Given the friction which has arisen between the seemingly polarized Nexian camps of "purely scientific" and "purely spiritual" modes of cognition...  my personal belief is that there ought to be more flexibility across the board.  But my vantage point isn't the issue. 

In other words, either there is a strict understanding that to voice one's thoughts and/or feelings within either end of the proverbial spectrum, one speaks out of place ~OR~ there is an open doorway for all to express themselves freely, without regard for specified protocol, within any and all subforum categories.  Which there ain't!    

Meaning, that discussions about God and the Immortality of the human soul, so harhsly objected to by our more cerebrally-oriented fellows, can skip freely into hardcore rational discussions (and with how much hospitality is this approach received)?  We can all do the math, eh, given how inapplicable the transcendental experience, when gauged by pragmatic cognition and procedural analysis? 

Conversely, open challenges about the validity of any un-provable spiritual hypothesis or theoretical construct regarding the nature of the Sacred, are NOT open-season for heated argumentation about said validity, when expressed in these existentially chosen, impartial platforms.  This IS the appropriate place to give voice to such ideas, by The Traveler's very design. 

I do recall some scathing criticism on Citta's part (and many, many other chaps), when I blundered into the faux-pas of mentioning the pineal gland, in relation to DMT production.  My bad, obviously, and I've respected the fine line that guides my personal interpretations and beliefs, from scientifically proven fact. 

Clearly, the administrator requests us to place our ideas in the appropriate regions.  I have tried to honor his reasonable wishes.  It's a two way street, my friends.

The owner of this site and many of the moderators have expressed an adamant need to keep "purely spiritual" ideas out of the Science subforum.  This is an inarguable reality, which we have all witnessed and IMO, many of our 21st century:  Yogis/Sufis/Buddhists/Taoists/Shamans/Gnostics/etc...  have worked diligently to harmonize within said guidelines and delineated areas of participation.  :thumb_up:

For Citta to unabashedly and repeatedly operate with such an obvious disregard for this structural decree (and intended ideological segregation), shows a blatant double-standard on his/her part.  Trav intentionally attempts to keep these types of unfruitful and all-too-predictable debates from gumming up the hallowed halls of this esteemed forum body. 

It neither adds to, significantly, nor fully extinguishes the intent of the OP, to chllenge the validity and perhaps, the very reality of the concepts presented.  So, it does come across as both childish and fundamentally rude.  Like my Gramma used to say, 

"What's good for the goose is good for the gander."

I will add that Citta is most correct in several regards, we must NEVER blindly accept any metaphysical ideology at face value.  While anything is possible and the universe is one of infinite possibility...  we must be self-reliant and even minded when considering our own integration with these ideas.

For, without adequate exploration, oneself, and proper time spent in contemplation & logical deduction, we achieve an expected result, by way of suggestion.  Abandoning critical thinking is historically unwise.  That being said, neither should we allow adherence to reason and reason alone, limit our range in perceptual parameter.  It's all about the balance, as many of you fine folks keep wisely reiterating.   

I'm not saying that this subforum is akin to a church, in any way but allegorically.  Still, the effect of presenting challenging intellectual counterpoint, is essentially paramount to entering a mosque or temple (and more-or-less), denouncing the reality of Spirit.  I find such behavior largely inharmonious.  For the purpose for this section of Nexian discussion is founded in a deep belief about those unscientific areas of experience.

Neither do I advocate that anything posted within this subforum be taken as Gospel.  Healthy skepticism is useful when observing any aspect of human experience.  I guess I object to the wording and overall condescending tone of Citta's repetitious commentaries.  And I'll honestly follow that statement with the humble admission that my commentaries are equally repetitious, if not more so.  And sooooooo long-winded.    

Simple solution...  a little more respect from those who believe that some of the more "far out" concepts expressed within the Spiritual and TTLG need NOT be openly challenged and vehemently debated.  Frankly, this is most audacious and is expressed with poor etiquette, given that this is an overtly spiritual subforum and most of us here tire at the same old rationale being launched at some of the more esoteric ideas being sincerely exchanged.

We don't ever have to agree 100%, nor should we necessarily do so.  But and this is a very big BUT...  within the intended parameters of these specific Nexian subforums, we've got to remember where we are, in relation to the whole of this entheogenic family.  Again, as my much loved grandmother often said and quite simply put,  

"When in Rome, do as the Romans do."