Posts by Paul Rogers94

Joseph Bailey41 said:I honestly don't care about the linguistic nuances here; you can call it untermensch if it makes you feel better. It doesn't matter how you choose to categorize people or what values you assign to them—those are your own personal hang-ups, and I have no business interfering with them. My point, which I keep trying to hammer home, is that this idea of "primal herd fear" simply isn't a real thing. You're more than welcome to make up your own phrases (or borrow someone else's) that lack actual substance... but I’m also going to hold onto my right to avoid using your specific brand of doublespeak.

And what exactly are you using as a yardstick for that?

😍

it sounds like you're describing yourself—sometimes you come off like a bucket of New Age garbage, desperately cluttering things up just to avoid facing the fact that there’s absolutely nothing underneath... and the more you try to fill the void, the more broken and empty you actually become.

🤣 🎉🤣

Joseph Bailey41 said:There you go again with this whole "herd instinct" thing. Fear is actually a natural reaction for any single animal (which, biologically speaking, includes us humans) when faced with immediate physical danger. The constant anxiety people deal with today is a completely different story—that’s the unnatural part, and it's actually harmful. What really eats away at your immune system is chronic stress, not that short-lived, animalistic fear response that most creatures simply shake off once the danger has passed.

That applies to any rational human being, or any self-aware entity for that matter. I'm not ruling that out, but building an entire culture based on the herd instinct of animalistic fear? That’s strictly subhuman territory.

Just to be clear—when I use terms like "subhuman," "animal," or "human being" in the full sense of the word, I'm not making some sort of moral judgment or trying to rank people...

We all have bits of all three in us, just in different proportions. The real question is which part is running the show psychologically—for the vast majority, it's the animal.

mistybison said:I don't agree that "fear itself is the only thing to fear." There are very real dangers out there where feeling fear is a perfectly natural response, and in those cases, one shouldn't ignore it.

It’s fear itself that strips us of our rationality. It's what allows low-level clowns like Hitler and Stalin to manipulate millions... acting out of fear isn't rational. You can't be a rational actor while living in psychological bondage to fear. I won't argue just for the sake of arguing—I already covered that in my last post—but being fearless doesn't mean being a mindless idiot; quite the opposite. Fear is exactly what turns people into mindless idiots.
Just because someone's actions aren't driven by fear doesn't mean they'll go jumping out of a plane without a parachute.
Not being a slave to fear doesn't equate to having no brain.

Fear is a primal herd instinct—an unconscious drive for survival and continuity. It works fine for animals. However, when that herd instinct dominates a species that is supposed to be distinguished from animals by self-awareness, you end up with something that isn't fully human yet, but isn't quite an animal either. I call it "subhuman"—a transitional stage between animal and true human being. Only an individual can transcend this subhuman state to reach a true human state, where their life isn't dominated by basic animalistic herd instincts—that unconscious, animal fear. That is the only time one acts from reason rather than fear.

Acting rationally out of fear is impossible.

mistybison said:To be fully awakened would imply ceasing to be human altogether—becoming either an overman or something non-human. Such a spirituality would essentially be an escape from the humanity we know.

If we actually reach a state where we no longer experience fear—regardless of what happens to us or the world around us—our brain chemistry would have to be fundamentally altered, triggering a ripple effect across every aspect of our existence. We can't simply rewire the core settings of a human being by picking and choosing which traits to discard. If we eliminate something as foundational as fear, we trigger a domino effect with unpredictable consequences. Is irrational fearlessness really a goal worth pursuing? What if it leads to total numbness? If we stop valuing life, we risk becoming dangerous to ourselves and everyone else.

And is that even true spirituality?

Look, I never said any of that—not even close—but that’s how you read it, translated it, and filtered it through your own mindset.🥱

Orson Welles’ radio drama sparked mass panic across the USA (1938)

Is this fear actually rational?

We see it happening every single day—someone threatens to slash your wages by a few bucks, or some politician starts fretting about Social Security funds, or whatever... and suddenly, the masses are ready to swallow any draconian law or extreme measure just to feel safe.
Whenever politicians want to pull a fast one, they start by weaponizing your sense of security and survival—hitting that primal herd instinct—and once you're rattled, they can push whatever agenda they want through.
Is that rational?
Do you really think people will agree to anything if you just convince them their existence is under threat? Regardless of whether the threat is even real...
That’s how a peaceful neighbor—a perfectly decent citizen—can snap and turn on their own, committing all those horrific things humans do to one another.
Essentially, it doesn't matter if the virus actually exists or if it's genuinely dangerous—the psychological impact is identical.

The awakened mind doesn't fall for that kind of panic. They don't go looking for reasons to be afraid; instead, they see that fear itself is what creates the reasons to be afraid.
The only thing worth fearing is fear itself.

I’d argue you aren't actually driven by fear. Your actions don't stem from some existential threat. It isn't that "the enemy is at the gates, they're coming for our kids, we have to strike first to defend our homes"—and it's the exact same rhetoric used by the other side. Once you question someone's very existence—even if it's a total fabrication—you can manipulate them however you want. Just look at this virus; setting aside all the conspiracy theories, you could do whatever you wanted to the entire world with it. Everyone descends into a mass of idiots. Now, that doesn't mean people shouldn't take common-sense precautions or that they should go out looking to get spit in the face, but there's a difference between being careful and being reckless—not making a massive drama out of it, just accepting things as they are. When faced with an immediate threat, sure, anyone reacts with a fear impulse, but that doesn't mean they're psychologically enslaved to it.

Every single motivation that built the civilization we know is nothing more than fear and the survival instinct; family, society, nationhood, politics, money, science, religion, work, sex, even basic physical gratification...

Otherwise, how else could someone convince you that labor created man—that you ought to grind yourself into the grave while pretending to respect and love that toil? It's just the carrot and the stick—treating people like cattle.

mistybison said:For me, learning happens naturally and spontaneously. 🙂

There is no teacher, no student, and no learning at all. 😁

David Vaughn75 said:In Hinduism, the spiritual guru is basically everything—the alpha and the omega. You just follow whatever they tell you to do, no questions asked.
Some folks argue that unless you have the grace of a pure servant of God, there’s zero chance of getting into the Kingdom of Heaven.
It kind of brings to mind that whole idea where Jesus says the only way to the Father is through him; it's like God only lets in the people that Jesus lets in, which ends up being the same crowd any other spiritual leader would vouch for.

Now, looking at Christianity, a priest is definitely a big deal—they’re the ones giving the directions and setting the tone—but honestly, you can get by without one if you have to.

So, what about you guys? Do you actually follow some spiritual mentor, and how much has that person actually shaped the way you live your life?

That’s like asking how much the sun shapes life on Earth...

(Everything exists because of the sun's merciful light and warmth—but does it actually "shape" anyone's life in any specific way?)

An authentic guru is like the sun—he brings the dead back to life in the heart without distinction or conditionality. He doesn't even have an interest in such things; he just shines, much like the sun warms without any ulterior motive.

With an authentic guru, you don't even matter to him as an individual.

The rest are just cult leaders—they're interested in *you* and your problems, and they think they know what's best for you.

David Vaughn75 said:It’s not any clearer to me

The world is real—did I ever say it wasn't? 🤷

The world is real only if you're looking at it through the lens of the mind.

The universe *is* the mind.

"Real" and "unreal" are just mental categories.

From the perspective of Brahman (the ultimate reality)—or from the standpoint of impersonal vision—

there is no such thing as reality or unreality.

That’s why they say the truth is neither real nor unreal.

And that’s why you'll find seemingly contradictory statements in the sacred texts for anyone foolish enough to think they can just logic their way to an answer.

(Brahman alone is real, the universe is unreal, brahman is Universe. Bhagavad gita)

Here is a straightforward method for Dhyana Yoga—achieving realization through meditation:
Every morning, find a quiet spot outdoors—whenever it suits you, regardless of any rigid schedule—and sit in a simple posture for 30 to 60 minutes. Keep your eyes half-open and maintain an awareness of the tip of your nose. The goal here is simply to pull your attention away from your external senses.
Next, attempt to become aware of The Observer. Don't dwell on your senses. In fact, you shouldn't be "doing" anything at all—no active thoughts. Just remain aware of the one who is sitting in meditation. Focus exclusively on that presence. Try to perceive the One who exists beyond the physical form, the one without a body.
Take it slow. Practice this gradually every single day, and you'll find your problems begin to dissolve. Aim to experience The Absolute. Become aware of total wholeness. If your eyes happen to close, don't fight it. You will begin to perceive pure space. Every shape or form you perceive is merely a modification or a shadow of The Creator.
You can call Him Jesus, Shiva, or any other divine Name. It is all a direct encounter with the one who sits within. Keep up with this spiritual practice. Eventually, That will reach out from within to offer guidance, messages, and spontaneous insight. Just remember: “I am not this body.” Be aware of The Observer. “I am beyond the body.”

Nisargadatta to a visitor called Mahindra in 'About Nisargadatta'

lonestag15 said:What exactly are you basing this on?
What does someone's side hustle outside their actual field have to do with anything, let alone the actual EEG findings?

After 25 years of laboratory Basic research in cellular neurophysiology, Dr. Acosta entered the field of QEEG (quantitative electroencephalography) in 1996.

Twenty-five years of lab work in cellular neurophysiology... and then finally moving into EEG research...

What did Beljki say about scientific criteria?

Do you realize how often this shows up in studies?
The phenomenology of kundalini activation is well documented as a high voltage discharge of delta and theta brainwaves, followed by increased Beta and Gamma power. The subjects report an ecstatic multi orgasmic experience lasting tens of minutes following the initial discharge

Scientific criteria? Please. Kundalini shakti is divine energy—it can't be measured by any gadget, nor is it subject to any scientific scrutiny. When you talk about kundalini, you have to step outside of science and scientific metalanguage entirely. Sure, you might eventually measure some physical side effects from the "shift" during a kundalini rise, but that energy isn't part of this energetic system the human body inhabits. That energy is OUT THERE, and it is so unimaginably powerful that your body would turn into a pile of ash the instant you tried to translate it into this limited energetic system we live in. We’re talking about the energy that creates the universe; it is the source of all other energies.

Just for comparison—if you've ever heard those internal sounds, they aren't things you hear with your physical ears. Those are sounds you hear OUT THERE, and they are far more articulated and powerful than anything your physical ears could pick up. You experience them directly (bells, drums, flutes... whatever else comes along; when they layer over one another, you get that initial thunderous sound that transitions into Om)—eventually, you might measure the bodily reactions when you somehow brush against that "energy."

Or take the third eye: it isn't an actual eye inside the body, nor is it located at the pineal gland. It simply corresponds to the pineal gland in or on the body. Just as the other glands correspond to the chakras, there are no actual chakras in the body, nor are there any nadis. Chakras refer to states of being.

That’s why I use the imagery of it being "OUT THERE" (in those celestial spheres beyond our sensory perception).

I'm just generalizing quickly here for the sake of analogy, so don't come after me for every single word...

Go check out that conversation with Ricki Archer about kundalini that I linked earlier.

Generally speaking, spirituality doesn't have much to do with science or the scientific method—that's exactly why it's called spirituality. This trendy push to shove spirituality into scientific frameworks (and vice versa) is an affront to both spirituality and science. It's like trying to measure the distance between point A and point B by checking your blood sugar levels.

Elizabeth Castillo87 said:Honestly, I’m asking myself the same thing.
That said, this topic is actually pretty interesting.
In my book, any kind of spiritual practice—if you're actually doing it sincerely—is going to lead you toward some mental peace. And once you find that inner calm, your tolerance levels go up, and you start handling conflict in a way that doesn't involve losing your mind.

Look, this isn't some shallow "self-help" New age think-pink nonsense.

This isn't even really a discussion.
It was opened up just like several other threads—with a hidden missionary agenda, using Bible quotes as a way to prove why one *must* be Christian.
Intent defines results. Period.
So, if you're going to go there, say something about the mystical side of Christianity or Christian meditation.
Make Christianity actually look appealing for once.
Instead of immediately jumping to the tired "believers vs. atheists" cliché.
There’s Ignatius of Loyola’s meditations, Christian Gnosticism, early Christian mysticism...
Last summer, I hosted a priest from Rome—he stayed with me a few times. We’d sit outside on a bench, smoke some weed, watch the sunset, and talk about their techniques for direct experience, doctrinal differences, and all sorts of fascinating stuff.
Then you have Orthodox mystical traditions, Mount Athos, Gurdjieff, Solovyov...
...

All you people know is the "Our Father."
So say something then.
Even if it sounds stupid.

neonmarlin39 said:Yeah, that's a real thing. And look, I’m not just throwing this out there because I felt like being a smartass—it’s actually backed up by solid philosophy, ancient traditions, and even hard science in a ton of ways. The whole kicker is that the universe is relative. That’s just a straight-up scientific fact. Time, space, even you as an individual—they’re all relative. But just because things are relative doesn't mean they aren't real. That "perspective" you're talking about? That’s just a product of the person experiencing it. It’s tied to time and space, which are both relative. Think about it like this: how fast you’re moving or how close you are to a massive gravitational center—like if you were orbiting near a black hole—is going to mess with your mass, your physical dimensions, and even how fast time ticks for you. If someone was watching you zoom past in a rocket at light speed, their experience of what's happening would be totally different from yours. Everything depends on where you're standing. Time is relative. Space is relative. We've proven it in practice.

It’s all one big interconnected thing. But honestly, none of this proves the universe isn't actually real, and it certainly doesn't count as some kind of logical argument against its existence. If you look at certain Eastern philosophies, everything out there—the whole damn universe and everything in it—is just Purusha being influenced by his Prakrti. It's basically Consciousness taking on specific traits. Just because Purusha picked up some attributes along the way doesn't mean he stopped being real; if anything, it’s the exact opposite. The universe itself is Brahman/God—basically a "piece" of the absolute that became relative. I put "piece" in quotes because space and time only really show up once you get into Saguna territory, meaning they carry their own specific properties and attributes. It’s like that Buddhino idea where nirvana and samsara are essentially the same thing.

I've been thinking about this a lot lately. It's kind of wild how much we get caught up in the small stuff when there's so much bigger stuff going on. I was just sitting there, sipping some coffee, thinking about how life just flows, you know? Like, sometimes you feel like you're in control, and other times it feels like things are just happening to you. It’s that whole cause-effect Quote thing people talk about. Honestly, it's pretty heavy if you dwell on it too long, but I try to just roll with it. Just gotta stay chill and see where the wind blows.

How would that even follow from that? Honestly, it feels like it’s just coming from all those rigid, dogmatic takes—you know, the stuff where people claim the world isn't actually real. It’s kind of like those old-school ideas about how Christ is coming back to raise the dead, or the whole concept of partying in heaven or rotting in hell for eternity. What exactly points to that besides someone's personal dogma? I mean, if you really think about it, even a brick seems "illusory" when you zoom in on the subatomic level and see how much empty space there is. But look, if someone hits you in the head with a brick, I promise you aren't thinking about subatomic particles or how "unreal" that brick is. It's pretty damn real in that moment.

It’s actually pretty simple. The universe doesn't depend on any single person, but every single person depends on the universe. An individual isn't out here creating reality with their mind; Brahman is the one who creates reality (the whole universe and everything in it). We just experience it through our minds. We operate within the boundaries of this established reality and we're stuck with it whether we like it or not, since we're part of it and bound by its laws.

You can actually solve a lot of stuff using your intellect if you use it the right way, especially when it comes to things regarding this universe. Anything that has properties can be measured, analyzed, and understood...

Some of the greatest teachers have said that Nirguna neither exists nor doesn't exist, isn't real nor isn't unreal, isn't both real and unreal, nor is it real and not real. But that's exactly the point you seem to be missing—those same teachers also clearly stated that the universe is real, which is what's being said here too. By any definition, we can say the universe is definitely real.

Don't stress over the contradictions in different teachings. Just focus on getting a clear grasp of being. Dogma is everywhere, just like bad philosophy—nothing weird about that. Honestly, plenty of people throughout history have cooked up all sorts of dogmas based on their own personal experiences and interpretations...

Sure, intellect can get you to a certain level of understanding, but without some kind of impersonal insight or direct experience to back it up? It’s like a blind person searching for a grain of corn—you have no way of knowing if your "understanding" is actually valid.

You might be able to guess what a Napa Valley Cabernet tastes like without ever having a sip, but you won't know if your assumptions are right until you actually taste it.

lonestag15 said:First off, my main point from the jump was just that "spiritual practice-triggered psychosis" exists... which is why I wanted to emphasize being careful with those kinds of practices in the first place...

But okay, if you and I (after checking from every possible angle) are both convinced by the results of kundalini practices, doesn't that imply some kind of reality to the existence of kundalini?
cause-effect Quote

Look, if someone describes how it feels and says, "do this and that, and you'll get these specific results"... and then we actually try it and it happens (in my case, things like increased energy, needing less sleep, a massive creative surge)... and all of that matches the description... doesn't that point toward an objective existence of kundalini and a correct interpretation of what's going on?

If it isn't kundalini (since we've apparently decided there's zero scientific proof), then what on earth is causing this "spiritual practice-triggered psychosis"?
I mean, if kundalini isn't real, what's actually driving the whole thing?

Maybe because it isn't even psychosis to begin with.

There’s another possibility—that people mistake the side effects of a Kundalini blast for a psychotic episode simply because they look so similar. The real issue is usually that these side effects (which most people mislabel as the "Kundalini experience" itself, when they're really just symptoms) get misdiagnosed as psychosis.

Good luck finding an actual, accurate description of a Kundalini experience anywhere; most people just "recognize the aftermath" and call it an experience. That actual event—which could honestly be summed up in three meager sentences—is an incomprehensible, unspeakable blast, not some gradual progression. Integration can take up to a decade, and people describe it through those standard side effects... even though in practice, it’s much more "rich" and "intoxicating." It shifts your life at every single level, making it easy to mistake for psychosis—even when it isn't.

It's actually quite rare—I can't recall a single case where a Kundalini experience triggered psychosis in someone with a latent condition. To trigger true psychosis, you usually need a much larger "error" (like a divorce, the death of a loved one, or some other major life upheaval) than a Kundalini experience provides. However, I could certainly link a few instances where a Kundalini experience was treated as psychosis...

neonmarlin39 said:Nah, they don't just pop in and out. They’re still right there, no matter what kind of headspace someone is in—whether you're wide awake, dreaming, in a deep sleep, unconscious, or even dead. That's just a plain old fact you can prove if you look at it right.

Not for a mind stuck in deep sleep, anyway. The world hasn't gone anywhere, and neither has the person sleeping in it; they just aren't aware of it. Time and everything else are still ticking away and doing their thing, whether someone is sleeping through it or not, conscious or otherwise.

When someone wakes up, they just... wake up. Time, space, matter, and energy didn't suddenly materialize. It's more like the mind shifts back into an alert state where it's plugged back into the senses, allowing it to perceive the surroundings and act around. In that awake state, you clearly experience the world and know it's there. While you're dreaming or in a deep sleep, you aren't aware of the outside world or even your own thoughts, but just because you aren't aware doesn't mean the world stopped existing. Reality doesn't depend on how someone perceives it.

Everything points to the opposite. It's really just that no single individual can exist without the universe itself.

If you're looking at this from a philosophical or spiritual angle, "perception" isn't really the right way to put it. When it comes to Purusha (God), He doesn't just "perceive" the universe—He *is* the universe. Everything is Brahman (Purusha + Prakrti). Even if there wasn't a single living soul left in the entire cosmos to witness anything, Purusha would still be the one "perceiving" it all. He’s the creator who wasn't created, and He took on all these specific attributes and traits through a "part" of Himself to become this whole universe and everything in it (Saguna brahman). At the end of the day, the existence of the universe and everything within it doesn't rely on some individual mind's subjective view. Honestly, claiming that is kind of funny because every single mind is just as much a creation as the universe itself. Reality depends solely on Purusha, or Paratman, God—whatever term you feel like using.

Isn't the individual—the conscious entity—also a part of the universe?

This level of discourse actually makes sense now... I liked how you explained things to David Vaughn75, pointing him toward that transcendental "category," or Brahman.

Things are finally becoming clear and simple enough;
so they can be easily summarized:

You’re taking the stance that the phenomenal universe exists independently of the subject (the viewpoint).

I, however, believe that appearance and the subject are interdependent—they are one single entity, and one cannot exist without the other.

You overlooked—or perhaps just ignored—the crucial points I previously noted:

That the subject itself is merely a part of the phenomenal universe; they are one whole.

Which means the distinction between the subject and the phenomenal universe is an illusion.

So, how can the phenomenal universe be independent of the subject, or vice versa?

Where is the line? Where does the subject end and appearance begin—if the subject is part of the appearance itself?

Intellectual gymnastics won't solve any of this. We're trapped using the categories of the mind—and language is nothing more than a function of the mind anyway. You've "picked a side," much like some solipsist would pick the exact opposite. I am arguing that the division is illusory, and I'm attempting to explain it my way. Whichever side anyone chooses through mere mental reasoning, they miss the mark; the only solution is direct insight, nothing else. Once you try to force this into mental terminology, you end up with nonsense like: "Only Brahman is real. The universe is unreal. Brahman is the universe"—along with countless other apparent contradictions found in any serious spiritual text. Intellectual clarity and the clarity of impersonal insight are worlds apart.

David Vaughn75 said:But how can you even claim sound exists if you aren't there to witness it? How did you ever establish its existence in the first place?

Wait, so does "objective perception" even exist? And who exactly is out there perceiving this "objective perception"?

We have a massive amount of data today regarding the universe and time periods that predated the existence of the human race or life on Earth altogether.

Yeah, sure—but we're just subjects mentally processing the *concept* of time from eras long before life even crawled onto the planet.

Time, space, matter, and energy all emerge alongside the subject—and vanish right along with it.

In a deep, dreamless sleep, there is no subject, no space, no time, and no energy.

Everyone and everything else has either vanished or is simply waiting "somewhere out there" for the subject to wake up. 🤣
Every sense of direction—here, there, everywhere, or nowhere—emerges only when the subject does.
Without the subject, there is no "here" or "there," no "somewhere" or "nowhere."

Yet, in the morning, once you wake up, the subject reappears—and with it, time, space, matter, and energy (the manifest universe) reappear too.
As does the perceived divide between subject and object.
Neither the subject nor the object exists independently of the other.
The manifest universe cannot exist without the subject, just as no subject can exist without an object (the manifestation).
It is one and the same.
If you ask what a subject would look like without the manifest universe (the object), the answer is simple: no such subject could possibly exist.Because the subject itself is just another part of the manifestation.
...

lonestag15 said:Is it actually scientific to claim that psychosis is the direct cause-and-effect result of Kundalini rising across a massive group of people?

Total practitioners — number of people who got sick within that group — percentage

100,000 people — number of cases — percentage

Then compare those percentages.

...honestly, I don't even know if that's a valid way to run a study...

Basically, just doing that without accounting for things like genetic predisposition, life stress levels, family history, diagnoses, etc... etc.

What do all those statistics—let alone actual science—have to do with the fact that a Kundalini blast can trigger a psychotic episode in someone with latent psychosis? It’s like hallucinogenic mushrooms (which typically involve intense Kundalini experiences)—they can trigger an episode in that same person, but so can the death of a loved one or a messy divorce...
Personally, I wouldn't recommend yoga or magic mushrooms to anyone with latent psychosis.

I have no idea why you're even trying to use scientific arguments for something that isn't subject to scientific analysis. I'm not saying such debates don't exist, but you're essentially comparing apples to oranges here.

A real discussion would be if you shared a personal Kundalini experience, or what you believe might be one, and then we could actually talk about it—but doing it this way is just casting pearls before swine when it comes to whether an authentic Kundalini experience actually happened.

bluemason3 said:Good grief, it’s the exact same situation as that thread with Pat, the woman, D... something.

Alternative: It’s been scientifically proven.

Skeptic: But X doesn't even meet the basic requirements of scientific methodology. Since science is defined by its methodology, X simply can't be considered science.

Alternative: honestly, who even cares about science?

🤷

Electron keeps hiding behind science, yet you counter him by bringing up Jung. Then, you have the nerve to claim that we aren't being "scientific" enough—as if that somehow means science doesn't matter anymore. 🤔

Your arguments are all over the place. It’s pure chaos. 🤷

What mess?
Science isn't my priority, but I did obviously cynically point out—based on our past chats—that you and a few others act like it's gospel. You cling to science, while frankly, I couldn't care less. If you weren't such a rigid dogmatist about it, maybe with all your supposed expertise and eloquence, you’d actually be an enjoyable person to talk to... instead of just a bore.

neonmarlin39 said:That’s great and all, but you can't really play the "science and peer-reviewed studies" card at the same time when talking about that kind of stuff.

You're totally misreading the situation. If I had said it to you directly, you would've been like "he can'tsh," rather than just "he can't" (I mean, sure, could be a typo, but you gotta look at the context here). It was clearly referring to those posts a few spots up where lonestag15 was throwing around scientific research and papers regarding Kundalini, dopamine, electricity, and trying to equate various crazies in mental wards with some "Kundalini rising symptom" or whatever else—all before you jumped in with that Crowley quote.

Fine, I missed a letter, wasn't paying close enough attention, and got the wrong impression—but everything else, even if it feels disconnected from your debate, stands true.
To be honest, I don't agree with lonestag15 on every single detail either, but I'm staying out of it because this whole approach of bickering under the guise of "scientific basis" is frankly repulsive—especially when dealing with something undefined. We have a mountain of posts here, yet nobody has actually agreed on what Kundalini even is or why anyone would track it.
It would be interesting to actually start by defining what Kundalini is if we want any of this to make sense.
For a term like Kundalini, Wikipedia is completely useless; many of the greatest sages have never even heard the term. That said, I won't dismiss it entirely—but once we reach a consensus on what Kundalini actually represents, then we can discuss whether or not it relates to psychosis.

I brought up Crowley because I am obsessed with this either/or dilemma—it's suffocating me everywhere, which I explained a bit more clearly in one of my previous "inspired" posts addressed to bluemason3; I believe I also mentioned Zlatko Sudac and the HOA representative🙂

bluemason3 said:I'm still not sure who you think you're arguing with.

You've jumped into a debate with lonestag15, focusing on his reliance on science as if his point appeared out of thin air. You're essentially fighting your own projections here.

Furthermore, you can't really claim to be "neither for faith nor for science."

Those are basically the two ways to look at things. When observing a phenomenon, you either describe it using a model based on unproven claims (faith) or through exact evidence (science). You could also choose to be uninterested and not describe it at all, but then you wouldn't be participating in the discussion in the first place.

There isn't really a third option, other than perhaps skepticism toward unprovable phenomena—which, honestly, is pretty close to a scientific approach anyway.

I believe I've laid out the core issue clearly enough—not just for me, but generally—and that is this binary approach; anything outside of "either/or" is just noise.
I think we need to clear this up if we want any kind of meaningful communication to actually happen.