli telling Samuel to stay out of sight as a Sadducee in the temple ... simple scholar that sometimes has more clues than those that never left campus ...

One must divide and separate the time or one of body or soul while cease to exist because of desiccation ... (therein more matter for further legend).

Alas few accept my mind ... too much on the pH arscide?
Arse neck+Naeque ... kissing one another goodbye!

Some practiced this in school and we're back at it again ... don't know why?

 

[WhyCzar]

Don't just point to our current limitations and claim victory.

I claim nothing and have nothing to prove.

In an invited address to the Society for Psychical Research in 1919, Jung uttered the following memorable words: “I shall not commit the fashionable stupidity of regarding everything that I cannot explain as a fraud.”

 

[Pavlos Maros]

I claim nothing and have nothing to prove.

In an invited address to the Society for Psychical Research in 1919, Jung uttered the following memorable words: “I shall not commit the fashionable stupidity of regarding everything that I cannot explain as a fraud.”

You absolutely are making claims, you've argued that idealism and mysticism are superior to materialism, cited dozens of authors as supporting evidence, and suggested that neuroscience validates mystical beliefs.
Don't pretend you're just neutrally observing.
The Jung quote is ironic coming from someone who just listed 20+ names as if that constitutes evidence. Jung wasn't advocating for accepting mystical claims without evidence, he was advocating for intellectual humility about unexplained phenomena.
There's a crucial difference between Jung's position ("I can't explain this yet, so I won't dismiss it") and yours ("I can't explain this, therefore ancient mystics were right about chakras and spiritual energy").

Calling something unexplained isn't the same as calling it fraud, but it's also not license to accept any metaphysical explanation that sounds appealing.

If you truly "claim nothing," then we're in agreement, there's no evidence for mystical beliefs, chakras, or spiritual realms.

But your entire argument has been claiming these things have validity, so you can't suddenly retreat to "I claim nothing" when pressed for evidence.

 

[WhyCzar]

@Pavlos Maros And your entire agument has been to simply call it ‘physical’ and thereby render materialism unfalsifiable by mere linguistic definition.

Ultimately, of course, it is our understanding of what is really going on that matters; our understanding of who and what we are, what reality is, and how we relate to the rest of nature.

It’s not about labels or personal vindication.

Thomas Kuhn’s paradigm shift is unfolding before our very eyes.

@Kindred Seer - I apologize for the digression.