Posts by neonmarlin39

Paul Rogers94 said:If I recall correctly, I said I presented or arrived at certain "final" conclusions, not that I invented water from nothing. You can agree or disagree—I’m fine with diverse opinions—but I didn't see any actual critique in your post regarding my specific claims, even your attempt to defend the idea that the physical universe doesn't depend on the subject, but rather what...?
It's pretty obvious that aside from being stuffed full of various "expert" theories, you lack clarity. You don't have a single foundation upon which to build a coherent thought about anything—it doesn't matter if someone agrees with you or not. It always ends with "that's how it's written in the Veda" or "that's what Buddha said"...
Here's an example: Can you answer my post in one or two coherent sentences? Something that actually hints at a logical idea or a cohesive thought related to the topic—something either I or someone else could actually respond to? But no, instead I have to deal with you and your total incompetence, all while I'm trying to go grab another bottle of wine.
If I'm not mistaken, we're actually trying to reach an agreement on whether the manifest universe is real or unreal... and if that's not what's happening, and we don't even know what the subject of this "debate" is, then there's no point in arguing further, because I fail to see how any of your rambling connects to anything.
And that little jab about Slavinski, along with everything else you've thrown out that has zero relevance—I read a few of his books when I was a kid, just like I've read hundreds of others. Your blatant misattribution of things that have nothing to do with me, my reality, or anything else is just wrong. I refuse to react to your delusional assumptions about what "side" I'm on; I'll just tell you this: you're swinging wildly at a target that doesn't exist. Even if there is someone there, it certainly isn't me—you're just talking to some imaginary interlocutor.

That's what a "debate" looks like when I try to follow the chaos in your head—and that's being generous, because I have no intention of defending myself against your twisted, nonsensical projections.

All I can suggest is finding a good shrink.

Look, if you missed it the first time, let me say it again: maybe try reading with a bit more focus from the jump:

You can reach that conclusion pretty easily through some basic logic, scientific or objective views of the world, or even philosophical methods—hell, even spiritual insights (take the case of Buddha, for example). But, like you said, you're the one claiming to have reached this "final" conclusion, even though you're basically just repeating someone else's dogma... And honestly, whether these are your own conclusions or someone else's doesn't even matter that much; other people have already tried to break this down here. Plus, since you believe everything is an illusion, then you and all your statements are just illusions too. You're basically debunking yourself because you're claiming nothing is real—not even what you're saying right now (if you're pushing that whole Maya/Advaita Vedanta and Shankara interpretation I've noticed you're into). Why would anyone listen to the illusory ramblings of an illusory figure who, by your own logic, doesn't even exist? It's not real, so why would his words be real? Or do you just not see the contradiction when you argue that this entire universe is unreal? And why on earth would Brahman bother creating some pointless illusion like the universe where everything is fake and non-existent? Where does Maya even come from in your version? You aren't even touching on the heavy-hitting questions. You're mixing up fundamental philosophical concepts like relativity, the Absolute, reality, and illusion—it’s pretty obvious in your thread about how the universe is an illusion. And it's called the cosmos, not the universe, unless you're using those weird Slavinski terms or whatever they are.

Also, people have pointed out specific teachings and systems in past debates that tear down these philosophical dogmas about the universe being unreal, providing actual philosophical frameworks, but you just brushed them off to stick to your guns. People even suggested books if you actually wanted to dig in and see what's what. Science is a totally different beast, too. There's a massive difference between believing in something—which hey, you're totally free to do—and trying to make an argument based on clear analysis, solid sources, philosophy, or scientific evidence. Your thread is just rambling, to put it lightly, and falls flat under standard philosophical critiques found in both Eastern and Western traditions. Philosophy isn't some new thing, and neither is philosophical critique. Right now, most of what you're saying is just based on your own beliefs and a pretty narrow interpretation, while you ignore other systems that might explain things way better than the books you've picked out and decided to believe in.

Paul Rogers94 said:If I recall correctly, I said I presented or arrived at certain "final" conclusions, not that I invented water from nothing. You can agree or disagree—I’m fine with diverse opinions—but I didn't see any actual critique in your post regarding my specific claims, even your attempt to defend the idea that the physical universe doesn't depend on the subject, but rather what...?
It's pretty obvious that aside from being stuffed full of various "expert" theories, you lack clarity. You don't have a single foundation upon which to build a coherent thought about anything—it doesn't matter if someone agrees with you or not. It always ends with "that's how it's written in the Veda" or "that's what Buddha said"...
Here's an example: Can you answer my post in one or two coherent sentences? Something that actually hints at a logical idea or a cohesive thought related to the topic—something either I or someone else could actually respond to? But no, instead I have to deal with you and your total incompetence, all while I'm trying to go grab another bottle of wine.
If I'm not mistaken, we're actually trying to reach an agreement on whether the manifest universe is real or unreal... and if that's not what's happening, and we don't even know what the subject of this "debate" is, then there's no point in arguing further, because I fail to see how any of your rambling connects to anything.
And that little jab about Slavinski, along with everything else you've thrown out that has zero relevance—I read a few of his books when I was a kid, just like I've read hundreds of others. Your blatant misattribution of things that have nothing to do with me, my reality, or anything else is just wrong. I refuse to react to your delusional assumptions about what "side" I'm on; I'll just tell you this: you're swinging wildly at a target that doesn't exist. Even if there is someone there, it certainly isn't me—you're just talking to some imaginary interlocutor.

That's what a "debate" looks like when I try to follow the chaos in your head—and that's being generous, because I have no intention of defending myself against your twisted, nonsensical projections.

All I can suggest is finding a good shrink.

You're just rambling again, trying to wrap up conclusions for me because half the stuff happening clearly goes right over your head...

Paul Rogers94 said:If I recall correctly, I said I presented or arrived at certain "final" conclusions, not that I invented water from nothing. You can agree or disagree—I’m fine with diverse opinions—but I didn't see any actual critique in your post regarding my specific claims, even your attempt to defend the idea that the physical universe doesn't depend on the subject, but rather what...?
It's pretty obvious that aside from being stuffed full of various "expert" theories, you lack clarity. You don't have a single foundation upon which to build a coherent thought about anything—it doesn't matter if someone agrees with you or not. It always ends with "that's how it's written in the Veda" or "that's what Buddha said"...
Here's an example: Can you answer my post in one or two coherent sentences? Something that actually hints at a logical idea or a cohesive thought related to the topic—something either I or someone else could actually respond to? But no, instead I have to deal with you and your total incompetence, all while I'm trying to go grab another bottle of wine.
If I'm not mistaken, we're actually trying to reach an agreement on whether the manifest universe is real or unreal... and if that's not what's happening, and we don't even know what the subject of this "debate" is, then there's no point in arguing further, because I fail to see how any of your rambling connects to anything.
And that little jab about Slavinski, along with everything else you've thrown out that has zero relevance—I read a few of his books when I was a kid, just like I've read hundreds of others. Your blatant misattribution of things that have nothing to do with me, my reality, or anything else is just wrong. I refuse to react to your delusional assumptions about what "side" I'm on; I'll just tell you this: you're swinging wildly at a target that doesn't exist. Even if there is someone there, it certainly isn't me—you're just talking to some imaginary interlocutor.

That's what a "debate" looks like when I try to follow the chaos in your head—and that's being generous, because I have no intention of defending myself against your twisted, nonsensical projections.

All I can suggest is finding a good shrink.

There are two perfectly coherent paragraphs right above this with clear critiques if you actually bother to look.

Paul Rogers94 said:If I recall correctly, I said I presented or arrived at certain "final" conclusions, not that I invented water from nothing. You can agree or disagree—I’m fine with diverse opinions—but I didn't see any actual critique in your post regarding my specific claims, even your attempt to defend the idea that the physical universe doesn't depend on the subject, but rather what...?
It's pretty obvious that aside from being stuffed full of various "expert" theories, you lack clarity. You don't have a single foundation upon which to build a coherent thought about anything—it doesn't matter if someone agrees with you or not. It always ends with "that's how it's written in the Veda" or "that's what Buddha said"...
Here's an example: Can you answer my post in one or two coherent sentences? Something that actually hints at a logical idea or a cohesive thought related to the topic—something either I or someone else could actually respond to? But no, instead I have to deal with you and your total incompetence, all while I'm trying to go grab another bottle of wine.
If I'm not mistaken, we're actually trying to reach an agreement on whether the manifest universe is real or unreal... and if that's not what's happening, and we don't even know what the subject of this "debate" is, then there's no point in arguing further, because I fail to see how any of your rambling connects to anything.
And that little jab about Slavinski, along with everything else you've thrown out that has zero relevance—I read a few of his books when I was a kid, just like I've read hundreds of others. Your blatant misattribution of things that have nothing to do with me, my reality, or anything else is just wrong. I refuse to react to your delusional assumptions about what "side" I'm on; I'll just tell you this: you're swinging wildly at a target that doesn't exist. Even if there is someone there, it certainly isn't me—you're just talking to some imaginary interlocutor.

That's what a "debate" looks like when I try to follow the chaos in your head—and that's being generous, because I have no intention of defending myself against your twisted, nonsensical projections.

All I can suggest is finding a good shrink.

It's clear you're missing the point on a lot of things.

Paul Rogers94 said:If I recall correctly, I said I presented or arrived at certain "final" conclusions, not that I invented water from nothing. You can agree or disagree—I’m fine with diverse opinions—but I didn't see any actual critique in your post regarding my specific claims, even your attempt to defend the idea that the physical universe doesn't depend on the subject, but rather what...?
It's pretty obvious that aside from being stuffed full of various "expert" theories, you lack clarity. You don't have a single foundation upon which to build a coherent thought about anything—it doesn't matter if someone agrees with you or not. It always ends with "that's how it's written in the Veda" or "that's what Buddha said"...
Here's an example: Can you answer my post in one or two coherent sentences? Something that actually hints at a logical idea or a cohesive thought related to the topic—something either I or someone else could actually respond to? But no, instead I have to deal with you and your total incompetence, all while I'm trying to go grab another bottle of wine.
If I'm not mistaken, we're actually trying to reach an agreement on whether the manifest universe is real or unreal... and if that's not what's happening, and we don't even know what the subject of this "debate" is, then there's no point in arguing further, because I fail to see how any of your rambling connects to anything.
And that little jab about Slavinski, along with everything else you've thrown out that has zero relevance—I read a few of his books when I was a kid, just like I've read hundreds of others. Your blatant misattribution of things that have nothing to do with me, my reality, or anything else is just wrong. I refuse to react to your delusional assumptions about what "side" I'm on; I'll just tell you this: you're swinging wildly at a target that doesn't exist. Even if there is someone there, it certainly isn't me—you're just talking to some imaginary interlocutor.

That's what a "debate" looks like when I try to follow the chaos in your head—and that's being generous, because I have no intention of defending myself against your twisted, nonsensical projections.

All I can suggest is finding a good shrink.

And why would you say "universe" instead of "space"? The question was super straightforward...

Paul Rogers94 said:If I recall correctly, I said I presented or arrived at certain "final" conclusions, not that I invented water from nothing. You can agree or disagree—I’m fine with diverse opinions—but I didn't see any actual critique in your post regarding my specific claims, even your attempt to defend the idea that the physical universe doesn't depend on the subject, but rather what...?
It's pretty obvious that aside from being stuffed full of various "expert" theories, you lack clarity. You don't have a single foundation upon which to build a coherent thought about anything—it doesn't matter if someone agrees with you or not. It always ends with "that's how it's written in the Veda" or "that's what Buddha said"...
Here's an example: Can you answer my post in one or two coherent sentences? Something that actually hints at a logical idea or a cohesive thought related to the topic—something either I or someone else could actually respond to? But no, instead I have to deal with you and your total incompetence, all while I'm trying to go grab another bottle of wine.
If I'm not mistaken, we're actually trying to reach an agreement on whether the manifest universe is real or unreal... and if that's not what's happening, and we don't even know what the subject of this "debate" is, then there's no point in arguing further, because I fail to see how any of your rambling connects to anything.
And that little jab about Slavinski, along with everything else you've thrown out that has zero relevance—I read a few of his books when I was a kid, just like I've read hundreds of others. Your blatant misattribution of things that have nothing to do with me, my reality, or anything else is just wrong. I refuse to react to your delusional assumptions about what "side" I'm on; I'll just tell you this: you're swinging wildly at a target that doesn't exist. Even if there is someone there, it certainly isn't me—you're just talking to some imaginary interlocutor.

That's what a "debate" looks like when I try to follow the chaos in your head—and that's being generous, because I have no intention of defending myself against your twisted, nonsensical projections.

All I can suggest is finding a good shrink.

The chaos is in your head + you just keep pushing these wrong assumptions that have zero to do with what we're actually talking about...

Paul Rogers94 said:If I recall correctly, I said I presented or arrived at certain "final" conclusions, not that I invented water from nothing. You can agree or disagree—I’m fine with diverse opinions—but I didn't see any actual critique in your post regarding my specific claims, even your attempt to defend the idea that the physical universe doesn't depend on the subject, but rather what...?
It's pretty obvious that aside from being stuffed full of various "expert" theories, you lack clarity. You don't have a single foundation upon which to build a coherent thought about anything—it doesn't matter if someone agrees with you or not. It always ends with "that's how it's written in the Veda" or "that's what Buddha said"...
Here's an example: Can you answer my post in one or two coherent sentences? Something that actually hints at a logical idea or a cohesive thought related to the topic—something either I or someone else could actually respond to? But no, instead I have to deal with you and your total incompetence, all while I'm trying to go grab another bottle of wine.
If I'm not mistaken, we're actually trying to reach an agreement on whether the manifest universe is real or unreal... and if that's not what's happening, and we don't even know what the subject of this "debate" is, then there's no point in arguing further, because I fail to see how any of your rambling connects to anything.
And that little jab about Slavinski, along with everything else you've thrown out that has zero relevance—I read a few of his books when I was a kid, just like I've read hundreds of others. Your blatant misattribution of things that have nothing to do with me, my reality, or anything else is just wrong. I refuse to react to your delusional assumptions about what "side" I'm on; I'll just tell you this: you're swinging wildly at a target that doesn't exist. Even if there is someone there, it certainly isn't me—you're just talking to some imaginary interlocutor.

That's what a "debate" looks like when I try to follow the chaos in your head—and that's being generous, because I have no intention of defending myself against your twisted, nonsensical projections.

All I can suggest is finding a good shrink.

Man, you've always done this. Every time a real discussion starts, you immediately pivot to insults and try to send people to therapists. You act like you're some kind of authority on the subject, probably because your instructor runs some cheap $200 psychology seminar online and now you think you're a pro. We've been down this road before, and I already told you what I think about that kind of behavior and what it says about the person doing it. I see you're still at it. Maybe work on some basic debating skills first, then feel free to chime in... When you run out of arguments and actual knowledge, I guess you just settle for throwing insults and suggesting doctors (hope they're actually good, since you seem to know them personally).😁

Paul Rogers94 said:So, we’re back at square one again 😁

Could you maybe explain—even if it's just a rough outline—how you actually landed on that conclusion? What kind of reasoning brought you there, or are you just certain it's true?
It seems to me there's really only one way to figure that out...

In some way—and admittedly within my own limited capacity—I try to draw a conclusion, yet you just swoop in with categorical assertions, quotes, and sources, expecting some sort of high-level dialogue...

And the universe, much like the one being imagined, is just a fantasy within a fantasy—whether anyone likes it or not. 😉

By the way, I started a thread the other day asking whether the observable universe is real or an illusion, and I reached some "final" conclusions there 😵. If it makes any sense to you, you could probably flesh them out with your own thoughts—feel free to take a look.

Peace

You can get to that conclusion pretty easily using simple logic, looking at things through an objective scientific lens, using philosophical methods, or even through spiritual insights (take the case of Buddha, for example) 😁

But, like you said, you're the one claiming to have reached a "final" conclusion, even though you're basically just parroting someone else's dogma... And honestly, whether these are your own conclusions or someone else's doesn't even matter much, since other people have already tried to explain this exact thing here. Plus, if you truly believe everything is an illusion, then you and everything you're saying is just an illusion too. In a way, you're totally undermining your own point because you're claiming nothing is real—which means what you're saying isn't real either (if you're pushing that whole Maya/Advaita Vedanta/Shankara interpretation I've noticed you go for). Why would anyone listen to the illusory ramblings of some illusory figure who, by your own logic, doesn't even exist? Or do you only see the contradiction when you're arguing that the universe isn't real? And why on earth would Brahman bother creating some pointless illusion like the universe where everything is fake? Where does Maya even come from in your version? You haven't even touched on the heavy hitters here. You're mixing up basic philosophical concepts like relativity, the Absolute, reality, actuality, and illusion—you can see that in your thread about the universe being an illusion. And you say "cosmos," not the universe, which sounds like those Slavinski terms or wherever you got them from.

Paul Rogers94 said:So, we’re back at square one again 😁

Could you maybe explain—even if it's just a rough outline—how you actually landed on that conclusion? What kind of reasoning brought you there, or are you just certain it's true?
It seems to me there's really only one way to figure that out...

In some way—and admittedly within my own limited capacity—I try to draw a conclusion, yet you just swoop in with categorical assertions, quotes, and sources, expecting some sort of high-level dialogue...

And the universe, much like the one being imagined, is just a fantasy within a fantasy—whether anyone likes it or not. 😉

By the way, I started a thread the other day asking whether the observable universe is real or an illusion, and I reached some "final" conclusions there 😵. If it makes any sense to you, you could probably flesh them out with your own thoughts—feel free to take a look.

Peace

Also, in previous debates, people have pointed out specific teachings and systems that tear down these philosophical dogmas about the universe not being real, using solid philosophical frameworks, but you just ignored it all and stuck to your guns. People even suggested books to read if you actually wanted to dive deeper and see what's what. Now, science is a totally different beast. It’s one thing to believe whatever you want—hey, you're entitled to your beliefs—but it's a completely different story when you want to argue a point or analyze something using clear sources, philosophy, scientific evidence, or whatever else. Your thread is, to put it mildly, just rambling, and it falls flat under several major philosophical critiques found in both Eastern and Western traditions. Philosophy hasn't just popped up overnight, and neither has philosophical critique. Right now, most of what you're saying is based on pure belief and your own narrow interpretation, while you're ignoring plenty of other critiques and systems that might explain things way better than the books you're reading or the ones you've already decided to believe in.

Paul Rogers94 said:But spiritual experiences are extrasensory and beyond the physical—otherwise, they aren't spiritual experiences at all. Though, granted, our interpretations of them can be unreliable and total garbage. Can we at least agree on that?🙂

You can only say then that they aren't "personal" experiences—because they aren't.
Only the interpretations are personal.
A spiritual experience isn't actually an "experience."
It's more of an insight—an realization that there is no one there to have any experience in the first place. There is no subject, no director supposedly moderating these supposed experiences, whether they be sensory, emotional, or conceptual.
And if there is no subject (no point of view), then nothing else exists either.
The perceived universe arises with the subject and vanishes with the subject; they are interdependent. Without an observer, there is nothing to be observed.

Do these claims stem from my personal experience? No. They stem from an impersonal insight.

To be honest, the very term "personal experience" is an oxymoron when applied to spiritual insights.

Look, whether you show up or disappear, whether you exist or not, the entire universe is still just... there. It’s still existing. Objective reality doesn't give a damn about you or any other individual. The cosmos doesn't care about your mind or how you perceive things—it exists regardless of your presence or lack thereof.

bluemason3 said:Some of these terms are actually quite old—even if they aren't used much in every sect these days—which is what I was getting at in the first place.

Presenting this division as a formal system designed to categorize and describe all Hindu traditions seems to be based on Vivekananda's approach.

I'm not too sure about a "formal system" covering all Hindu traditions, but when it comes to yoga, that split between bhakti, karma, and jnana has definitely been used in plenty of places long before him. And yeah, definitions and interpretations always shift depending on the specific system, tradition, school, or even just the individual, and honestly, that hasn't changed one bit up to now.

lonestag15 said:Look, people have shared their stories—whether you choose to buy into them or not is entirely up to you... But seriously, just try this: search for "kundalini symptoms" and watch about ten different videos. Then, switch gears and search for "psychosis" and read through those testimonials. Compare the two, and you'll pretty much reach your own conclusion...

And honestly, all those Eastern exercises being pushed by the New Age crowd? They’re basically just a massive dopamine hit—the whole "spiritual" side of it is pretty questionable... which is exactly why people hit those ecstatic states. If you've already got a predisposition for mental health issues, that excess dopamine can act as a total trigger...

What's this supposed to mean?
Are you actually gonna act like a normal human being, or are you just gonna keep acting like a twelve-year-old clown...

I’ll tell you exactly how long I stuck with those exercises and what kind of results I actually saw. And then what? Just more immature mocking of the whole thing?...

Look, we've already been over this—how much weight those personal accounts actually carry and whether they count as "real" proof, just like some random YouTube video...

lonestag15 said:Look, people have shared their stories—whether you choose to buy into them or not is entirely up to you... But seriously, just try this: search for "kundalini symptoms" and watch about ten different videos. Then, switch gears and search for "psychosis" and read through those testimonials. Compare the two, and you'll pretty much reach your own conclusion...

And honestly, all those Eastern exercises being pushed by the New Age crowd? They’re basically just a massive dopamine hit—the whole "spiritual" side of it is pretty questionable... which is exactly why people hit those ecstatic states. If you've already got a predisposition for mental health issues, that excess dopamine can act as a total trigger...

What's this supposed to mean?
Are you actually gonna act like a normal human being, or are you just gonna keep acting like a twelve-year-old clown...

I’ll tell you exactly how long I stuck with those exercises and what kind of results I actually saw. And then what? Just more immature mocking of the whole thing?...

Belief doesn't really factor into it for me. I don't even come close to using those kinds of sources or methods when I'm trying to figure stuff out.

bluemason3 said:From that link:
Quincy:

The idea of organizing Hindu monotheism into these four specific paths or "Yogas" is actually a relatively modern concept, pushed by Vivekananda back in the 1890s in his work Yoga.

So, what? I’m still standing by what I said... Basically, Vivekananda brought Raja Yoga into the mix alongside those three classic paths, and that’s pretty much exactly what your quote is getting at. 😁

Same thing from that link:

Shankara was pretty much all about that gyan-yoga life, focusing almost entirely on gaining knowledge or vidya. Honestly, he didn't think much of karma-yoga—kind of looked down on it as being secondary. But then you look at the stuff he actually wrote, and it’s interesting. He penned some of the most legendary hymns dedicated to deities like Shiva, Vishnu, Devi, Ganesha, and Subrahmanya, which really shows he had a huge soft spot for Bhakti-Yoga.

So, I was reading up on this 12th-century philosopher, Ramanuja, and how he looked at the three different yogas through the lens of what Yamunacharya taught. It’s pretty interesting stuff. From how he saw it, Bhakti-Yoga is basically the main highway to spiritual liberation—but there's a catch. You can't just jump straight into it. Apparently, you’ve gotta put in the work first, training your mind and soul through both Karma yoga and Jnana yoga before that path even opens up to you. Kind of like how you can't just walk into a high-end gym in NYC and start benching 300 pounds without doing the cardio and prep work first, you know? You gotta build the foundation first.

Do we all agree that this whole division goes way deeper than just Vivekananda?

Steven Stewart3 said:But where does Raya or any system focused on the actual physical practice fit in—you know, stuff like concentration, pranayama, and all that?
In my book, Karma yoga is really about embracing suffering to chip away at the ego. To me, that's the ultimate goal of yoga anyway: totally crushing the ego. It’s not some "helping others" thing like Mother Theresa; I mean, sure, people need help, but they should go to doctors for that, not a karma yogi. Just my two cents, though!

Breaking things down into Raja Yoga was actually introduced much later; it wasn't part of the traditional setup. That came from Vivekananda. It’s basically his way of labeling Ashtanga Yoga and how he interpreted it. Same goes for Kriya Yoga. Most of these systems pretty much revolve around meditation or some variation of it, along with other practices like pranayama, depending on the specific school. For example, the Ashtanga system is a mix of Bhakti, Karma, and Jnana yoga.

Karma is just action. It's what you do. When you meditate, that's karma. When you help someone out, that's karma too.

bluemason3 said:Yoga is pretty much useless, compared to the good drugs. 😁 It’s not just some stuff from America, and it’s certainly not just a bunch of plants. Most of it consists of much more tangible substances—though there are a few botanicals mixed in—and the benefits are pretty hard to ignore. 😛

I wasn't taking phenibut. Honestly, I’m not crazy enough to stockpile (pseudo)benzos like that.
I don't really get why Phenibut is such a huge trend right now. I guess for the alternative crowd, anything that doesn't require a prescription is automatically cooler. Personally, I don't see anything that makes it better than Xanax—I bought some once to try it out—but it seems to hit the stomach harder and builds a dependency way faster. I honestly don't see what the big deal is. 🤔
But that's beside the point. 😁

That division isn't exactly traditional, is it? I'm not sure if we saw anything like it before Swami Vivekananda.The terminology pops up, sure, but I haven't seen it framed as some kind of formal categorization in any of the traditional sources.) 🤔
At the end of the day, Hinduism is just pure chaos. There isn't a single tradition that stays consistent for more than one small group.

It’s a pretty standard way to look at it, though. You see it mentioned clearly right in the Bible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Yogas

Paul Rogers94 said:It’s all just one single yoga. You can't have pure devotion without understanding, nor can you have selfless action without devotion—it’s a continuous loop. It really just comes down to a person's temperament; which aspect gets emphasized depends on who they are, but ultimately, it's all just a byproduct of those two paths I mentioned.

That's exactly what I was getting at when I brought up the "triangle." Sure, some systems focus heavily on just one corner or maybe two, while completely ignoring the others.

lonestag15 said:What kind of "philosophical debate" do you even need here? You've got the evidence, and that’s it. I mean, if you think people online are just going to volunteer their experiences regarding something as unpleasant as a psychotic break... then who else is going to provide that proof if not them?

Or look at it this way—you learn about these experiences indirectly, like how I found out through a buddy of mine...

Fine, no problem. I'll ask him next time we talk... and then I'll get back to you with the specifics.

I know—mostly because it's interesting to hear—that half of them end up in a short-term psychotic state (which was bluemason3 saying, not me) labeled as "Kundalini syndrome"... they move past it... but some people genuinely end up in psychosis and on medication. It rarely goes smoothly for anyone...

I've messed around with Kundalini rising myself, too. The first things I noticed were a decreased need for sleep, a spike in creativity, and this intense subconscious processing of info (like code just sticking to existing knowledge more easily), plus heightened senses—music hits different, for example. I didn't keep going, I just wanted to see if it would actually do anything...

What kind of proof? What are you even talking about here? Where is it actually proven that those specific practices cause psychosis, let alone that the psychosis in those people was caused solely by them? You're just talking nonsense, honestly, kind of like those sources that patriot keeps citing...

lonestag15 said:What kind of "philosophical debate" do you even need here? You've got the evidence, and that’s it. I mean, if you think people online are just going to volunteer their experiences regarding something as unpleasant as a psychotic break... then who else is going to provide that proof if not them?

Or look at it this way—you learn about these experiences indirectly, like how I found out through a buddy of mine...

Fine, no problem. I'll ask him next time we talk... and then I'll get back to you with the specifics.

I know—mostly because it's interesting to hear—that half of them end up in a short-term psychotic state (which was bluemason3 saying, not me) labeled as "Kundalini syndrome"... they move past it... but some people genuinely end up in psychosis and on medication. It rarely goes smoothly for anyone...

I've messed around with Kundalini rising myself, too. The first things I noticed were a decreased need for sleep, a spike in creativity, and this intense subconscious processing of info (like code just sticking to existing knowledge more easily), plus heightened senses—music hits different, for example. I didn't keep going, I just wanted to see if it would actually do anything...

Alright 🤣

Steven Stewart3 said:So, basically, Raya yoga and jñāna yoga are the two big branches. Though, I gotta say, that sentence of yours is a bit of a contradiction:
" yoga of direct insight into the true nature of reality—without the interference of the senses or the mind"—I mean, how are you supposed to realize what is true or not without using your mind or your senses in the first place?
There aren't books written about this second type of yoga because it’s impossible to write anything coherent about it.
That being said, I think those two yogas you mentioned actually bleed into one another; you really need both. Also, you totally overlooked bhakti yoga and mantra yoga, which are vital (sometimes even essential) for moving forward, whether you like it or not.
Like Patanjali roughly says:
..bychanting sacred texts, one establishes a connection with their chosen deity...(bhakti yoga)
....through the repetition of pranava, God is revealed(mantra yoga)....

If we’re talking about the classic way of splitting up yoga, it’s usually jnana, karma, and bhakti. It’s kind of like a triangle in certain systems—if you pull one corner away, the whole thing just loses its balance and falls apart.

Steven Stewart3 said:Actually, I don't know if I totally agree with that, because you could pretty much say the same thing about a ton of different yoga styles! Like, think about Nada yoga, Nidra yoga, Shiva yoga, and all that. If we stick to that super "rigid" logic (no pressure, obviously!), then there are basically only a handful of yogas mentioned in the Vedic texts. But honestly, this newer way of categorizing things makes it way easier to grasp what’s actually going on. For instance, Kundalini yoga is kind of similar to Raja yoga, but when people talk about Kundalini yoga, they’re mostly focusing on that specific process of moving the Kundalini upward. With Raja yoga, you’re looking at the whole package—the Yama, Niyama, Pranayama, and everything else. In the world of Kundalini yoga, it’s usually assumed that those other aspects are already checked off and good to go!

Spot on.

Steven Stewart3 said:Actually, I don't know if I totally agree with that, because you could pretty much say the same thing about a ton of different yoga styles! Like, think about Nada yoga, Nidra yoga, Shiva yoga, and all that. If we stick to that super "rigid" logic (no pressure, obviously!), then there are basically only a handful of yogas mentioned in the Vedic texts. But honestly, this newer way of categorizing things makes it way easier to grasp what’s actually going on. For instance, Kundalini yoga is kind of similar to Raja yoga, but when people talk about Kundalini yoga, they’re mostly focusing on that specific process of moving the Kundalini upward. With Raja yoga, you’re looking at the whole package—the Yama, Niyama, Pranayama, and everything else. In the world of Kundalini yoga, it’s usually assumed that those other aspects are already checked off and good to go!

Then you’ve got entire yoga systems that don't even bother citing the Vedas at all—like basically the whole Tantric tradition.

Steven Stewart3 said:Actually, I don't know if I totally agree with that, because you could pretty much say the same thing about a ton of different yoga styles! Like, think about Nada yoga, Nidra yoga, Shiva yoga, and all that. If we stick to that super "rigid" logic (no pressure, obviously!), then there are basically only a handful of yogas mentioned in the Vedic texts. But honestly, this newer way of categorizing things makes it way easier to grasp what’s actually going on. For instance, Kundalini yoga is kind of similar to Raja yoga, but when people talk about Kundalini yoga, they’re mostly focusing on that specific process of moving the Kundalini upward. With Raja yoga, you’re looking at the whole package—the Yama, Niyama, Pranayama, and everything else. In the world of Kundalini yoga, it’s usually assumed that those other aspects are already checked off and good to go!

That sounds like total New Age nonsense to me. Just a complete misunderstanding of how the whole system works. You hear this kind of talk all the time in various Kundalini and Shiva yoga classes—whether the instructors realize they're doing it or not.😁

goldenjackal6 said:Look, if we're being real here, what's missing is basic humanity and a bit of common sense. At the end of the day, both extreme nationalism and organized religion act like glitches in the brain—they're basically just mental illnesses that cloud how people actually think.

You don't even need actual skill or effort for either one. You just claim you belong to some group and then act all high and mighty about it for absolutely no reason at all.

I was just thinking about electroconvulsive therapy the other day. It’s one of those things that always gets people talking, usually because they’ve only ever seen those intense, dramatic movie scenes where everything looks like a nightmare. But honestly, if you look at the actual medical side of things here in the States, it’s a totally different conversation. It’s more nuanced than the Hollywood version makes it out to be. Just some food for thought. kaže:
Look, I’ve heard stories about people actually losing their minds from trying to force that Kundalini stuff. It's real. You see people end up in psych wards because they completely trashed their brain chemistry—we're talking total dopamine imbalances and all that.

People keep throwing out these random personal stories like they actually mean something. It’s honestly kind of wild how people try to use "I saw this" or "this happened to me" as if it counts for anything in a real philosophical or scientific debate. But that's exactly what you're doing right now—trying to build a whole case based on nothing but hearsay.

I think there might be a typo or something missing in your message—"elektrokon" doesn't really mean anything to me. You trying to talk about something specific? Hit me up with the details and I'll see what I can do. says:
A buddy of mine is actually a Kundalini yoga instructor up in New York City, so I definitely know what I'm talking about.

Honestly, anyone—I’m talking about Mary, Kit, Stephen, or even Mike—could basically become a certified instructor for Kundalini or whatever flavor of yoga you're into. All you really have to do is pay for the training course, and boom, you're good to go. It feels a bit sketchy to me when someone claims to be a "Kundalini yoga instructor." To be real, it just makes me think they're peddling some kind of nonsense (and honestly, what you're saying pretty much backs that up). No serious or traditional school actually uses the term "Kundalini yoga" like that to get started. I mean, sure, maybe Sivananda used it once in passing, but never in this specific way, and definitely never using a title like "Kundalini yoga instructor." 😁So, just tell me what kind of tradition or school this friend of yours is even running—you know, that yoga instructor you've got over in New York City. If I knew the specifics, we could actually dig into what’s going on here, like the actual philosophy behind it and what kind of practices they're pushing...

lonestag15 said:First off, religions didn't just pop up as fringe cults of lunatics... you're being insulting and devaluing faith again. Look, personally, I'm not even mad about it, but there’s really no need for this tone... just let people live their lives regardless of what they believe. Nobody's attacking you, so there's no reason to go looking for a fight where there isn't one. It doesn't do you any good—or anyone else, for that matter...

The thing with New Age is that it doesn't even have an official doctrine; it's just everyone throwing everything and anything into a blender, cherry-picking from other religions. And most of those specific practices that can actually be harmful are run by "experts" who nobody even knows if they follow basic rules or not...

But New Age isn't its own standalone religion; it just grabs bits and pieces from established faiths, very superficially and creates an even worse simplification.

The most direct example of a potentially dangerous practice is Kundalini rising. You can find endless videos and testimonials online about it...

Say a believer is broke—would they act purely on instinct to get money at any cost because they're desperate? Does a believer turn into a thief, or do they stick to their convictions?
Or if they're starving, would they share bread with another hungry person, or just eat everything themselves like an animal... does a believer actually share?

That’s why I told you—Echart Tolla is basically the gold standard when it comes to that whole modern psychology meets spirituality vibe... absolute authority, really.

Quote : RobouteGuiliman

The whole "third eye" thing—it’s basically located right where the pineal gland sits, acting as that sixth chakra, Ajna. That's why Western culture just lumps them together as the same thing. But honestly, Kundalini isn't just about hitting that one gland—it became a synonym mostly because of where it sits in the body and how it visually mimics an actual eye. So, you can call it the pineal gland or the third eye... whatever makes more sense to you if the distinction feels a bit fuzzy...

Quote : RobouteGuiliman

I know this one—no Google needed. It’s not some hallucination... just pure, unadulterated delusions of grandeur.

Quote : RobouteGuiliman

Hallucinations aren't just one thing—you can see stuff, hear things, feel weird textures... there's a whole spectrum to it.
So, basically, the term "grandiosity hallucination" doesn't actually exist... what we're really talking about is an illusion—or maybe let's just call it a delusion—in terms of these totally warped and bizarre beliefs. Like, take a patient who is convinced they’re the second coming of Jesus or some kind of reincarnated deity... that's the real issue here.

Quote : RobouteGuiliman

So dopamine and serotonin production is basically "opening your third eye"—there you go, making up your own scientific terms now, lol...

From a psychological standpoint, what you were (pre)scribing there is just classic narcissistic personality disorder.

And that whole "divine essence" stuff those gurus push? That’s literally a textbook case of what psychiatrists call a "grandiose delusion."

Wait, so do they have to open all their chakras before they start trying to raise Kundalini? 🤣
Just because you see a ton of YouTube videos where people claim they’re being abducted by aliens and probed doesn't mean those claims actually hold any water... It's the same thing here. Just because these folks aren't getting snatched up by UFOs, it doesn't mean they're actually raising Kundalini either. People just love slapping fancy spiritual terms on their own hallucinations or whatever is going on in their heads.

lonestag15 said:Spiritual awakenings can definitely have elements that look like a psychotic break...

So, by your logic, Moses and Jesus were just schizophrenics—except maybe Jesus had a particularly intense case of grandiosity?

Do you actually see the difference if someone spends two weeks at an ashram and develops some "Kundalini issue" instead of praying to our Father every night for two weeks and enjoying a peaceful life in the Midwest?

Now do you get why the Church takes such a specific stance on this?

Kundalini disorder 🤣

Honestly, that guy probably would’ve snapped even if he spent two weeks at a Christian monastery living with monks and praying all day long—or maybe he wouldn't have snapped if he just meditated for 20 minutes at home. Heck, he’d probably crack if you dropped him alone in the woods for two weeks trying to survive, just like plenty of others. Based on what you're saying, it sounds like you think there's some kind of evil aura surrounding Eastern practices specifically. Trance states happen to people regardless of where they're from on the map, and you can find mysticism in all its forms with both Isaac and out in the West.

lonestag15 said:Spiritual awakenings can definitely have elements that look like a psychotic break...

So, by your logic, Moses and Jesus were just schizophrenics—except maybe Jesus had a particularly intense case of grandiosity?

Do you actually see the difference if someone spends two weeks at an ashram and develops some "Kundalini issue" instead of praying to our Father every night for two weeks and enjoying a peaceful life in the Midwest?

Now do you get why the Church takes such a specific stance on this?

You put Eastern practices and New Age in the same sentence while simultaneously throwing around New Age terms like "kundalini disorder" and "centers that teach kundalini rising along with yoga."😁

A person can't just figure out God on their own since He’s way beyond us; God has to be the one to reveal Himself.

Looks like Ratzinger didn't really dig into the material again...

Honestly, that's basically the foundation for a ton of Eastern traditions—you know, stuff like Yoga, Tantra, and Advaita Vedanta. Even Christianity pulls from those vibes without even realizing it, and they definitely interpret things through that lens. A person can use their own willpower to hit *savikalpa samadhi*, but *nirvikalpa samadhi* is totally outside the mind, which makes it impossible for us to reach on our own. You only get to *nirvikalpa samadhi* through God's will. You can't force it with your own drive (though you can work your way up to *savikalpa samadhi*). Willpower is a mental thing, right? But *nirvikalpa samadhi* is a state beyond the mind—it's the Absolute. In that state, the mind and willpower don't even exist, so there's no way the mind or a person's will could ever grasp it or get there by themselves. The interesting part is that Yoga, Tantra, and Advaita Vedanta all suggest that both types of samadhi are actually possible to experience in this lifetime, within this physical body. In fact, in those practices, the body is actually necessary because of the Kundalini located within it. So, in the world of Yoga and Tantra, the body isn't some evil, sinful thing you need to ditch; it's actually essential for spiritual growth.

Zachary Cox69 said:That's just your opinion. And you’d probably swear on your life that you're 100% right.
But the people actually writing about this aren't just making things up as they go. They know what they're talking about—they've lived that reality. You seem to think you're somehow a hundred times more informed than them. Personally, I know a few people who completely lost their grip after diving into Transcendental Meditation or similar Eastern trends.

Fair point. Joseph Ratzinger really laid it all out there, showing just how much he didn't get the basics regarding the other philosophies and practices he was tearing down.

Justin Baker6 said:My apprentice is right on my heels.

Don't worry, I won't be hanging around here much longer. I've got word that a permanent ban is coming.

You really don't have much to offer when it comes to actual knowledge, do you?

Justin Baker6 said:My apprentice is right on my heels.

Don't worry, I won't be hanging around here much longer. I've got word that a permanent ban is coming.

Maybe you just popped up under a different account... 😉 Seriously though, what even is your deal?

Paul Rogers94 said:I was actually hoping for some expert insight from neonmarlin39, but you've gone and completely botched it...
If we need to, we might just have to put a muzzle on you. 🙂

Just move this over to the natural science PDF thread and we can keep talking there.