Posts by bluemason3

Paul Jones7 said:I'm not so sure that everyone—you know, those people deep into spirituality, meditation, or just general self-improvement...—actually wants anything to do with kundalini if they can avoid it. And I don't even mean that from the perspective of potential mental health issues, though that's a factor; it's more like... you just might not necessarily want to mess around with that kind of energy if you don't have to.

@sekhem: speaking of problems, they tend to happen because of a mismatch—like, the ego or the lower self's personality clashing with a higher vibration once things start opening up. It's like something that can't sustain itself just snaps. So, in that sense, "preparing" really just means doing the inner work to clear out whatever isn't aligned with the purity and higher frequency of a greater reality. That’s what happened to you, I think. That vibration of fear from what you went through? It doesn't belong there. Fear isn't the right vibration, nor is it the state you were aiming for. You basically need to work on yourself to find that alignment again.

Stop posting about vibrations and levels of reality.

Vibrations are just oscillations in the movement of physical matter. Spirituality doesn't have "vibrations." It doesn't have "energy," either. Those are just vague buzzwords that make no sense physically, even if people love stealing them to sound deep.

Tyler Williams80 said:I can see that messing around with kundalini is no joke—honestly, the idea of diving deep into all that meditation stuff scares me a little bit 😁 Even though this whole "self-discovery" thing sounds right up my alley, I’m pretty convinced my chakras or whatever energy pathways are in play just aren't clean enough yet—not that I’d say I’m 100% sold on the existence of God or chakras, per se. For the first few months, I think I'll just stick to something basic, maybe just sitting quietly with my eyes closed, to give my thoughts more room to wander and see where the road leads. Thanks for all the input. That part about triggering mental health issues really hit a nerve—definitely doesn't sound like a fun time—though I do deal with low ego issues, which I don't really view as some huge "curse." I also have episodes of OCPa attacks, which I honestly feel have shaped me into the person I am today. It makes me wonder, though—could mental health struggles actually be our way of perceiving energy that we just aren't prepared for? Or is it just hardwired into us? I'm not talking about medical stuff like genetics here, but come on, aren't we supposed to be the masters of our own bodies?

Energy is just work—either kinetic or potential—performed by a physical body. There’s no such thing as some abstract "spiritual energy." People love to misinterpret physics to justify that idea, but it's just bad science.

Maybe all this talk about "receiving spiritual energies" is just a way to rationalize mental health struggles, making them feel more special or profound. Honestly, it’s much more fashionable to pose as a mystic than to admit you're just losing it.

David Vaughn75 said:Listen, kundalini yoga and meditation are two totally different beasts. You don't need to freak out thinking you're gonna accidentally trigger your kundalini by mistake—you actually have to know exactly what you're doing and follow professional guidance to make that happen.

Well, it depends on who you ask. Take Ramakrishna, for instance. He used to argue that any spiritual practice—even Japa—eventually leads to the rising of kundalini. In his view, it’s just an inherent part of any spiritual journey, including bhakti yoga. The difference is that tantra or hatha approaches it head-on and forces the issue, which can be risky. Bhakti, on the other hand, tends to be more spontaneous and natural, so you don't run into those same side effects.

I’m not presenting this as absolute truth. I’m just sharing a claim made by probably the most famous and respected guru of the last few centuries.

Let’s be honest: everyone has their own version of the truth. At the end of the day, these are all just religious constructs—nothing more than subjective interpretations and systems people build to suit their own whims. 😁

Maria Parker77 said:Look, you can have all sorts of wild experiences, but I’m telling you, Kundalini is definitely a force for good. 🙂

If you're looking for a way in, I’d highly recommend checking out the guided meditations from Kelly Howell Awakening Kundalini. I haven't been at this forever, but I've probably blasted through those sessions at least 500 times by now. That's really all I've got for you. 😁

It’s usually the people who haven't been through much that claim this. They think a little spinal jumping and some ecstatic kundalini visions are all it takes.

Back then, things were different. People dealt with a whole set of traditional boundaries and social hurdles that just didn't exist anymore.

I’d suggest checking out some books by Gopa Krisne, or maybe Goel if you're interested. 😁

Of course, I won't pretend to be objective about an experience like that. It’s hard to say where the line is drawn between a genuine spiritual breakthrough and what some might call a mental health crisis—though, if you look at it from a certain perspective, you could make that argument about spirituality itself.

David Vaughn75 said:The skeptics call it Mayavada stuff—just materialists or power-hungry types—but honestly? If you try that route without ending up in hell, your odds are basically one in a million. ☕
To stay on a strictly impersonal track, you’d need an insane amount of knowledge, and let's face it, we're living in the Kali Yuga—that kind of wisdom just isn't lying around anymore. That’s why the personal path, the path of serving a divine Person, is much more practical and, frankly, easier.

Everyone—including you—keeps harping on about "enlightenment," but that's missing the whole point. The real goal here is getting to know a divine Person. If you want to actually earn the favor of God, you have to understand who He is and how to show Him devotion. 😉

Krcanin’s apologetic nonsense is just plain senseless. Kundalini—or tantra, if you prefer—isn't tied to any one specific doctrine or set of spiritual goals. You can find it everywhere: among the Mayavadins, the dualists, the Shaivas, the Vaishnavas, the Smarthas, and the Shaktas. At the end of the day, yoga is its own distinct philosophical system, most closely resembling a simplified, theistic version of Samkhya.

This whole debate over personal versus impersonal is just religious circular reasoning. It’s the same old trick where someone invents a mythological framework out of thin air and then uses it to "prove" their own point without ever actually validating the premise. You see this kind of thing in certain Pure Land Buddhist sects too. They rely entirely on their own internal logic and specific authorities to make it work. There isn't any objective evidence from observing different traditions or practices—no historical, philosophical, or logical basis for it whatsoever. It's ultimately an empty argument.

It’s the same old story with the whole idea of the Kali Yuga. It’s basically just Puranic mythological fantasy—which people love to mislabel as "Vedic" even though it isn't actually found in the Vedas. To me, it's just pseudohistorical nonsense that completely falls apart when you look at actual, concrete material data.

These religious arguments are honestly a joke. You’ve got people like Krcanin and Muslims going back and forth, claiming they have all the answers. One person says Jesus is the ultimate truth. No, they say Muhammad brought the final truth. No, it's Jesus and that's that. No, it's Muhammad and nothing else. It's neither Jesus nor Muhammad. Lalalalala. Honestly, it's just Jesus. I swear, I'm about to lose my mind with you non-believers. 😈

People are constantly bickering over whose unbelievable, baseless fairy tale is more 🤣

Paul Thomas46 said:Turkey really should have joined the European Union ages ago—though who knows why it was blocked or who was pulling the strings...
If they had settled this ten years back, things would likely look much different today (and certainly better). It’ll probably be quite a while before the dust settles and everyone truly realizes the cost of stalling their progress.

Compared to its neighbors in the Arab world, Turkey is a true economic and cultural powerhouse—joining the European Union would have only amplified that strength and potentially boosted its influence across the Middle East. When it comes to Islamic nations, they should have been leading those "spring" movements—since it’s now painfully obvious that the others there are just standing around like deer in headlights.

It shouldn't have happened.
It doesn't need to happen.
And frankly, nobody actually wants it; it's all just political posturing.

Paul Peterson2 said:The way to handle this is pretty straightforward: just set up some anti-spam filters and a CAPTCHA in the admin control panel. It's like setting up automatic image resizing—you shouldn't be forcing users to resize everything themselves manually.

That’s how I’d tackle it...

Seriously though, is that actually technically impossible?

(As long as we aren't talking about those insanely sensitive Google CAPTCHAs 🙄 )

hiddenbear3 said:It’s fascinating to consider how certain primitive tribes from more untamed regions actually possessed a much deeper understanding of the forces of nature—knowing exactly how to soothe them or even harness them—than many highly developed modern societies do today. It just goes to show that a high level of societal advancement isn't necessarily a guarantee of individual spiritual or natural awareness. When it comes to grasping complex thought processes, however, those advanced civilizations certainly hold the upper hand, simply because those primal minds aren't equipped to comprehend such intricacies.

Sure. Those folks who bowed to spirits every time a mystical flood or drought hit clearly understood nature's rhythms better than modern materialists who think they can solve everything with just dams, canals, and levees. In Ptuj, the materialists 😳 😛 😁

mellowdrifter9 said:The explanation was regarding a few previous questions, and if we look at it strictly from a religious standpoint, it ends up looking exactly like what you explained here. However, from my perspective, my point still stands... because I know there are plenty of Catholics who hold different views, but many of them simply stay silent about it. And if they do speak up, it’s usually only within a safe environment... it's rare for anyone to write or talk about it openly. But the reality is that there are more and more Catholics who maintain their spiritual practices out of tradition or habit rather than true faith.
And I would kindly ask that we return to the main topic in the following posts....

There isn't really any other way to view religious ideas, values, dogmas, and rules except from a religious standpoint.

Think about how someone creates a sport. Let’s take football. They establish specific rules—how you advance, how positions are chosen, and so on.

Then you turn around and claim you're an American senior national football player. Even though you don't actually play, think soccer has five players, and believe it's played sitting down.

But then you decide you're the head coach simply because that's how you feel and what you believe.

A religious organization isn't some arbitrary thing. It's an organized group of people tied together by shared beliefs and administrative structures. If you don't share those, you aren't part of it. It's as simple as that.

A Christian can always find connection through faith in Jesus. However, the Catholic Church defines the criteria for membership; it isn't something anyone can just claim based on a whim (neither God nor an individual decides this arbitrarily, just like in any other organization).

If Catholic doctrine states that a person who rejects dogma (and I mean literally, not colloquially) is automatically excommunicated "in spirit"—even if it isn't formal because their views aren't known while they continue to receive the sacraments—then that is the reality.

In that case, those people are hypocrites; they aren't truly Catholic, but are just hanging on due to tradition or a fear of change.

You aren't Catholic😉

If your faith sits above dogma and diverges from it, you might still call yourself a Christian—provided you believe in Jesus and the Bible—but you can't claim to be Catholic. I don't really get this constant urge to tie oneself to a local traditional religion when you don't actually subscribe to its core tenets. It feels like a passive desire to fit in, or perhaps it's just a calculated move by professionals and spiritualists to make social integration a little smoother.

If my memory serves me right, Catholic doctrine mandates automatic excommunication if you reject its dogmas. Calling someone a "Catholic who doesn't believe the dogmas" is basically an oxymoron; the two ideas just cancel each other out.

Faith is a personal matter for the believer. It doesn’t really apply to the non-believer. By its very definition, faith lacks any objective basis that could serve as an argument for someone who doesn't share that worldview to begin with. Honestly, the fact that people are even debating this suggests they aren't particularly aligned with traditional church doctrines, so what the Church thinks isn't much of a factor here.

I’m not trying to say this isn't a valid opinion or that it shouldn't be voiced. I just want to point out that it isn't grounded in anything objective or provable. As you mentioned, it’s built on (blind) faith, which makes it relevant only to those who already believe. Since there’s no logical or empirical argument to present to outsiders, there’s simply no reason for it to carry weight with anyone outside that specific ideological circle.

This PDF doesn't even touch on her, so I don't see how it's relevant at all.😁
We all know what the church thinks; it's hardly some big news scoop. If we actually cared about that, we wouldn't be hanging out here.

Anecdotal evidence isn't much of a benchmark either. You can justify just about anything by citing someone's personal experience somewhere, but only a massive, independent statistical analysis can really shed light on things—and even then, it says very little about the actual causes. It’s a classic move seen in religious groups and other ideological systems: selectively filtering information to protect their worldview. They cherry-pick third-hand accounts, focus on current believers, or highlight stories about people's "sinful" past lives. There's a whole mess of psycho-social mechanisms at play before you even get to the mystical stuff. For example, a guy meditating through a crisis is labeled a follower of something dark, but if a saint like Padre Pio goes through hell in a cell, he's just being tested. It's a textbook double standard. And that’s assuming both stories are even true, which is a stretch given the likelihood of fabrications, subjective biases, and slanted interpretations.

Anyone actually interested in looking at things objectively is going to have to work harder than just blindly accepting whatever healers are peddling or whatever red-hot political pundits are shouting.

Walter Parker said:@wiwamus, I don’t know what your specific faith is, but regardless, I really hope you realize that those "astral" or spiritual guides aren't actually good for a person's soul. You bring up things like meditation, shamans, Reiki, and mantras—but honestly, one way to look at it is that they're just ways to invite evil in. These entities can easily mimic "good" angels or even people we know and love... I really don't mean to sound condescending or offensive here, but these are all practices that the Church stands firmly against. There are countless articles online explaining exactly why they oppose this stuff. That dimension isn't hidden from us for no reason. Lately, I've been reading testimonies from people involved in yoga, meditation, and astrology, and it strikes me how much they all overlap and how dangerous they can be. It’s such a shame that this is marketed as being "wholesome, healthy, and beneficial" when people really shouldn't be poking around in there... 🙄🙄 For anyone curious, I’d recommend checking out a slightly longer YouTube video titled "The Hidden World - Miroljub Petrović." It's a great recording of some old radio broadcasts about a young man who started having visions through meditation just like yours, and it shows exactly where that path led him spiritually. Honestly, you only need to watch the first thirty minutes to see all the reasons why this is a bad idea. I noticed you aren't particularly fond of people offering explanations, but I feel like it would be a bit selfish of me to stay silent, especially since someone else might stumble onto this topic without knowing any better, just like I didn't until recently...

Everyone brags about their own horse, while they spend all their time inventing flaws in someone else's.

Church sources are just as irrational, subjective, and heavy-handed as any other group of charlatans or snake oil salesmen out there. They lean on myths and propaganda just as much as anyone else.

Since they’re based on unverifiable myths, there’s really no reason to view them as more objective or reliable than any other mythological framework out there. Honestly, when certain followers—usually from those charismatic, pseudo-Pentecostal circles where people act like the devil is jumping out of a pastry—claim these things are dangerous or even demonic, it isn't any more valid than the claims made by people who view the Catholic Church in that same light. It’s just the same tired arguments repackaged.

If there’s any point in "fighting" gullibility or overblown spiritual fantasies, it’s about waking up your own critical thinking. It isn't about swapping one unprovable, mythologized belief system for another. Nor is it about arguing with or judging everyone else's views from our own perspective—especially when both sides lack any real foundation.

Since this forum is mostly funded by Freemasons and LGBT advocacy groups, why is it considered strange or controversial that it leans toward a communist-nostalgic vibe? It’s not a public service, so it’s perfectly legitimate. ☕ 👍

Maria Fisher46 said:No, under the latest Medicare regulations, a primary care physician isn't actually required to do anything. A specialist can only make a recommendation. It's up to the GP to decide if a test is necessary, and they have the authority to deny a referral entirely—though, obviously, they have to shoulder the responsibility if that call turns out to be wrong.

Honestly, my doctor has messed up so many times, offered medical nonsense as an excuse, and ignored specialist advice—not to mention the blatant refusal to write referrals and that ridiculous, aggressive push toward private clinics—that I don't see any real accountability happening. I guess you're talking about "moral responsibility" 😁

Sandra Vaughn50 said:Yeah, obviously vitamins are covered by Medicare, especially if you have a specialist's written recommendation. You might want to double-check that with Loomis.

I checked with Medicare. They said they don't cover them.

A specialist recommended I get my vitamin levels and electrolytes checked out privately.

My primary care doctor claims only electrolyte panels are covered by Medicare, making vitamin testing an impossibility through them. To be honest, he’s been wrong before—ordering the wrong tests that don't actually address the suspected issues, making inaccurate medical claims, or just being stubborn about handing out referrals.

So, I’m trying to figure out if there’s any truth to that. I also want to know the best way to get these tests done, where to go, and how reliable the results actually are.
I suspect some deficiencies might be stemming from long-term digestive issues (definitely the gallbladder, maybe the liver) along with symptoms like joint pain and constant fatigue. From what I remember reading, Vitamin D and calcium come up a lot, but is there anything else worth looking into?

Adis Šabović Asks:
And that whole thing about making formal statements... just more of the same.😵
Who actually needs the breakdown of atheists versus believers?
It’s not like you can actually find a job as an atheist anywhere. It turns out there’s already a massive shortage of people holding an Atest 1st Class degree. 🤣
Who should be an atheist? Or, more accurately, what's the better alternative? 😁

I might claim to be an atheist publicly, but let’s be honest—the indirect support from the community still carries some weight.

If it weren't for constant repositioning and support during the crunch, he wouldn't even be standing.

graniteviper82 said:then we’d probably see how the trolling and nonsense from certain UNETHICAL people can drive decent folks into actual madness or even lead someone to take their own life

That would be pretty grim 😢

What makes you conclude it's pantheism based on the quote? You might actually be right this time, but I get the feeling people tend to label anything that isn't strictly theism or atheism as pantheism. It feels like a lazy catch-all category for any other kind of spirituality, when in reality, there's a whole spectrum of metaphysical models beyond just those three.