Initial initiation involves receiving a seed mantra. It’s originally tied to specific religious principles, though they tend to steer clear of that. For instance, the Aing mantra is linked to goddesses like Saraswati.
In later stages of initiation, the mantra expands—it might become something like Om Aing Namaha, though I can't be certain since my memory is a bit fuzzy on the details. It follows the standard Hindu mantra structure: "Om" serves as the most universal opening, while "namaha" is an expression of respect or, more accurately, a gesture of bowing to a deity.
Over the years, mantras can actually change.
The selection is based on your birth date.
Alongside this foundational mantra, there's a "siddhi program" based on... well, let's call it the "original" application of Patanjali's yoga sutras and some flying techniques.
The organization itself has certain cult-like qualities. They try to present everything through a scientific lens—which often involves some rigged studies—while downplaying the religious elements that clearly carry significant weight beneath the surface. At its core, it's definitely a religious group.
For example, meditation is initiated through a traditional mantra-diksha ritual. Teachers usually give some vague explanation, claiming it's just a private matter between them and their guru, but in reality, it functions much like a baptism for the person receiving the mantra.
So, in a nutshell, that's TM.🙂
The basic technique itself consists of a relaxed, effortless repetition of the mantra. The goal isn't concentration, but rather relaxation and reaching a state of free-flowing thought—a state that feels a little too inflated, if you ask me. The siddhi program then uses specific terms from the yoga sutras to describe certain powers, likely in the original language (I'd need to double-check that part). Personally, I find the explanation centered on suggestibility much more plausible, similar to this: http://www.suggestibility.org/
Ask Adrian 🤣 Maybe he could recommend some neo-platonism that actually fits the utopian vibe of our local culture here 😂 😂 😂
Honestly, forget about Kezele. He’s just interested in peddling his own little stories, and he doesn't mind being blatantly dishonest to get them sold.
There are certain issues that can pop up during meditation, but schizophrenia isn't exactly a common side effect. For someone already predisposed, it might act as a trigger, but it’s not that one-dimensional, nor does it depend solely on the technique used. Plus, people dealing with existing issues often look for refuge in religion or spirituality, which leads them to misattribute cause and effect. I mean, would you argue that religious fervor causes bipolar disorder? People can get pretty intense during a manic phase, but that's not how it works.
Anyway, ignore the chatter, especially from the crowd making a living selling New Age smoke and mirrors. First, you have to look at actual research on these practices, including potential risks. Beyond that, it comes down to the instructor's experience and your own. You can't just claim a practice automatically triggers schizophrenia—especially when that narrative is pushed by someone whose livelihood depends on selling "spirituality." It's in their best interest to frame their specific method as the safest or most effective option. If that were true, every Buddhist monk or any random person practicing basic mindfulness would be schizophrenic. That's clearly not the case. On the flip side, there's no magic wand or mystical fairy tale method that achieves enlightenment with zero effort. It's all a bit more grounded than that; it doesn't just spark massive psychological crises out of nowhere. When issues do arise, they're usually milder, like depersonalization or derealization, though serious exceptions exist—but they don't always boil down to schizophrenia. Interestingly, we see some of the more documented issues specifically with TM practice, so I don't see how this is Kezele's solution if he presents it as something fundamentally different, unless he's moved on to something else 😁 Also, you aren't going to become whatever it is they're selling—enlightenment, ascending to higher dimensions, or solving all the world's conflicts—just by meditating for half an hour a day. That’s just charlatan advertising. It's a mental exercise that develops certain faculties, and like any form of training, it has specificities and potential risks to consider. Real, serious meditative practice within traditional frameworks requires much more—often a full-time commitment under very specific circumstances, and certainly not just whenever you feel like it.
But like I said, there's already a thread about this in the psychology section, so there's no point in repeating myself.
It’s impossible to say what works best for everyone. Even when you account for all those individual quirks. Take the Ayurvedic perspective, for example. If someone is a pure Kapha type—meaning they tend toward inertia and emotional heaviness—devotional practices might come naturally. They might lean toward focusing on a deity, prayers, or mantras with clear meanings (sort of like how some Americans approach Christian worship). But then you have people who recommend the exact opposite to create balance. For them, a technical yogic approach might be better to spark movement and break through that natural lethargy, or perhaps self-observation practices like Vipassana to help manage those heavy emotions.
On the flip side, you have Vata types—people prone to constant change and a quick intellect that jumps from interest to interest. On one hand, they might gravitate toward an intellectualized approach, but because of that, a devotional practice could actually serve as a great stabilizer. Physically, though, yoga might be most beneficial for them, specifically the physical aspects, to counter a "dry" constitution that can lead to joint issues.
Of course, in the real world, people aren't just one single type, and that’s just one way of looking at things anyway. There are plenty of other factors at play.
It’s a bit like arguing over which sport is the best. There isn't one right answer. 🤷 It really depends on your goals first, and then your temperament, abilities, and predispositions. Even then, there are many different paths you could choose.
Personally, I'm not a fan of treating meditation as a standalone "cure" stripped away from the philosophical or religious foundations it grew from. Once you settle on a certain spiritual inclination, the practice should naturally align with your own interests and choices. If someone is seeking a practice purely for pragmatic reasons, I think relaxation exercises, Autogenic Training, or even hypnosis are more logical than pulling random techniques or mantras out of their original context and throwing them at someone... especially when we don't even know why we're doing them. 🤷
For instance, the day before yesterday, I was helping a lady with her yoga routine, and she mentioned she wanted to meditate. Okay, but what? Why? How? She didn't know; she just felt like it. 🤷 What are you supposed to recommend when the person doesn't even know what they want? They heard something exists, it sounds cool, so they want to give it a shot... that kind of logic. 😁 It's like walking into a restaurant and saying you want to eat. You don't know what to order, and you aren't even particularly hungry, but you heard that's what people do in restaurants. 😁 Fine, you can put something together, but I'm not a fan of that guesswork approach, nor am I a fan of dumping all the responsibility for the choice onto someone else.
Everyone’s got their own opinion on what works, right? Everyone sees things through their own lens, and there isn't really one "right" way to do this. It feels more like a topic for alternative spirituality anyway, and we actually already have a thread dedicated to meditation over 😛 😁
It might make sense to assume that focus-based practices have a lower chance of digging up all that subconscious junk we'd rather leave alone—the stuff that occasionally pops up during trance states. But honestly, I'm not sure if that actually holds up in practice (though anything can happen in any group, I suppose). This logic would only apply if you were using a symbol with heavy, positive weight—like certain figures, prayers, or mantras used in devotional religious groups. The downside there is that it can easily lead to tribalism or fanaticism. With neutral mantras, where the deity being invoked isn't even explained to the practitioner—which seems to be the case in TM and likely with Kezele (and Ravi Shankar) too—I'd guess they don't serve that purpose because there isn't enough deep-seated meaning planted in the practitioner's consciousness. As for Kezele, he spends way too much time selling smoke and mirrors to be taken seriously. 😉
Hannah Alvarez2 said:Alright, looking at those mental shifts—honestly, they sound exactly like those moody teenage years during puberty.🤣 Like, seriously, it’s basically the same thing.
As for everything else? Show me a picture or it never happened. No proof, no truth.
By the way, I know this would probably fit better over in the religion sub, but does anyone know if there are actual cases of "possession" in non-Abrahamic religions out there?
Here’s a quick look at how that debate went down (by the way, I haven't touched anything as a moderator; personally, I’m staying completely out of the fray) urbanwalker72: how do the stars actually affect people? my response: they don't; it's just a matter of coinciding cycles. urbanwalker72: nobody has explained the direct influence of the stars to me yet. my response: because there isn't one—it's just synchronicity.
urbanwalker72: well, that's just the same thing in different packaging. What follows is a barrage of questions—about twenty per post—that are practically impossible to answer. Of course, that isn't the goal; it's just an attempt to discredit the point. Then comes the attempt to discredit the person, simply because I identified as both a scientist and an astrologer. edit: I also forgot to mention the constant tagging of others just because we don't see eye to eye. Apparently, there's a new rule on this forum: if you disagree with me, all your arguments are automatically invalid, and I don't even need to bother responding to them. 😁
This kind of aggressive approach ruins the flow of the discussion. It's nothing more than trolling.
Stop wasting time on mindless distractions. Get outside, get some sun, and find a skill you actually care about—something that lets you show the world what you're made of.
Kyle Lee7 said:I'm not quite following—what are you actually trying to get at here?
Are you suggesting that a therapist should only be tolerant of behaviors and inclinations that align with current American social norms and definitions of "normalcy," and that they should judge or try to "fix" anyone who falls outside those lines?
Do you believe a therapist ought to pass judgment on a client for being gay, an atheist, or someone living a promiscuous lifestyle?
Or do you think that regardless of what a person accepts as "normal," a therapist should accept the patient as an individual and show them empathy—primarily because they are a human being in pain, rather than treating them like societal outcasts who need to be exorcised?
I was just pointing out that these are personal views. They shouldn't necessarily dictate a therapist's clinical work, because that would imply there's a set of absolute moral criteria everyone must reach, which simply isn't the case.
I don't think a therapist should judge anyone. But I do think there's enough room for compromise so that every therapist doesn't have to see every single client. It shouldn't be a problem, nor should we try to force everything into one mold. Empathy alone isn't always enough. The empathy of a religious person who feels for a sinner but still condemns the sin isn't quite the same as the empathy of someone who doesn't view it as a sin at all and understands the struggles of belonging to a sexual minority in a specific environment...
Quite simply, if I need a therapist, I'll look for one who fits me. I won't expect everyone to suit my needs, nor will I demand that everyone shares my exact beliefs. 🤷
Dennis Jackson38 Asks: Pedophilia and drug abuse aren't just clinical pathologies; they are serious criminal offenses under the law.
Looking back at history, our attitude toward both of these things has been incredibly inconsistent. Honestly, I’m not even sure if we’ve managed to shake off the influence of social context today—or if that's even something we can actually achieve.
Quincy:
To be honest, I don't think it makes sense to group homosexuality into that logical sequence. It isn't a disease, nor should it even be remotely considered one—not if we're looking at things from a modern perspective. It doesn't belong in the same category as the issues mentioned above.
But honestly, everything I just said applies here too.
Quincy:
As a layman, I get it. If you’re an expert in the social sciences and health professions, you have to pull in some extra tools to stay objective. You need that mental distance and a healthy dose of empathy just to look at a predator or a criminal and see them as a human being worthy of help.
That’s true, but people aren't robots in the real world, so that isn't always going to be possible. The real question is where we draw the line on what's considered problematic or even a disorder. Some might argue that homosexuality needs treatment; we've seen actual examples of that from some of our most prominent psychiatrists mentioned here on the forum. 😁 Let’s say you have one therapist who views homosexuality as an illness—something that needs to be "cured" because they see it as a fundamental problem. Then you have another who holds the exact opposite view. Obviously, those two approaches are going to lead to completely different therapeutic outcomes.
Quincy:
On the other hand, as a free agent in the modern world, I should be allowed to call out professionals in the social sciences and health professions when they let their own biases get in the way. It’s frustrating when people who are supposed to be objective let deeply ingrained, conservative prejudices cloud their judgment and drag them down to a level they really shouldn't be operating at.
Look, I find it hard to respect someone claiming to be a major authority in the social sciences and health professions when they act like this. You have one instance where they look visibly uncomfortable, staring at the ceiling while a gay man tries to share his experiences, eventually having to ask him to just stop talking. Then there’s the case where they label a woman promiscuous based on nothing more than her looks, telling a patient that she "really does seem promiscuous" and isn't "marriage material." It’s hard to take that kind of behavior seriously.
That assumes mainstream beliefs are some kind of universal truth, but they aren't. They’re just illusions—subjective views held by different social groups that shift constantly. This isn't classical physics; there are no exact formulas or absolute certainties here. I don't buy into the idea of total objectivity either. We're all limited by our own perspectives.
Quincy:
For anyone planning to work in this field, I need to see a high level of openness, an acceptance of differences, and a genuine respect for people's choices. Most importantly, there absolutely cannot be any trace of discrimination. That’s non-negotiable for me.
I get that, but honestly? Someone who's seen the darkest sides of life might actually be better equipped to help a member of the Catholic Church than someone like me. 😁
I’m not entirely convinced how much a therapist's own journey through therapy actually matters here. When you're dealing with topics like substance use, sexuality, or even more controversial issues, a lot of it is subjective and constantly shifting. It isn't really about labeling things as right or wrong—it's more about whether those things create internal conflict for the individual.
The goal is really just finding the right fit with the right professional. Though, even that's a bit complicated. For instance, imagine someone has a specific trait X and a problem Y. They want to fix problem Y without changing trait X, so they look for a therapist who fully accepts X so they can feel safe. But what happens if problem Y is actually caused by trait X?
The best proof is right in front of us: hypnosis is prone to errors, and even regression within this lifetime is notoriously unreliable. Our memories aren't objective; they’re subject to endless interpretations that warp them over time. If hypnotic regression isn't considered solid evidence for anything happening in our current lives—which we don't even bother questioning—how could it possibly serve as proof for past ones?
William Diaz said:I don't expect much from "the administration." I'm asking nicely one more time: could you explain exactly which rules were broken in this thread? If you won't, that's fine. It's just a matter of common decency.
I’m not interested in getting stuck in an endless, pointless argument. Decisions here depend as much on moderator discretion as they do on "black and white" rules. Not everyone is treated the same way; a new user who's clearly lost would likely never get the warning you received as a "seasoned provocateur."
Someone who actually shows interest in different perspectives or maintains a genuinely reasonable skeptical stance (like dustyranger64, for example) might have actually left a useful post, perhaps linking it to a broader discussion. But I doubt it would have been framed this way. For someone whose only goal is to poke at people with fringe beliefs, it's a tough sell.
Call it bias if you want. Or call it knowing the situation and the users involved.
The warning itself tells the whole story. Trolling. You could claim rule violations regarding subforum etiquette or off-topic posting, or whatever else you want to pull. If you actually cared about the debate, I'm fairly certain you would have moved it to a more serious section for someone like you. Threads are opened to start discussions, no matter how foolish you think they are. They aren't created just to pick fights and provoke people, regardless of how smart you think you are.
Of course, there's always the possibility that you had a change of heart and truly intended to start a serious discussion—even if you justify it as "encouraging constructive debate" or "bringing reason to the skeptics." But nothing about this, including the topic choice, suggests that. So, I'll stick to my assessment.
Everyone seems convinced they’re doing the right thing. I don’t have much else to add beyond what’s already been said regarding our legal institutions and such... 😁
Your track record on the PDF boils down to skeptical preaching and constant provocation in every single thread, so it’s safe to assume that’s exactly what’s happening here too. Given the subject matter you picked, it fits the pattern perfectly. While we generally welcome all kinds of viewpoints in these debates, acting this way shouldn't be the whole point of starting threads on the fringe boards. To me, it just looks like trolling.
If you want to discuss female sexuality and orgasms through the lens of scientific research, you could suggest moving the topic over to the sociology, psychology, science, or health subforums. Whatever fits best. There isn't really anything "fringe" about any of that stuff.
There isn't really a point in debating whether you believe in Hypnosis or not when it's already medically proven. The real issue starts when people try to mystify it and push it into a space that's just hard to defend 😳
I didn't have the energy to slog through more than a few pages of that article, but it’s clearly just a clash of religious ideologies regarding the existence of evil and possession... there isn't much actual evidence on either side. I did pick up on some patterns in the methodology itself—things like leading questions, indirect suggestion, and the creation of false memories. While Newton's work certainly isn't definitive proof, if we assume he actually understands Hypnosis and psychology, you have to wonder if he's intentionally manipulating things for financial gain by fueling a specific movement...
Jonathan Chase78 said:If we’re talking about brainwave frequencies, then you can actually layer them for better results:
Use Alpha and Theta for reprogramming (healing purposes), while bringing in Delta for rapid physical recovery and cellular regeneration.
To pull this off, you'll need: A neuro programmer (either a dedicated device or a computer running similar software), some decent headphones, and—optionally—glasses (though a high-quality monitor can sometimes do the job). Just find a comfortable spot, pop on your gear, hit play, and let yourself "surf" those waves...
Beta waves (12 Hz – 38 Hz) represent a fully awake, alert mental state—basically where most people spend their lives. It's the realm of concentration. (Including SMR (12 Hz – 15 Hz), Beta 1 (15 Hz – 20 Hz), and Beta 2 (20 Hz – 38 Hz)).
Alpha waves (8 Hz – 12 Hz) offer a deeply relaxed state of wakefulness without the constant processing of external information. Think imagination and visualization.
Theta waves (3 Hz – 8 Hz) correspond to light sleep and extreme relaxation. Theta is famously known as a hyper-suggestible state—perfect for mental reprogramming using previously recorded suggestions. (Essentially, deep meditation.) (Specifically Theta 1 (3 Hz – 5 Hz) and Theta 2 (5 Hz – 8 Hz)).
Delta waves (0.2 Hz – 3 Hz) are all about depth—dreamless sleep and the body's natural ability to heal itself. ("Deep Meditation.")
But honestly? I wouldn't recommend doing any of this without a gentleman's guidance!
Nah, let's be real—it's just another way to tax the gullible under the guise of "healing."😳😁