Christian vs. Eastern Meditation: Similarities and Differences!

mistybison said:I believe a major issue with discussions like this is that everyone approaches the subject from a different angle. Take >, for example. One person might read it and accept everything within its pages as absolute truth without hesitation. Another might read it and attempt to intellectually deconstruct the ideas, interpreting concepts and comparing them to other texts. A third person might read it simply wanting to perceive reality through the lens it describes; they aren't interested in blind faith or intellectual debate, but rather in direct experience and insight.

That said, people value direct experience differently. For some, it is the ultimate goal of existence, and they will use any means necessary to reach it. They might experiment with various substances, follow strict diets, practice intense meditation, or retreat into complete isolation, often neglecting their daily lives entirely. Conversely, there are those who view such experiences merely as tools to enrich their understanding of life as it is. They maintain their health and stay engaged with the world, believing that ordinary life itself is the purpose, while spiritual insight serves as the seasoning.

Those seeking direct insight often struggle to communicate with people who lack it or have no interest in it. They find it difficult to accept faith without scrutiny, and they find philosophical debates—which often devolve into mere mental gymnastics or the analysis of a from a great teacher—to be exhausting. They can perhaps share their experiences with others who have had similar encounters or at least desire them. It is draining to try to convince others of what we have experienced, especially when explaining something inherently inexpressible to people who lack the will to even try to understand.

In my view, these are the primary reasons why meaningful dialogue on this subforum is so difficult and why fewer people choose to share their intimate spiritual journeys.

Regarding various insights, we must remain mindful of our own limitations. We are essentially just slightly more rational animals. Just as a dog cannot learn multiplication tables no matter how hard we try to explain them, a human living in three dimensions simply cannot grasp something that may exist in sixteen dimensions. Evolution moves slowly; despite all our advancements in medicine and technology, humans today are fundamentally the same as they were 2,000 years ago. Our cognitive capacity is limited. If we are unable to register or comprehend something, it does not mean that it does not exist.

Peter Hall56 said:What exactly constitutes "Christian" meditation? I'm already familiar with how those "Eastern" styles look and feel—so what would the Christian version even entail?

Zachary Cox69 said:Just some thoughts. Even prayer fits here. Prayer doesn't always need words—you can just direct your thoughts toward God and speak through your mind without saying a thing. Or you could read a passage from the Bible and really chew on it—thinking about what it’s telling me right now. Jesus said the Holy Spirit is our teacher, so we should expect Him to enlighten our minds to help us interpret things we don't quite get—at least sometimes. Gospel of Luke

"Luke said to them, 'This is what I told you while I was still with you: everything must be fulfilled that was written about me in the Law of Moses, in the Prophets and in the Psalms.'
Luke 24:45 [B]Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.[/B]

This is pretty interesting—this priest really took this concept to heart.

"Once someone has truly spoken with God, they stop doubting His existence. Beyond that, the act of communicating with Him changes you."
Tomislav Ivančić on how to communicate with God

The process:

Find a spot where nobody or nothing will bother you for the next twenty minutes or so. Sit or kneel down, take one deep breath, and let it out slowly. Just stay relaxed and calm.

After that, go to those people you're having tension with and make peace—at least in your head for now. Forgive them, and ask for forgiveness too.

Text continues below the ad

Then, just realize that God is right there, in front of you. You can hear Him and talk to Him through your spirit.

Say, "You are here, God. And so am I. I want to talk with You." Just stay in that peace, letting your heart wait and long to meet with God.

Ask God to prepare you for this conversation. Be persistent in your prayer every single day. You will encounter God. God is an absolute, perfect Spirit. During creation, He breathed His own Spirit into man. As Christians, we receive new strength through the sacraments via God's Spirit. This means a person can communicate with God through their spirit, aided by the Holy Spirit. Just as we communicate with people through touch, sight, or hearing, we can talk to God through the spirit.

To enter into a dialogue with God, you have to center yourself. While physical communication is direct and outward—making it easier for us to notice—spiritual communication is much finer and more delicate. It requires peace, sensitivity, relaxation, and a pure heart. It demands that a person opens up from within, turning themselves entirely into a listener. It’s a lot like when someone is deep in thought or searching for inspiration for an art project. It's deep listening. That's how you can speak to God. But more importantly, it's about listening to Him. A clear conscience is the prerequisite for inner peace, which leads to outer focus.

So, you can hear God and talk to Him. The very certainty that God exists comes from this communication. Once someone has talked with God, they no longer doubt His presence. Even more so, this connection changes a person so deeply that they begin to perform wonderful works of God. Those acts serve as confirmation of His presence. A believer is essentially someone who talks with God. That is what prayer is.

Father Tomislav Ivančić



Essentially, Christian meditation is always directed toward God, the Creator of the world.

neonmarlin39 said:What "dead" comments? Man, go back and read his post, then check out his other stuff whenever a debate starts up—this isn't even close to the first time he's done this. I dare you to find one single post of mine where I actually insulted someone or dodged a solid argument. Seriously, just look at his history. You'd be better off staying quiet and not chiming in when you don't have anything smart to contribute, especially since your post is straight-up trolling. It breaks all the forum rules and has zero to do with the actual topic; it's just some losers trying to play amateur psychoanalyst on everyone else...

Is it really "mocking" if I tell someone who's clearly unstable that psychedelics aren't a good idea for them?

Trust me, I'm reading and I totally get the context. I have no clue what you're talking about. Can you give me even one single example with actual evidence where I missed the point? Let's see it.

🤣

Look, it’s not my fault some people resort to cheap insults the second they run out of actual points. Looks like you're one of those people.

neonmarlin39 said:I think I made my point pretty clear, including the fact that basically zero traditional, classic schools of yoga ever used those specific terms or names (and yeah, I mentioned Sivananda might have used it once or twice, but not in this context). Most of this is just New Age terminology at best, or just modern fluff. And don't even get me started on people rambling about Kundalini awakening practices when they haven't even mastered basic breathing or controlling their own minds. I asked you for the name of your "instructor's" school so we could figure out what's actually going on here...

So that makes you rude, insulting, and attacking other people?

We already talked about how flawed it is to interpret your own experiences without guidance—like how every Tom, Dick, and Harry tries to decode their visions based on some random dream a grandma had. There's way too much nonsense, dogma, and bad logic floating around, and we aren't here to validate that stuff. It’s the exact same deal with things like UFO sightings.

And there you go again, trying to pseudo-psychoanalyze everyone else. Maybe check the forum rules.

Yeah, it shows. Honestly, I still can't quite wrap my head around what you're actually trying to preach to me here...

Look, skepticism isn't inherently a bad thing. You kind of missed the forest for the trees, though—the real issue is that it's impossible to have a serious, deep conversation with certain people. Instead of using actual arguments or evidence, they just resort to psychoanalyzing you or throwing insults. Some of these folks act like they're enlightened masters, but honestly, by any standard, they're just dogmatic believers. There's definitely a handful of them on this forum—not everyone is like that, thankfully. Most people here are cool to talk to and can actually hold a decent debate. But if some people don't know the basics of how to have a constructive discussion, that's not on me. At the end of the day, they aren't looking for truth or solid logic; they're just clinging to their dogmas. The second you challenge those beliefs, they get super emotional. It's classic...

neonmarlin39 said:I think I made my point pretty clear, including the fact that basically zero traditional, classic schools of yoga ever used those specific terms or names (and yeah, I mentioned Sivananda might have used it once or twice, but not in this context). Most of this is just New Age terminology at best, or just modern fluff. And don't even get me started on people rambling about Kundalini awakening practices when they haven't even mastered basic breathing or controlling their own minds. I asked you for the name of your "instructor's" school so we could figure out what's actually going on here...

So that makes you rude, insulting, and attacking other people?

We already talked about how flawed it is to interpret your own experiences without guidance—like how every Tom, Dick, and Harry tries to decode their visions based on some random dream a grandma had. There's way too much nonsense, dogma, and bad logic floating around, and we aren't here to validate that stuff. It’s the exact same deal with things like UFO sightings.

And there you go again, trying to pseudo-psychoanalyze everyone else. Maybe check the forum rules.

Yeah, it shows. Honestly, I still can't quite wrap my head around what you're actually trying to preach to me here...

Look, skepticism isn't inherently a bad thing. You kind of missed the forest for the trees, though—the real issue is that it's impossible to have a serious, deep conversation with certain people. Instead of using actual arguments or evidence, they just resort to psychoanalyzing you or throwing insults. Some of these folks act like they're enlightened masters, but honestly, by any standard, they're just dogmatic believers. There's definitely a handful of them on this forum—not everyone is like that, thankfully. Most people here are cool to talk to and can actually hold a decent debate. But if some people don't know the basics of how to have a constructive discussion, that's not on me. At the end of the day, they aren't looking for truth or solid logic; they're just clinging to their dogmas. The second you challenge those beliefs, they get super emotional. It's classic...

neonmarlin39 said:I think I made my point pretty clear, including the fact that basically zero traditional, classic schools of yoga ever used those specific terms or names (and yeah, I mentioned Sivananda might have used it once or twice, but not in this context). Most of this is just New Age terminology at best, or just modern fluff. And don't even get me started on people rambling about Kundalini awakening practices when they haven't even mastered basic breathing or controlling their own minds. I asked you for the name of your "instructor's" school so we could figure out what's actually going on here...

So that makes you rude, insulting, and attacking other people?

We already talked about how flawed it is to interpret your own experiences without guidance—like how every Tom, Dick, and Harry tries to decode their visions based on some random dream a grandma had. There's way too much nonsense, dogma, and bad logic floating around, and we aren't here to validate that stuff. It’s the exact same deal with things like UFO sightings.

And there you go again, trying to pseudo-psychoanalyze everyone else. Maybe check the forum rules.

Yeah, it shows. Honestly, I still can't quite wrap my head around what you're actually trying to preach to me here...

Look, skepticism isn't inherently a bad thing. You kind of missed the forest for the trees, though—the real issue is that it's impossible to have a serious, deep conversation with certain people. Instead of using actual arguments or evidence, they just resort to psychoanalyzing you or throwing insults. Some of these folks act like they're enlightened masters, but honestly, by any standard, they're just dogmatic believers. There's definitely a handful of them on this forum—not everyone is like that, thankfully. Most people here are cool to talk to and can actually hold a decent debate. But if some people don't know the basics of how to have a constructive discussion, that's not on me. At the end of the day, they aren't looking for truth or solid logic; they're just clinging to their dogmas. The second you challenge those beliefs, they get super emotional. It's classic...

neonmarlin39 said:I think I made my point pretty clear, including the fact that basically zero traditional, classic schools of yoga ever used those specific terms or names (and yeah, I mentioned Sivananda might have used it once or twice, but not in this context). Most of this is just New Age terminology at best, or just modern fluff. And don't even get me started on people rambling about Kundalini awakening practices when they haven't even mastered basic breathing or controlling their own minds. I asked you for the name of your "instructor's" school so we could figure out what's actually going on here...

So that makes you rude, insulting, and attacking other people?

We already talked about how flawed it is to interpret your own experiences without guidance—like how every Tom, Dick, and Harry tries to decode their visions based on some random dream a grandma had. There's way too much nonsense, dogma, and bad logic floating around, and we aren't here to validate that stuff. It’s the exact same deal with things like UFO sightings.

And there you go again, trying to pseudo-psychoanalyze everyone else. Maybe check the forum rules.

Yeah, it shows. Honestly, I still can't quite wrap my head around what you're actually trying to preach to me here...

Look, skepticism isn't inherently a bad thing. You kind of missed the forest for the trees, though—the real issue is that it's impossible to have a serious, deep conversation with certain people. Instead of using actual arguments or evidence, they just resort to psychoanalyzing you or throwing insults. Some of these folks act like they're enlightened masters, but honestly, by any standard, they're just dogmatic believers. There's definitely a handful of them on this forum—not everyone is like that, thankfully. Most people here are cool to talk to and can actually hold a decent debate. But if some people don't know the basics of how to have a constructive discussion, that's not on me. At the end of the day, they aren't looking for truth or solid logic; they're just clinging to their dogmas. The second you challenge those beliefs, they get super emotional. It's classic...

neonmarlin39 said:I think I made my point pretty clear, including the fact that basically zero traditional, classic schools of yoga ever used those specific terms or names (and yeah, I mentioned Sivananda might have used it once or twice, but not in this context). Most of this is just New Age terminology at best, or just modern fluff. And don't even get me started on people rambling about Kundalini awakening practices when they haven't even mastered basic breathing or controlling their own minds. I asked you for the name of your "instructor's" school so we could figure out what's actually going on here...

So that makes you rude, insulting, and attacking other people?

We already talked about how flawed it is to interpret your own experiences without guidance—like how every Tom, Dick, and Harry tries to decode their visions based on some random dream a grandma had. There's way too much nonsense, dogma, and bad logic floating around, and we aren't here to validate that stuff. It’s the exact same deal with things like UFO sightings.

And there you go again, trying to pseudo-psychoanalyze everyone else. Maybe check the forum rules.

Yeah, it shows. Honestly, I still can't quite wrap my head around what you're actually trying to preach to me here...

Look, skepticism isn't inherently a bad thing. You kind of missed the forest for the trees, though—the real issue is that it's impossible to have a serious, deep conversation with certain people. Instead of using actual arguments or evidence, they just resort to psychoanalyzing you or throwing insults. Some of these folks act like they're enlightened masters, but honestly, by any standard, they're just dogmatic believers. There's definitely a handful of them on this forum—not everyone is like that, thankfully. Most people here are cool to talk to and can actually hold a decent debate. But if some people don't know the basics of how to have a constructive discussion, that's not on me. At the end of the day, they aren't looking for truth or solid logic; they're just clinging to their dogmas. The second you challenge those beliefs, they get super emotional. It's classic...

neonmarlin39 said:I think I made my point pretty clear, including the fact that basically zero traditional, classic schools of yoga ever used those specific terms or names (and yeah, I mentioned Sivananda might have used it once or twice, but not in this context). Most of this is just New Age terminology at best, or just modern fluff. And don't even get me started on people rambling about Kundalini awakening practices when they haven't even mastered basic breathing or controlling their own minds. I asked you for the name of your "instructor's" school so we could figure out what's actually going on here...

So that makes you rude, insulting, and attacking other people?

We already talked about how flawed it is to interpret your own experiences without guidance—like how every Tom, Dick, and Harry tries to decode their visions based on some random dream a grandma had. There's way too much nonsense, dogma, and bad logic floating around, and we aren't here to validate that stuff. It’s the exact same deal with things like UFO sightings.

And there you go again, trying to pseudo-psychoanalyze everyone else. Maybe check the forum rules.

Yeah, it shows. Honestly, I still can't quite wrap my head around what you're actually trying to preach to me here...

Look, skepticism isn't inherently a bad thing. You kind of missed the forest for the trees, though—the real issue is that it's impossible to have a serious, deep conversation with certain people. Instead of using actual arguments or evidence, they just resort to psychoanalyzing you or throwing insults. Some of these folks act like they're enlightened masters, but honestly, by any standard, they're just dogmatic believers. There's definitely a handful of them on this forum—not everyone is like that, thankfully. Most people here are cool to talk to and can actually hold a decent debate. But if some people don't know the basics of how to have a constructive discussion, that's not on me. At the end of the day, they aren't looking for truth or solid logic; they're just clinging to their dogmas. The second you challenge those beliefs, they get super emotional. It's classic...

neonmarlin39 said:I think I made my point pretty clear, including the fact that basically zero traditional, classic schools of yoga ever used those specific terms or names (and yeah, I mentioned Sivananda might have used it once or twice, but not in this context). Most of this is just New Age terminology at best, or just modern fluff. And don't even get me started on people rambling about Kundalini awakening practices when they haven't even mastered basic breathing or controlling their own minds. I asked you for the name of your "instructor's" school so we could figure out what's actually going on here...

So that makes you rude, insulting, and attacking other people?

We already talked about how flawed it is to interpret your own experiences without guidance—like how every Tom, Dick, and Harry tries to decode their visions based on some random dream a grandma had. There's way too much nonsense, dogma, and bad logic floating around, and we aren't here to validate that stuff. It’s the exact same deal with things like UFO sightings.

And there you go again, trying to pseudo-psychoanalyze everyone else. Maybe check the forum rules.

Yeah, it shows. Honestly, I still can't quite wrap my head around what you're actually trying to preach to me here...

Look, skepticism isn't inherently a bad thing. You kind of missed the forest for the trees, though—the real issue is that it's impossible to have a serious, deep conversation with certain people. Instead of using actual arguments or evidence, they just resort to psychoanalyzing you or throwing insults. Some of these folks act like they're enlightened masters, but honestly, by any standard, they're just dogmatic believers. There's definitely a handful of them on this forum—not everyone is like that, thankfully. Most people here are cool to talk to and can actually hold a decent debate. But if some people don't know the basics of how to have a constructive discussion, that's not on me. At the end of the day, they aren't looking for truth or solid logic; they're just clinging to their dogmas. The second you challenge those beliefs, they get super emotional. It's classic...

neonmarlin39 said:I think I made my point pretty clear, including the fact that basically zero traditional, classic schools of yoga ever used those specific terms or names (and yeah, I mentioned Sivananda might have used it once or twice, but not in this context). Most of this is just New Age terminology at best, or just modern fluff. And don't even get me started on people rambling about Kundalini awakening practices when they haven't even mastered basic breathing or controlling their own minds. I asked you for the name of your "instructor's" school so we could figure out what's actually going on here...

So that makes you rude, insulting, and attacking other people?

We already talked about how flawed it is to interpret your own experiences without guidance—like how every Tom, Dick, and Harry tries to decode their visions based on some random dream a grandma had. There's way too much nonsense, dogma, and bad logic floating around, and we aren't here to validate that stuff. It’s the exact same deal with things like UFO sightings.

And there you go again, trying to pseudo-psychoanalyze everyone else. Maybe check the forum rules.

Yeah, it shows. Honestly, I still can't quite wrap my head around what you're actually trying to preach to me here...

Look, skepticism isn't inherently a bad thing. You kind of missed the forest for the trees, though—the real issue is that it's impossible to have a serious, deep conversation with certain people. Instead of using actual arguments or evidence, they just resort to psychoanalyzing you or throwing insults. Some of these folks act like they're enlightened masters, but honestly, by any standard, they're just dogmatic believers. There's definitely a handful of them on this forum—not everyone is like that, thankfully. Most people here are cool to talk to and can actually hold a decent debate. But if some people don't know the basics of how to have a constructive discussion, that's not on me. At the end of the day, they aren't looking for truth or solid logic; they're just clinging to their dogmas. The second you challenge those beliefs, they get super emotional. It's classic...

neonmarlin39 said:I think I made my point pretty clear, including the fact that basically zero traditional, classic schools of yoga ever used those specific terms or names (and yeah, I mentioned Sivananda might have used it once or twice, but not in this context). Most of this is just New Age terminology at best, or just modern fluff. And don't even get me started on people rambling about Kundalini awakening practices when they haven't even mastered basic breathing or controlling their own minds. I asked you for the name of your "instructor's" school so we could figure out what's actually going on here...

So that makes you rude, insulting, and attacking other people?

We already talked about how flawed it is to interpret your own experiences without guidance—like how every Tom, Dick, and Harry tries to decode their visions based on some random dream a grandma had. There's way too much nonsense, dogma, and bad logic floating around, and we aren't here to validate that stuff. It’s the exact same deal with things like UFO sightings.

And there you go again, trying to pseudo-psychoanalyze everyone else. Maybe check the forum rules.

Yeah, it shows. Honestly, I still can't quite wrap my head around what you're actually trying to preach to me here...

Look, skepticism isn't inherently a bad thing. You kind of missed the forest for the trees, though—the real issue is that it's impossible to have a serious, deep conversation with certain people. Instead of using actual arguments or evidence, they just resort to psychoanalyzing you or throwing insults. Some of these folks act like they're enlightened masters, but honestly, by any standard, they're just dogmatic believers. There's definitely a handful of them on this forum—not everyone is like that, thankfully. Most people here are cool to talk to and can actually hold a decent debate. But if some people don't know the basics of how to have a constructive discussion, that's not on me. At the end of the day, they aren't looking for truth or solid logic; they're just clinging to their dogmas. The second you challenge those beliefs, they get super emotional. It's classic...

neonmarlin39 said:I think I made my point pretty clear, including the fact that basically zero traditional, classic schools of yoga ever used those specific terms or names (and yeah, I mentioned Sivananda might have used it once or twice, but not in this context). Most of this is just New Age terminology at best, or just modern fluff. And don't even get me started on people rambling about Kundalini awakening practices when they haven't even mastered basic breathing or controlling their own minds. I asked you for the name of your "instructor's" school so we could figure out what's actually going on here...

So that makes you rude, insulting, and attacking other people?

We already talked about how flawed it is to interpret your own experiences without guidance—like how every Tom, Dick, and Harry tries to decode their visions based on some random dream a grandma had. There's way too much nonsense, dogma, and bad logic floating around, and we aren't here to validate that stuff. It’s the exact same deal with things like UFO sightings.

And there you go again, trying to pseudo-psychoanalyze everyone else. Maybe check the forum rules.

Yeah, it shows. Honestly, I still can't quite wrap my head around what you're actually trying to preach to me here...

Look, skepticism isn't inherently a bad thing. You kind of missed the forest for the trees, though—the real issue is that it's impossible to have a serious, deep conversation with certain people. Instead of using actual arguments or evidence, they just resort to psychoanalyzing you or throwing insults. Some of these folks act like they're enlightened masters, but honestly, by any standard, they're just dogmatic believers. There's definitely a handful of them on this forum—not everyone is like that, thankfully. Most people here are cool to talk to and can actually hold a decent debate. But if some people don't know the basics of how to have a constructive discussion, that's not on me. At the end of the day, they aren't looking for truth or solid logic; they're just clinging to their dogmas. The second you challenge those beliefs, they get super emotional. It's classic...

lonestag15 said:Look, I already said I wasn't the one who actually coined that term or started that specific center... anyway, it’s not really about nitpicking over the vocabulary—it's about the actual understanding of what's going on here (and we both know exactly what I mean)...

I told you I’d hit you up once I finally got a hold of him...

Your posts have this way of throwing people off balance—just a little bit, but it’s definitely happening... And I'm saying that as an outsider just watching your back-and-forth exchange with that guy earlier. If you actually want to have a constructive conversation, you might want to take the criticism to heart...

Look, I could sit here and type for a hundred days straight and I still wouldn't be able to prove to you that these symptoms are actually happening—mostly because you just keep trying to link everything back to UFOs (again)... Seriously. Fine, I’m dropping the subjective arguments if that's what it takes, but let me remind you one more time: this kind of approach is perfectly scientific and respected... plenty of major research studies are conducted using the exact same logic of sampling, percentages, and conclusions...

Yeah, so this is what you call "projection" when I’m the one doing the psychoanalyzing—according to you. After you went ahead and wrote that a character is mentally unstable just because they take psychedelics? That is some top-tier projection and hypocrisy right there. It isn't even close to being "quasi"—you can see it from a mile away... And then you have the nerve to tell me to go study the forum rules when you don't even follow them yourself. I analyze because I need to know exactly who I'm dealing with on the other side—I'm not out here playing pretend...

So I told you straight up—biology isn't really my lane—but you just go ahead and chop my post down to that one little phrase, quote it back at me, and then decide to comment on... that? Seriously...

What can you tell? Is it obvious that biology isn't exactly my specialty?...
I told you straight up I wasn't going to write anything on that front—mostly so you wouldn't have any excuse to tear my arguments apart or butcher the post... so what was that you just did, slicing it all up again?
So, come on then—what kind of work do you actually do...?

Look, I wrote that from a purely technical standpoint—you know, looking at it through an electrical engineering lens—because that’s my lane and I actually get how the circuitry works. As for the rest of it... yeah, I get the biological and psychological side of things too, but I decided to keep my mouth shut. I didn't feel like giving you any ammunition just so you could go hunting for a needle in a haystack if I tripped up even slightly...

I mean, sure, maybe not—but honestly, staying open to different perspectives and actual evidence is always a better move... I laid out my theory and even pointed to existing research, like EEG studies—you know, the stuff Dr. Miller does measuring brain wave shifts in long-term meditators. The whole point of those readings is that the change in brain waves is real. Once you drop down into those lower, subconscious frequencies, you’re basically at the mercy of your own subconscious... and if that thing isn't in order, it'll tear a practitioner apart in a heartbeat...

Lack of arguments?
Lack of evidence?
Lack of any actual deep discussion?

I’m providing the arguments, the evidence, AND the deep dive right here...
But I guess for "certain people," this is all just playing games... if you've got something to say, just say it straight to me...

What does "by every standard they're just believers" actually mean? (You basically accused every believer of something without even explaining what...)
How exactly are you "spiritual" while they aren't?

And again, "many of them"—more dancing around the point... if you've got something, tell me directly. I prefer that over this polite skipping around like it's a game of chess. We aren't politicians...

Well, you're having a "decent debate" right now...

Nothing like that on my end—I don't subscribe to dogmas, everything is up for questioning... and we aren't even talking about dogmas yet.

And regarding this whole thing about getting emotional when being attacked (which I've mentioned in another thread)—do you know what it means to love your own views while respecting others?

Look, I have plenty of criticisms regarding believers too (hypocrisy is number one, obviously)... but I don't go out of my way to attack people with that specific mission. Criticizing someone's lack of religiosity just insults the person. Dogma is a choice, and you can't argue with taste. Believing in dogmas is literally a matter of choice—you see the logical gaps... and from there, you choose whether to believe or not... you always have the option to just walk away from someone like that.

Paul Rogers94 said:By the way, Joan Rivers, Ph.D. serves as the spiritual director for Yoga Journal (Yoga Alliance).

lonestag15 said:It was the exact same deal with that whole "kundalini yoga" thing and the "kundalini symptom" nonsense...

...everyone's just confused about what they're actually talking about, so there's really no point in getting worked up over it...

lonestag15 said:You know what the best part is about everything he finally wrote...

It basically nuked the whole middleman concept—completely stripped away the priest's role as some kind of gatekeeper... you know, that monopoly on God that every single religion tries to claim for themselves.

So, based on what’s written here—your relationship with God is actually personal... you don't need to go trampling into some church or bowing down to authority figures just to make it happen...

Sweet

lonestag15 said:Look, I already said I wasn't the one who actually coined that term or started that specific center... anyway, it’s not really about nitpicking over the vocabulary—it's about the actual understanding of what's going on here (and we both know exactly what I mean)...

I told you I’d hit you up once I finally got a hold of him...

Your posts have this way of throwing people off balance—just a little bit, but it’s definitely happening... And I'm saying that as an outsider just watching your back-and-forth exchange with that guy earlier. If you actually want to have a constructive conversation, you might want to take the criticism to heart...

Look, I could sit here and type for a hundred days straight and I still wouldn't be able to prove to you that these symptoms are actually happening—mostly because you just keep trying to link everything back to UFOs (again)... Seriously. Fine, I’m dropping the subjective arguments if that's what it takes, but let me remind you one more time: this kind of approach is perfectly scientific and respected... plenty of major research studies are conducted using the exact same logic of sampling, percentages, and conclusions...

Yeah, so this is what you call "projection" when I’m the one doing the psychoanalyzing—according to you. After you went ahead and wrote that a character is mentally unstable just because they take psychedelics? That is some top-tier projection and hypocrisy right there. It isn't even close to being "quasi"—you can see it from a mile away... And then you have the nerve to tell me to go study the forum rules when you don't even follow them yourself. I analyze because I need to know exactly who I'm dealing with on the other side—I'm not out here playing pretend...

So I told you straight up—biology isn't really my lane—but you just go ahead and chop my post down to that one little phrase, quote it back at me, and then decide to comment on... that? Seriously...

What can you tell? Is it obvious that biology isn't exactly my specialty?...
I told you straight up I wasn't going to write anything on that front—mostly so you wouldn't have any excuse to tear my arguments apart or butcher the post... so what was that you just did, slicing it all up again?
So, come on then—what kind of work do you actually do...?

Look, I wrote that from a purely technical standpoint—you know, looking at it through an electrical engineering lens—because that’s my lane and I actually get how the circuitry works. As for the rest of it... yeah, I get the biological and psychological side of things too, but I decided to keep my mouth shut. I didn't feel like giving you any ammunition just so you could go hunting for a needle in a haystack if I tripped up even slightly...

I mean, sure, maybe not—but honestly, staying open to different perspectives and actual evidence is always a better move... I laid out my theory and even pointed to existing research, like EEG studies—you know, the stuff Dr. Miller does measuring brain wave shifts in long-term meditators. The whole point of those readings is that the change in brain waves is real. Once you drop down into those lower, subconscious frequencies, you’re basically at the mercy of your own subconscious... and if that thing isn't in order, it'll tear a practitioner apart in a heartbeat...

Lack of arguments?
Lack of evidence?
Lack of any actual deep discussion?

I’m providing the arguments, the evidence, AND the deep dive right here...
But I guess for "certain people," this is all just playing games... if you've got something to say, just say it straight to me...

What does "by every standard they're just believers" actually mean? (You basically accused every believer of something without even explaining what...)
How exactly are you "spiritual" while they aren't?

And again, "many of them"—more dancing around the point... if you've got something, tell me directly. I prefer that over this polite skipping around like it's a game of chess. We aren't politicians...

Well, you're having a "decent debate" right now...

Nothing like that on my end—I don't subscribe to dogmas, everything is up for questioning... and we aren't even talking about dogmas yet.

And regarding this whole thing about getting emotional when being attacked (which I've mentioned in another thread)—do you know what it means to love your own views while respecting others?

Look, I have plenty of criticisms regarding believers too (hypocrisy is number one, obviously)... but I don't go out of my way to attack people with that specific mission. Criticizing someone's lack of religiosity just insults the person. Dogma is a choice, and you can't argue with taste. Believing in dogmas is literally a matter of choice—you see the logical gaps... and from there, you choose whether to believe or not... you always have the option to just walk away from someone like that.

lonestag15 said:Look, I already said I wasn't the one who actually coined that term or started that specific center... anyway, it’s not really about nitpicking over the vocabulary—it's about the actual understanding of what's going on here (and we both know exactly what I mean)...

I told you I’d hit you up once I finally got a hold of him...

Your posts have this way of throwing people off balance—just a little bit, but it’s definitely happening... And I'm saying that as an outsider just watching your back-and-forth exchange with that guy earlier. If you actually want to have a constructive conversation, you might want to take the criticism to heart...

Look, I could sit here and type for a hundred days straight and I still wouldn't be able to prove to you that these symptoms are actually happening—mostly because you just keep trying to link everything back to UFOs (again)... Seriously. Fine, I’m dropping the subjective arguments if that's what it takes, but let me remind you one more time: this kind of approach is perfectly scientific and respected... plenty of major research studies are conducted using the exact same logic of sampling, percentages, and conclusions...

Yeah, so this is what you call "projection" when I’m the one doing the psychoanalyzing—according to you. After you went ahead and wrote that a character is mentally unstable just because they take psychedelics? That is some top-tier projection and hypocrisy right there. It isn't even close to being "quasi"—you can see it from a mile away... And then you have the nerve to tell me to go study the forum rules when you don't even follow them yourself. I analyze because I need to know exactly who I'm dealing with on the other side—I'm not out here playing pretend...

So I told you straight up—biology isn't really my lane—but you just go ahead and chop my post down to that one little phrase, quote it back at me, and then decide to comment on... that? Seriously...

What can you tell? Is it obvious that biology isn't exactly my specialty?...
I told you straight up I wasn't going to write anything on that front—mostly so you wouldn't have any excuse to tear my arguments apart or butcher the post... so what was that you just did, slicing it all up again?
So, come on then—what kind of work do you actually do...?

Look, I wrote that from a purely technical standpoint—you know, looking at it through an electrical engineering lens—because that’s my lane and I actually get how the circuitry works. As for the rest of it... yeah, I get the biological and psychological side of things too, but I decided to keep my mouth shut. I didn't feel like giving you any ammunition just so you could go hunting for a needle in a haystack if I tripped up even slightly...

I mean, sure, maybe not—but honestly, staying open to different perspectives and actual evidence is always a better move... I laid out my theory and even pointed to existing research, like EEG studies—you know, the stuff Dr. Miller does measuring brain wave shifts in long-term meditators. The whole point of those readings is that the change in brain waves is real. Once you drop down into those lower, subconscious frequencies, you’re basically at the mercy of your own subconscious... and if that thing isn't in order, it'll tear a practitioner apart in a heartbeat...

Lack of arguments?
Lack of evidence?
Lack of any actual deep discussion?

I’m providing the arguments, the evidence, AND the deep dive right here...
But I guess for "certain people," this is all just playing games... if you've got something to say, just say it straight to me...

What does "by every standard they're just believers" actually mean? (You basically accused every believer of something without even explaining what...)
How exactly are you "spiritual" while they aren't?

And again, "many of them"—more dancing around the point... if you've got something, tell me directly. I prefer that over this polite skipping around like it's a game of chess. We aren't politicians...

Well, you're having a "decent debate" right now...

Nothing like that on my end—I don't subscribe to dogmas, everything is up for questioning... and we aren't even talking about dogmas yet.

And regarding this whole thing about getting emotional when being attacked (which I've mentioned in another thread)—do you know what it means to love your own views while respecting others?

Look, I have plenty of criticisms regarding believers too (hypocrisy is number one, obviously)... but I don't go out of my way to attack people with that specific mission. Criticizing someone's lack of religiosity just insults the person. Dogma is a choice, and you can't argue with taste. Believing in dogmas is literally a matter of choice—you see the logical gaps... and from there, you choose whether to believe or not... you always have the option to just walk away from someone like that.

lonestag15 said:Look, I already said I wasn't the one who actually coined that term or started that specific center... anyway, it’s not really about nitpicking over the vocabulary—it's about the actual understanding of what's going on here (and we both know exactly what I mean)...

I told you I’d hit you up once I finally got a hold of him...

Your posts have this way of throwing people off balance—just a little bit, but it’s definitely happening... And I'm saying that as an outsider just watching your back-and-forth exchange with that guy earlier. If you actually want to have a constructive conversation, you might want to take the criticism to heart...

Look, I could sit here and type for a hundred days straight and I still wouldn't be able to prove to you that these symptoms are actually happening—mostly because you just keep trying to link everything back to UFOs (again)... Seriously. Fine, I’m dropping the subjective arguments if that's what it takes, but let me remind you one more time: this kind of approach is perfectly scientific and respected... plenty of major research studies are conducted using the exact same logic of sampling, percentages, and conclusions...

Yeah, so this is what you call "projection" when I’m the one doing the psychoanalyzing—according to you. After you went ahead and wrote that a character is mentally unstable just because they take psychedelics? That is some top-tier projection and hypocrisy right there. It isn't even close to being "quasi"—you can see it from a mile away... And then you have the nerve to tell me to go study the forum rules when you don't even follow them yourself. I analyze because I need to know exactly who I'm dealing with on the other side—I'm not out here playing pretend...

So I told you straight up—biology isn't really my lane—but you just go ahead and chop my post down to that one little phrase, quote it back at me, and then decide to comment on... that? Seriously...

What can you tell? Is it obvious that biology isn't exactly my specialty?...
I told you straight up I wasn't going to write anything on that front—mostly so you wouldn't have any excuse to tear my arguments apart or butcher the post... so what was that you just did, slicing it all up again?
So, come on then—what kind of work do you actually do...?

Look, I wrote that from a purely technical standpoint—you know, looking at it through an electrical engineering lens—because that’s my lane and I actually get how the circuitry works. As for the rest of it... yeah, I get the biological and psychological side of things too, but I decided to keep my mouth shut. I didn't feel like giving you any ammunition just so you could go hunting for a needle in a haystack if I tripped up even slightly...

I mean, sure, maybe not—but honestly, staying open to different perspectives and actual evidence is always a better move... I laid out my theory and even pointed to existing research, like EEG studies—you know, the stuff Dr. Miller does measuring brain wave shifts in long-term meditators. The whole point of those readings is that the change in brain waves is real. Once you drop down into those lower, subconscious frequencies, you’re basically at the mercy of your own subconscious... and if that thing isn't in order, it'll tear a practitioner apart in a heartbeat...

Lack of arguments?
Lack of evidence?
Lack of any actual deep discussion?

I’m providing the arguments, the evidence, AND the deep dive right here...
But I guess for "certain people," this is all just playing games... if you've got something to say, just say it straight to me...

What does "by every standard they're just believers" actually mean? (You basically accused every believer of something without even explaining what...)
How exactly are you "spiritual" while they aren't?

And again, "many of them"—more dancing around the point... if you've got something, tell me directly. I prefer that over this polite skipping around like it's a game of chess. We aren't politicians...

Well, you're having a "decent debate" right now...

Nothing like that on my end—I don't subscribe to dogmas, everything is up for questioning... and we aren't even talking about dogmas yet.

And regarding this whole thing about getting emotional when being attacked (which I've mentioned in another thread)—do you know what it means to love your own views while respecting others?

Look, I have plenty of criticisms regarding believers too (hypocrisy is number one, obviously)... but I don't go out of my way to attack people with that specific mission. Criticizing someone's lack of religiosity just insults the person. Dogma is a choice, and you can't argue with taste. Believing in dogmas is literally a matter of choice—you see the logical gaps... and from there, you choose whether to believe or not... you always have the option to just walk away from someone like that.

lonestag15 said:Look, I already said I wasn't the one who actually coined that term or started that specific center... anyway, it’s not really about nitpicking over the vocabulary—it's about the actual understanding of what's going on here (and we both know exactly what I mean)...

I told you I’d hit you up once I finally got a hold of him...

Your posts have this way of throwing people off balance—just a little bit, but it’s definitely happening... And I'm saying that as an outsider just watching your back-and-forth exchange with that guy earlier. If you actually want to have a constructive conversation, you might want to take the criticism to heart...

Look, I could sit here and type for a hundred days straight and I still wouldn't be able to prove to you that these symptoms are actually happening—mostly because you just keep trying to link everything back to UFOs (again)... Seriously. Fine, I’m dropping the subjective arguments if that's what it takes, but let me remind you one more time: this kind of approach is perfectly scientific and respected... plenty of major research studies are conducted using the exact same logic of sampling, percentages, and conclusions...

Yeah, so this is what you call "projection" when I’m the one doing the psychoanalyzing—according to you. After you went ahead and wrote that a character is mentally unstable just because they take psychedelics? That is some top-tier projection and hypocrisy right there. It isn't even close to being "quasi"—you can see it from a mile away... And then you have the nerve to tell me to go study the forum rules when you don't even follow them yourself. I analyze because I need to know exactly who I'm dealing with on the other side—I'm not out here playing pretend...

So I told you straight up—biology isn't really my lane—but you just go ahead and chop my post down to that one little phrase, quote it back at me, and then decide to comment on... that? Seriously...

What can you tell? Is it obvious that biology isn't exactly my specialty?...
I told you straight up I wasn't going to write anything on that front—mostly so you wouldn't have any excuse to tear my arguments apart or butcher the post... so what was that you just did, slicing it all up again?
So, come on then—what kind of work do you actually do...?

Look, I wrote that from a purely technical standpoint—you know, looking at it through an electrical engineering lens—because that’s my lane and I actually get how the circuitry works. As for the rest of it... yeah, I get the biological and psychological side of things too, but I decided to keep my mouth shut. I didn't feel like giving you any ammunition just so you could go hunting for a needle in a haystack if I tripped up even slightly...

I mean, sure, maybe not—but honestly, staying open to different perspectives and actual evidence is always a better move... I laid out my theory and even pointed to existing research, like EEG studies—you know, the stuff Dr. Miller does measuring brain wave shifts in long-term meditators. The whole point of those readings is that the change in brain waves is real. Once you drop down into those lower, subconscious frequencies, you’re basically at the mercy of your own subconscious... and if that thing isn't in order, it'll tear a practitioner apart in a heartbeat...

Lack of arguments?
Lack of evidence?
Lack of any actual deep discussion?

I’m providing the arguments, the evidence, AND the deep dive right here...
But I guess for "certain people," this is all just playing games... if you've got something to say, just say it straight to me...

What does "by every standard they're just believers" actually mean? (You basically accused every believer of something without even explaining what...)
How exactly are you "spiritual" while they aren't?

And again, "many of them"—more dancing around the point... if you've got something, tell me directly. I prefer that over this polite skipping around like it's a game of chess. We aren't politicians...

Well, you're having a "decent debate" right now...

Nothing like that on my end—I don't subscribe to dogmas, everything is up for questioning... and we aren't even talking about dogmas yet.

And regarding this whole thing about getting emotional when being attacked (which I've mentioned in another thread)—do you know what it means to love your own views while respecting others?

Look, I have plenty of criticisms regarding believers too (hypocrisy is number one, obviously)... but I don't go out of my way to attack people with that specific mission. Criticizing someone's lack of religiosity just insults the person. Dogma is a choice, and you can't argue with taste. Believing in dogmas is literally a matter of choice—you see the logical gaps... and from there, you choose whether to believe or not... you always have the option to just walk away from someone like that.

lonestag15 said:Look, I already said I wasn't the one who actually coined that term or started that specific center... anyway, it’s not really about nitpicking over the vocabulary—it's about the actual understanding of what's going on here (and we both know exactly what I mean)...

I told you I’d hit you up once I finally got a hold of him...

Your posts have this way of throwing people off balance—just a little bit, but it’s definitely happening... And I'm saying that as an outsider just watching your back-and-forth exchange with that guy earlier. If you actually want to have a constructive conversation, you might want to take the criticism to heart...

Look, I could sit here and type for a hundred days straight and I still wouldn't be able to prove to you that these symptoms are actually happening—mostly because you just keep trying to link everything back to UFOs (again)... Seriously. Fine, I’m dropping the subjective arguments if that's what it takes, but let me remind you one more time: this kind of approach is perfectly scientific and respected... plenty of major research studies are conducted using the exact same logic of sampling, percentages, and conclusions...

Yeah, so this is what you call "projection" when I’m the one doing the psychoanalyzing—according to you. After you went ahead and wrote that a character is mentally unstable just because they take psychedelics? That is some top-tier projection and hypocrisy right there. It isn't even close to being "quasi"—you can see it from a mile away... And then you have the nerve to tell me to go study the forum rules when you don't even follow them yourself. I analyze because I need to know exactly who I'm dealing with on the other side—I'm not out here playing pretend...

So I told you straight up—biology isn't really my lane—but you just go ahead and chop my post down to that one little phrase, quote it back at me, and then decide to comment on... that? Seriously...

What can you tell? Is it obvious that biology isn't exactly my specialty?...
I told you straight up I wasn't going to write anything on that front—mostly so you wouldn't have any excuse to tear my arguments apart or butcher the post... so what was that you just did, slicing it all up again?
So, come on then—what kind of work do you actually do...?

Look, I wrote that from a purely technical standpoint—you know, looking at it through an electrical engineering lens—because that’s my lane and I actually get how the circuitry works. As for the rest of it... yeah, I get the biological and psychological side of things too, but I decided to keep my mouth shut. I didn't feel like giving you any ammunition just so you could go hunting for a needle in a haystack if I tripped up even slightly...

I mean, sure, maybe not—but honestly, staying open to different perspectives and actual evidence is always a better move... I laid out my theory and even pointed to existing research, like EEG studies—you know, the stuff Dr. Miller does measuring brain wave shifts in long-term meditators. The whole point of those readings is that the change in brain waves is real. Once you drop down into those lower, subconscious frequencies, you’re basically at the mercy of your own subconscious... and if that thing isn't in order, it'll tear a practitioner apart in a heartbeat...

Lack of arguments?
Lack of evidence?
Lack of any actual deep discussion?

I’m providing the arguments, the evidence, AND the deep dive right here...
But I guess for "certain people," this is all just playing games... if you've got something to say, just say it straight to me...

What does "by every standard they're just believers" actually mean? (You basically accused every believer of something without even explaining what...)
How exactly are you "spiritual" while they aren't?

And again, "many of them"—more dancing around the point... if you've got something, tell me directly. I prefer that over this polite skipping around like it's a game of chess. We aren't politicians...

Well, you're having a "decent debate" right now...

Nothing like that on my end—I don't subscribe to dogmas, everything is up for questioning... and we aren't even talking about dogmas yet.

And regarding this whole thing about getting emotional when being attacked (which I've mentioned in another thread)—do you know what it means to love your own views while respecting others?

Look, I have plenty of criticisms regarding believers too (hypocrisy is number one, obviously)... but I don't go out of my way to attack people with that specific mission. Criticizing someone's lack of religiosity just insults the person. Dogma is a choice, and you can't argue with taste. Believing in dogmas is literally a matter of choice—you see the logical gaps... and from there, you choose whether to believe or not... you always have the option to just walk away from someone like that.

lonestag15 said:Look, I already said I wasn't the one who actually coined that term or started that specific center... anyway, it’s not really about nitpicking over the vocabulary—it's about the actual understanding of what's going on here (and we both know exactly what I mean)...

I told you I’d hit you up once I finally got a hold of him...

Your posts have this way of throwing people off balance—just a little bit, but it’s definitely happening... And I'm saying that as an outsider just watching your back-and-forth exchange with that guy earlier. If you actually want to have a constructive conversation, you might want to take the criticism to heart...

Look, I could sit here and type for a hundred days straight and I still wouldn't be able to prove to you that these symptoms are actually happening—mostly because you just keep trying to link everything back to UFOs (again)... Seriously. Fine, I’m dropping the subjective arguments if that's what it takes, but let me remind you one more time: this kind of approach is perfectly scientific and respected... plenty of major research studies are conducted using the exact same logic of sampling, percentages, and conclusions...

Yeah, so this is what you call "projection" when I’m the one doing the psychoanalyzing—according to you. After you went ahead and wrote that a character is mentally unstable just because they take psychedelics? That is some top-tier projection and hypocrisy right there. It isn't even close to being "quasi"—you can see it from a mile away... And then you have the nerve to tell me to go study the forum rules when you don't even follow them yourself. I analyze because I need to know exactly who I'm dealing with on the other side—I'm not out here playing pretend...

So I told you straight up—biology isn't really my lane—but you just go ahead and chop my post down to that one little phrase, quote it back at me, and then decide to comment on... that? Seriously...

What can you tell? Is it obvious that biology isn't exactly my specialty?...
I told you straight up I wasn't going to write anything on that front—mostly so you wouldn't have any excuse to tear my arguments apart or butcher the post... so what was that you just did, slicing it all up again?
So, come on then—what kind of work do you actually do...?

Look, I wrote that from a purely technical standpoint—you know, looking at it through an electrical engineering lens—because that’s my lane and I actually get how the circuitry works. As for the rest of it... yeah, I get the biological and psychological side of things too, but I decided to keep my mouth shut. I didn't feel like giving you any ammunition just so you could go hunting for a needle in a haystack if I tripped up even slightly...

I mean, sure, maybe not—but honestly, staying open to different perspectives and actual evidence is always a better move... I laid out my theory and even pointed to existing research, like EEG studies—you know, the stuff Dr. Miller does measuring brain wave shifts in long-term meditators. The whole point of those readings is that the change in brain waves is real. Once you drop down into those lower, subconscious frequencies, you’re basically at the mercy of your own subconscious... and if that thing isn't in order, it'll tear a practitioner apart in a heartbeat...

Lack of arguments?
Lack of evidence?
Lack of any actual deep discussion?

I’m providing the arguments, the evidence, AND the deep dive right here...
But I guess for "certain people," this is all just playing games... if you've got something to say, just say it straight to me...

What does "by every standard they're just believers" actually mean? (You basically accused every believer of something without even explaining what...)
How exactly are you "spiritual" while they aren't?

And again, "many of them"—more dancing around the point... if you've got something, tell me directly. I prefer that over this polite skipping around like it's a game of chess. We aren't politicians...

Well, you're having a "decent debate" right now...

Nothing like that on my end—I don't subscribe to dogmas, everything is up for questioning... and we aren't even talking about dogmas yet.

And regarding this whole thing about getting emotional when being attacked (which I've mentioned in another thread)—do you know what it means to love your own views while respecting others?

Look, I have plenty of criticisms regarding believers too (hypocrisy is number one, obviously)... but I don't go out of my way to attack people with that specific mission. Criticizing someone's lack of religiosity just insults the person. Dogma is a choice, and you can't argue with taste. Believing in dogmas is literally a matter of choice—you see the logical gaps... and from there, you choose whether to believe or not... you always have the option to just walk away from someone like that.

lonestag15 said:Look, I already said I wasn't the one who actually coined that term or started that specific center... anyway, it’s not really about nitpicking over the vocabulary—it's about the actual understanding of what's going on here (and we both know exactly what I mean)...

I told you I’d hit you up once I finally got a hold of him...

Your posts have this way of throwing people off balance—just a little bit, but it’s definitely happening... And I'm saying that as an outsider just watching your back-and-forth exchange with that guy earlier. If you actually want to have a constructive conversation, you might want to take the criticism to heart...

Look, I could sit here and type for a hundred days straight and I still wouldn't be able to prove to you that these symptoms are actually happening—mostly because you just keep trying to link everything back to UFOs (again)... Seriously. Fine, I’m dropping the subjective arguments if that's what it takes, but let me remind you one more time: this kind of approach is perfectly scientific and respected... plenty of major research studies are conducted using the exact same logic of sampling, percentages, and conclusions...

Yeah, so this is what you call "projection" when I’m the one doing the psychoanalyzing—according to you. After you went ahead and wrote that a character is mentally unstable just because they take psychedelics? That is some top-tier projection and hypocrisy right there. It isn't even close to being "quasi"—you can see it from a mile away... And then you have the nerve to tell me to go study the forum rules when you don't even follow them yourself. I analyze because I need to know exactly who I'm dealing with on the other side—I'm not out here playing pretend...

So I told you straight up—biology isn't really my lane—but you just go ahead and chop my post down to that one little phrase, quote it back at me, and then decide to comment on... that? Seriously...

What can you tell? Is it obvious that biology isn't exactly my specialty?...
I told you straight up I wasn't going to write anything on that front—mostly so you wouldn't have any excuse to tear my arguments apart or butcher the post... so what was that you just did, slicing it all up again?
So, come on then—what kind of work do you actually do...?

Look, I wrote that from a purely technical standpoint—you know, looking at it through an electrical engineering lens—because that’s my lane and I actually get how the circuitry works. As for the rest of it... yeah, I get the biological and psychological side of things too, but I decided to keep my mouth shut. I didn't feel like giving you any ammunition just so you could go hunting for a needle in a haystack if I tripped up even slightly...

I mean, sure, maybe not—but honestly, staying open to different perspectives and actual evidence is always a better move... I laid out my theory and even pointed to existing research, like EEG studies—you know, the stuff Dr. Miller does measuring brain wave shifts in long-term meditators. The whole point of those readings is that the change in brain waves is real. Once you drop down into those lower, subconscious frequencies, you’re basically at the mercy of your own subconscious... and if that thing isn't in order, it'll tear a practitioner apart in a heartbeat...

Lack of arguments?
Lack of evidence?
Lack of any actual deep discussion?

I’m providing the arguments, the evidence, AND the deep dive right here...
But I guess for "certain people," this is all just playing games... if you've got something to say, just say it straight to me...

What does "by every standard they're just believers" actually mean? (You basically accused every believer of something without even explaining what...)
How exactly are you "spiritual" while they aren't?

And again, "many of them"—more dancing around the point... if you've got something, tell me directly. I prefer that over this polite skipping around like it's a game of chess. We aren't politicians...

Well, you're having a "decent debate" right now...

Nothing like that on my end—I don't subscribe to dogmas, everything is up for questioning... and we aren't even talking about dogmas yet.

And regarding this whole thing about getting emotional when being attacked (which I've mentioned in another thread)—do you know what it means to love your own views while respecting others?

Look, I have plenty of criticisms regarding believers too (hypocrisy is number one, obviously)... but I don't go out of my way to attack people with that specific mission. Criticizing someone's lack of religiosity just insults the person. Dogma is a choice, and you can't argue with taste. Believing in dogmas is literally a matter of choice—you see the logical gaps... and from there, you choose whether to believe or not... you always have the option to just walk away from someone like that.

lonestag15 said:Look, I already said I wasn't the one who actually coined that term or started that specific center... anyway, it’s not really about nitpicking over the vocabulary—it's about the actual understanding of what's going on here (and we both know exactly what I mean)...

I told you I’d hit you up once I finally got a hold of him...

Your posts have this way of throwing people off balance—just a little bit, but it’s definitely happening... And I'm saying that as an outsider just watching your back-and-forth exchange with that guy earlier. If you actually want to have a constructive conversation, you might want to take the criticism to heart...

Look, I could sit here and type for a hundred days straight and I still wouldn't be able to prove to you that these symptoms are actually happening—mostly because you just keep trying to link everything back to UFOs (again)... Seriously. Fine, I’m dropping the subjective arguments if that's what it takes, but let me remind you one more time: this kind of approach is perfectly scientific and respected... plenty of major research studies are conducted using the exact same logic of sampling, percentages, and conclusions...

Yeah, so this is what you call "projection" when I’m the one doing the psychoanalyzing—according to you. After you went ahead and wrote that a character is mentally unstable just because they take psychedelics? That is some top-tier projection and hypocrisy right there. It isn't even close to being "quasi"—you can see it from a mile away... And then you have the nerve to tell me to go study the forum rules when you don't even follow them yourself. I analyze because I need to know exactly who I'm dealing with on the other side—I'm not out here playing pretend...

So I told you straight up—biology isn't really my lane—but you just go ahead and chop my post down to that one little phrase, quote it back at me, and then decide to comment on... that? Seriously...

What can you tell? Is it obvious that biology isn't exactly my specialty?...
I told you straight up I wasn't going to write anything on that front—mostly so you wouldn't have any excuse to tear my arguments apart or butcher the post... so what was that you just did, slicing it all up again?
So, come on then—what kind of work do you actually do...?

Look, I wrote that from a purely technical standpoint—you know, looking at it through an electrical engineering lens—because that’s my lane and I actually get how the circuitry works. As for the rest of it... yeah, I get the biological and psychological side of things too, but I decided to keep my mouth shut. I didn't feel like giving you any ammunition just so you could go hunting for a needle in a haystack if I tripped up even slightly...

I mean, sure, maybe not—but honestly, staying open to different perspectives and actual evidence is always a better move... I laid out my theory and even pointed to existing research, like EEG studies—you know, the stuff Dr. Miller does measuring brain wave shifts in long-term meditators. The whole point of those readings is that the change in brain waves is real. Once you drop down into those lower, subconscious frequencies, you’re basically at the mercy of your own subconscious... and if that thing isn't in order, it'll tear a practitioner apart in a heartbeat...

Lack of arguments?
Lack of evidence?
Lack of any actual deep discussion?

I’m providing the arguments, the evidence, AND the deep dive right here...
But I guess for "certain people," this is all just playing games... if you've got something to say, just say it straight to me...

What does "by every standard they're just believers" actually mean? (You basically accused every believer of something without even explaining what...)
How exactly are you "spiritual" while they aren't?

And again, "many of them"—more dancing around the point... if you've got something, tell me directly. I prefer that over this polite skipping around like it's a game of chess. We aren't politicians...

Well, you're having a "decent debate" right now...

Nothing like that on my end—I don't subscribe to dogmas, everything is up for questioning... and we aren't even talking about dogmas yet.

And regarding this whole thing about getting emotional when being attacked (which I've mentioned in another thread)—do you know what it means to love your own views while respecting others?

Look, I have plenty of criticisms regarding believers too (hypocrisy is number one, obviously)... but I don't go out of my way to attack people with that specific mission. Criticizing someone's lack of religiosity just insults the person. Dogma is a choice, and you can't argue with taste. Believing in dogmas is literally a matter of choice—you see the logical gaps... and from there, you choose whether to believe or not... you always have the option to just walk away from someone like that.

lonestag15 said:Look, I already said I wasn't the one who actually coined that term or started that specific center... anyway, it’s not really about nitpicking over the vocabulary—it's about the actual understanding of what's going on here (and we both know exactly what I mean)...

I told you I’d hit you up once I finally got a hold of him...

Your posts have this way of throwing people off balance—just a little bit, but it’s definitely happening... And I'm saying that as an outsider just watching your back-and-forth exchange with that guy earlier. If you actually want to have a constructive conversation, you might want to take the criticism to heart...

Look, I could sit here and type for a hundred days straight and I still wouldn't be able to prove to you that these symptoms are actually happening—mostly because you just keep trying to link everything back to UFOs (again)... Seriously. Fine, I’m dropping the subjective arguments if that's what it takes, but let me remind you one more time: this kind of approach is perfectly scientific and respected... plenty of major research studies are conducted using the exact same logic of sampling, percentages, and conclusions...

Yeah, so this is what you call "projection" when I’m the one doing the psychoanalyzing—according to you. After you went ahead and wrote that a character is mentally unstable just because they take psychedelics? That is some top-tier projection and hypocrisy right there. It isn't even close to being "quasi"—you can see it from a mile away... And then you have the nerve to tell me to go study the forum rules when you don't even follow them yourself. I analyze because I need to know exactly who I'm dealing with on the other side—I'm not out here playing pretend...

So I told you straight up—biology isn't really my lane—but you just go ahead and chop my post down to that one little phrase, quote it back at me, and then decide to comment on... that? Seriously...

What can you tell? Is it obvious that biology isn't exactly my specialty?...
I told you straight up I wasn't going to write anything on that front—mostly so you wouldn't have any excuse to tear my arguments apart or butcher the post... so what was that you just did, slicing it all up again?
So, come on then—what kind of work do you actually do...?

Look, I wrote that from a purely technical standpoint—you know, looking at it through an electrical engineering lens—because that’s my lane and I actually get how the circuitry works. As for the rest of it... yeah, I get the biological and psychological side of things too, but I decided to keep my mouth shut. I didn't feel like giving you any ammunition just so you could go hunting for a needle in a haystack if I tripped up even slightly...

I mean, sure, maybe not—but honestly, staying open to different perspectives and actual evidence is always a better move... I laid out my theory and even pointed to existing research, like EEG studies—you know, the stuff Dr. Miller does measuring brain wave shifts in long-term meditators. The whole point of those readings is that the change in brain waves is real. Once you drop down into those lower, subconscious frequencies, you’re basically at the mercy of your own subconscious... and if that thing isn't in order, it'll tear a practitioner apart in a heartbeat...

Lack of arguments?
Lack of evidence?
Lack of any actual deep discussion?

I’m providing the arguments, the evidence, AND the deep dive right here...
But I guess for "certain people," this is all just playing games... if you've got something to say, just say it straight to me...

What does "by every standard they're just believers" actually mean? (You basically accused every believer of something without even explaining what...)
How exactly are you "spiritual" while they aren't?

And again, "many of them"—more dancing around the point... if you've got something, tell me directly. I prefer that over this polite skipping around like it's a game of chess. We aren't politicians...

Well, you're having a "decent debate" right now...

Nothing like that on my end—I don't subscribe to dogmas, everything is up for questioning... and we aren't even talking about dogmas yet.

And regarding this whole thing about getting emotional when being attacked (which I've mentioned in another thread)—do you know what it means to love your own views while respecting others?

Look, I have plenty of criticisms regarding believers too (hypocrisy is number one, obviously)... but I don't go out of my way to attack people with that specific mission. Criticizing someone's lack of religiosity just insults the person. Dogma is a choice, and you can't argue with taste. Believing in dogmas is literally a matter of choice—you see the logical gaps... and from there, you choose whether to believe or not... you always have the option to just walk away from someone like that.

lonestag15 said:Look, I already said I wasn't the one who actually coined that term or started that specific center... anyway, it’s not really about nitpicking over the vocabulary—it's about the actual understanding of what's going on here (and we both know exactly what I mean)...

I told you I’d hit you up once I finally got a hold of him...

Your posts have this way of throwing people off balance—just a little bit, but it’s definitely happening... And I'm saying that as an outsider just watching your back-and-forth exchange with that guy earlier. If you actually want to have a constructive conversation, you might want to take the criticism to heart...

Look, I could sit here and type for a hundred days straight and I still wouldn't be able to prove to you that these symptoms are actually happening—mostly because you just keep trying to link everything back to UFOs (again)... Seriously. Fine, I’m dropping the subjective arguments if that's what it takes, but let me remind you one more time: this kind of approach is perfectly scientific and respected... plenty of major research studies are conducted using the exact same logic of sampling, percentages, and conclusions...

Yeah, so this is what you call "projection" when I’m the one doing the psychoanalyzing—according to you. After you went ahead and wrote that a character is mentally unstable just because they take psychedelics? That is some top-tier projection and hypocrisy right there. It isn't even close to being "quasi"—you can see it from a mile away... And then you have the nerve to tell me to go study the forum rules when you don't even follow them yourself. I analyze because I need to know exactly who I'm dealing with on the other side—I'm not out here playing pretend...

So I told you straight up—biology isn't really my lane—but you just go ahead and chop my post down to that one little phrase, quote it back at me, and then decide to comment on... that? Seriously...

What can you tell? Is it obvious that biology isn't exactly my specialty?...
I told you straight up I wasn't going to write anything on that front—mostly so you wouldn't have any excuse to tear my arguments apart or butcher the post... so what was that you just did, slicing it all up again?
So, come on then—what kind of work do you actually do...?

Look, I wrote that from a purely technical standpoint—you know, looking at it through an electrical engineering lens—because that’s my lane and I actually get how the circuitry works. As for the rest of it... yeah, I get the biological and psychological side of things too, but I decided to keep my mouth shut. I didn't feel like giving you any ammunition just so you could go hunting for a needle in a haystack if I tripped up even slightly...

I mean, sure, maybe not—but honestly, staying open to different perspectives and actual evidence is always a better move... I laid out my theory and even pointed to existing research, like EEG studies—you know, the stuff Dr. Miller does measuring brain wave shifts in long-term meditators. The whole point of those readings is that the change in brain waves is real. Once you drop down into those lower, subconscious frequencies, you’re basically at the mercy of your own subconscious... and if that thing isn't in order, it'll tear a practitioner apart in a heartbeat...

Lack of arguments?
Lack of evidence?
Lack of any actual deep discussion?

I’m providing the arguments, the evidence, AND the deep dive right here...
But I guess for "certain people," this is all just playing games... if you've got something to say, just say it straight to me...

What does "by every standard they're just believers" actually mean? (You basically accused every believer of something without even explaining what...)
How exactly are you "spiritual" while they aren't?

And again, "many of them"—more dancing around the point... if you've got something, tell me directly. I prefer that over this polite skipping around like it's a game of chess. We aren't politicians...

Well, you're having a "decent debate" right now...

Nothing like that on my end—I don't subscribe to dogmas, everything is up for questioning... and we aren't even talking about dogmas yet.

And regarding this whole thing about getting emotional when being attacked (which I've mentioned in another thread)—do you know what it means to love your own views while respecting others?

Look, I have plenty of criticisms regarding believers too (hypocrisy is number one, obviously)... but I don't go out of my way to attack people with that specific mission. Criticizing someone's lack of religiosity just insults the person. Dogma is a choice, and you can't argue with taste. Believing in dogmas is literally a matter of choice—you see the logical gaps... and from there, you choose whether to believe or not... you always have the option to just walk away from someone like that.

lonestag15 said:Look, I already said I wasn't the one who actually coined that term or started that specific center... anyway, it’s not really about nitpicking over the vocabulary—it's about the actual understanding of what's going on here (and we both know exactly what I mean)...

I told you I’d hit you up once I finally got a hold of him...

Your posts have this way of throwing people off balance—just a little bit, but it’s definitely happening... And I'm saying that as an outsider just watching your back-and-forth exchange with that guy earlier. If you actually want to have a constructive conversation, you might want to take the criticism to heart...

Look, I could sit here and type for a hundred days straight and I still wouldn't be able to prove to you that these symptoms are actually happening—mostly because you just keep trying to link everything back to UFOs (again)... Seriously. Fine, I’m dropping the subjective arguments if that's what it takes, but let me remind you one more time: this kind of approach is perfectly scientific and respected... plenty of major research studies are conducted using the exact same logic of sampling, percentages, and conclusions...

Yeah, so this is what you call "projection" when I’m the one doing the psychoanalyzing—according to you. After you went ahead and wrote that a character is mentally unstable just because they take psychedelics? That is some top-tier projection and hypocrisy right there. It isn't even close to being "quasi"—you can see it from a mile away... And then you have the nerve to tell me to go study the forum rules when you don't even follow them yourself. I analyze because I need to know exactly who I'm dealing with on the other side—I'm not out here playing pretend...

So I told you straight up—biology isn't really my lane—but you just go ahead and chop my post down to that one little phrase, quote it back at me, and then decide to comment on... that? Seriously...

What can you tell? Is it obvious that biology isn't exactly my specialty?...
I told you straight up I wasn't going to write anything on that front—mostly so you wouldn't have any excuse to tear my arguments apart or butcher the post... so what was that you just did, slicing it all up again?
So, come on then—what kind of work do you actually do...?

Look, I wrote that from a purely technical standpoint—you know, looking at it through an electrical engineering lens—because that’s my lane and I actually get how the circuitry works. As for the rest of it... yeah, I get the biological and psychological side of things too, but I decided to keep my mouth shut. I didn't feel like giving you any ammunition just so you could go hunting for a needle in a haystack if I tripped up even slightly...

I mean, sure, maybe not—but honestly, staying open to different perspectives and actual evidence is always a better move... I laid out my theory and even pointed to existing research, like EEG studies—you know, the stuff Dr. Miller does measuring brain wave shifts in long-term meditators. The whole point of those readings is that the change in brain waves is real. Once you drop down into those lower, subconscious frequencies, you’re basically at the mercy of your own subconscious... and if that thing isn't in order, it'll tear a practitioner apart in a heartbeat...

Lack of arguments?
Lack of evidence?
Lack of any actual deep discussion?

I’m providing the arguments, the evidence, AND the deep dive right here...
But I guess for "certain people," this is all just playing games... if you've got something to say, just say it straight to me...

What does "by every standard they're just believers" actually mean? (You basically accused every believer of something without even explaining what...)
How exactly are you "spiritual" while they aren't?

And again, "many of them"—more dancing around the point... if you've got something, tell me directly. I prefer that over this polite skipping around like it's a game of chess. We aren't politicians...

Well, you're having a "decent debate" right now...

Nothing like that on my end—I don't subscribe to dogmas, everything is up for questioning... and we aren't even talking about dogmas yet.

And regarding this whole thing about getting emotional when being attacked (which I've mentioned in another thread)—do you know what it means to love your own views while respecting others?

Look, I have plenty of criticisms regarding believers too (hypocrisy is number one, obviously)... but I don't go out of my way to attack people with that specific mission. Criticizing someone's lack of religiosity just insults the person. Dogma is a choice, and you can't argue with taste. Believing in dogmas is literally a matter of choice—you see the logical gaps... and from there, you choose whether to believe or not... you always have the option to just walk away from someone like that.

Paul Rogers94 said:You don't understand anything. If you want to decide whether the universe is real or unreal, you could pick any argument from the greatest saints or holy texts and find something to support your side—they are inherently contradictory on this point (Brahman alone is real, the universe is unreal, Brahman is Universe. Bhagavad Gita). The internet is flooded with "high-quality" debates on this topic, and they're all increasingly misses. You can Google hundreds of "proofs and arguments" claiming the physical universe is real, just as I can Google thousands of "proofs and arguments" claiming it isn't—then you can go ahead and Google ten thousand more to prove it's real again... it's like a dog chasing its own tail. Any debate on this, no matter which direction it goes, is fundamentally mindless and empty.

What I am asserting is that "real" and "unreal" are merely mental categories. You won't resolve a single metaphysical question through mere conceptualization—which is why I say it is neither real nor unreal, a point I am already explaining in the dedicated thread. My claim is that this question can only be resolved through direct insight, which ultimately transcends mental categories altogether.

I haven't received a single coherent critique or thoughtful reflection regarding my position—just arrogant, psychopathic trash-talking.

Paul Rogers94 said:You don't understand anything. If you want to decide whether the universe is real or unreal, you could pick any argument from the greatest saints or holy texts and find something to support your side—they are inherently contradictory on this point (Brahman alone is real, the universe is unreal, Brahman is Universe. Bhagavad Gita). The internet is flooded with "high-quality" debates on this topic, and they're all increasingly misses. You can Google hundreds of "proofs and arguments" claiming the physical universe is real, just as I can Google thousands of "proofs and arguments" claiming it isn't—then you can go ahead and Google ten thousand more to prove it's real again... it's like a dog chasing its own tail. Any debate on this, no matter which direction it goes, is fundamentally mindless and empty.

What I am asserting is that "real" and "unreal" are merely mental categories. You won't resolve a single metaphysical question through mere conceptualization—which is why I say it is neither real nor unreal, a point I am already explaining in the dedicated thread. My claim is that this question can only be resolved through direct insight, which ultimately transcends mental categories altogether.

I haven't received a single coherent critique or thoughtful reflection regarding my position—just arrogant, psychopathic trash-talking.

Paul Rogers94 said:You don't understand anything. If you want to decide whether the universe is real or unreal, you could pick any argument from the greatest saints or holy texts and find something to support your side—they are inherently contradictory on this point (Brahman alone is real, the universe is unreal, Brahman is Universe. Bhagavad Gita). The internet is flooded with "high-quality" debates on this topic, and they're all increasingly misses. You can Google hundreds of "proofs and arguments" claiming the physical universe is real, just as I can Google thousands of "proofs and arguments" claiming it isn't—then you can go ahead and Google ten thousand more to prove it's real again... it's like a dog chasing its own tail. Any debate on this, no matter which direction it goes, is fundamentally mindless and empty.

What I am asserting is that "real" and "unreal" are merely mental categories. You won't resolve a single metaphysical question through mere conceptualization—which is why I say it is neither real nor unreal, a point I am already explaining in the dedicated thread. My claim is that this question can only be resolved through direct insight, which ultimately transcends mental categories altogether.

I haven't received a single coherent critique or thoughtful reflection regarding my position—just arrogant, psychopathic trash-talking.

Paul Rogers94 said:You don't understand anything. If you want to decide whether the universe is real or unreal, you could pick any argument from the greatest saints or holy texts and find something to support your side—they are inherently contradictory on this point (Brahman alone is real, the universe is unreal, Brahman is Universe. Bhagavad Gita). The internet is flooded with "high-quality" debates on this topic, and they're all increasingly misses. You can Google hundreds of "proofs and arguments" claiming the physical universe is real, just as I can Google thousands of "proofs and arguments" claiming it isn't—then you can go ahead and Google ten thousand more to prove it's real again... it's like a dog chasing its own tail. Any debate on this, no matter which direction it goes, is fundamentally mindless and empty.

What I am asserting is that "real" and "unreal" are merely mental categories. You won't resolve a single metaphysical question through mere conceptualization—which is why I say it is neither real nor unreal, a point I am already explaining in the dedicated thread. My claim is that this question can only be resolved through direct insight, which ultimately transcends mental categories altogether.

I haven't received a single coherent critique or thoughtful reflection regarding my position—just arrogant, psychopathic trash-talking.

Paul Rogers94 said:You don't understand anything. If you want to decide whether the universe is real or unreal, you could pick any argument from the greatest saints or holy texts and find something to support your side—they are inherently contradictory on this point (Brahman alone is real, the universe is unreal, Brahman is Universe. Bhagavad Gita). The internet is flooded with "high-quality" debates on this topic, and they're all increasingly misses. You can Google hundreds of "proofs and arguments" claiming the physical universe is real, just as I can Google thousands of "proofs and arguments" claiming it isn't—then you can go ahead and Google ten thousand more to prove it's real again... it's like a dog chasing its own tail. Any debate on this, no matter which direction it goes, is fundamentally mindless and empty.

What I am asserting is that "real" and "unreal" are merely mental categories. You won't resolve a single metaphysical question through mere conceptualization—which is why I say it is neither real nor unreal, a point I am already explaining in the dedicated thread. My claim is that this question can only be resolved through direct insight, which ultimately transcends mental categories altogether.

I haven't received a single coherent critique or thoughtful reflection regarding my position—just arrogant, psychopathic trash-talking.

neonmarlin39 said:I see you're still sticking to your guns with that style of yours... Have you actually gone down the rabbit hole and checked out his other threads? Some of them are even more unhinged than this one.

Check this out:

Look, you're really not reading what I wrote that closely. I didn't even mention anything about him being unstable because of those reasons or because he was messing around with psychedelics. Not once.

Man, you’re still out here trying to psychoanalyze everyone else in the thread. Seriously, how many posts is this now? And honestly, how many more of these are you planning to drop on us?

Like I already told you, doing that is clearly against the forum rules. Besides, you aren't even that good at analyzing stuff, and honestly, I don't care for your little pseudo-psychology sessions, whether they're aimed at me or anyone else.

Dude, seriously...

😁

I wasn't even talking about you specifically. You're always busy with your little psychoanalysis anyway—I can't even remember which post it was...

That they're swimming in dogma and don't have a logical or critical bone in their bodies.

Honestly, these little psychoanalysis attempts you throw at everyone else aren't actual discussions. It’s hard to take you seriously when you're constantly trying to play therapist instead of just talking.

lonestag15 said:Look, we’re talking about Eastern practices here. I specifically started diving into the dangers of rising Kundalini... and I brought plenty of solid arguments and evidence to the table... but you just brushed off everyone's personal accounts (including mine), which is ridiculous. I already told you that those testimonials hold weight—you look at a specific sample size and the frequency of certain symptoms, and you get perfectly valid conclusions. In fact, I thought it would be enough if I just laid out my own direct results from practicing, since I have zero reason to lie about it anyway.

But whatever, you rejected those too, along with everyone else's stories... fine by me... we can stick strictly to the "science" then... leave all the metaphysics out of it.

I even laid out a theory based on electrical principles and pointed to existing research and measurements that prove the actual physical effects on practitioners... so, game over. Especially since you're playing the skeptic, yet I answered you using nothing but pure science...

If you actually have something useful to say about it, feel free to jump in.

neonmarlin39 said:So, in your book, just your own personal experience and whatever stories other people tell you count as "scientific evidence" and valid conclusions?

neonmarlin39 said:I’m telling you, the arguments for that kind of thing just aren't there. It doesn't hold water.

Every system's got its own set of dogmas they cling to. Honestly, I'm not even surprised. It's just how things work.

Forget all that metaphysics stuff for a second. Let’s just start with basic physics.

Man, you're just delusional. Even the people over there told you that you're tripping, acting like you're some kind of God trying to explain everything from that viewpoint, but it's honestly just not working. You’re just a human being. Your mind and your body are products of this universe and exist within it—you're relative. There's zero point in trying to speak from the perspective of the Absolute. Maybe certain figures like Buddha had some sort of insight into the Absolute, but that's about it.

Don't make me go through the hassle of copying my post for a third time. This time, just do me a favor and actually bold the main arguments. And seriously, highlight those core questions I asked you—the ones that basically tear your whole theory apart.

lonestag15 said:Look, my own experience is just proof to *me*... it’s not "science"... but it aligns perfectly with what tons of other people are reporting. To me, personally, it's 100% legit because their accounts match mine word for word. That's actually why I even started practicing this stuff—because just reading the theory wasn't cutting it for me.

And if we're talking actual science (and I’ve told you this three times now), drawing a conclusion based on patterns—like looking at groups of people who practice Kundalini Yoga—and seeing similar symptoms across those samples... that's standard scientific procedure. Following that logic, the conclusion ends up being pretty damn accurate.

Here's a textbook example: take 3,000 sick patients and split them into three groups of 1,000. Give one group a placebo, another Drug X, and a third Drug Y, then compare the results... you'll get a pretty solid conclusion about how effective Drug X or Y really is compared to the placebo (natural recovery).

And again, if that isn't enough for you, there are concrete measurements taken by experts in their respective fields. Coming from an electrical engineering background, I know which studies exist. Now, I don't know if biology can precisely measure dopamine levels... though practice shows that dopamine spikes in practitioners, and those effects can be neutralized by blocking dopamine receptors (using antipsychotics)... whether you can pinpoint the exact dopamine level through measurement, I honestly don't know...

lonestag15 said:Look, my own experience is just proof to *me*... it’s not "science"... but it aligns perfectly with what tons of other people are reporting. To me, personally, it's 100% legit because their accounts match mine word for word. That's actually why I even started practicing this stuff—because just reading the theory wasn't cutting it for me.

And if we're talking actual science (and I’ve told you this three times now), drawing a conclusion based on patterns—like looking at groups of people who practice Kundalini Yoga—and seeing similar symptoms across those samples... that's standard scientific procedure. Following that logic, the conclusion ends up being pretty damn accurate.

Here's a textbook example: take 3,000 sick patients and split them into three groups of 1,000. Give one group a placebo, another Drug X, and a third Drug Y, then compare the results... you'll get a pretty solid conclusion about how effective Drug X or Y really is compared to the placebo (natural recovery).

And again, if that isn't enough for you, there are concrete measurements taken by experts in their respective fields. Coming from an electrical engineering background, I know which studies exist. Now, I don't know if biology can precisely measure dopamine levels... though practice shows that dopamine spikes in practitioners, and those effects can be neutralized by blocking dopamine receptors (using antipsychotics)... whether you can pinpoint the exact dopamine level through measurement, I honestly don't know...

Paul Rogers94 said:So, our local scholar here doesn't even grasp what a mental concept is, yet he wants to lead these "high-minded" debates... honestly, you don't need to be Buddha or Christ to see through that.🤣

Paul Rogers94 said:So, our local scholar here doesn't even grasp what a mental concept is, yet he wants to lead these "high-minded" debates... honestly, you don't need to be Buddha or Christ to see through that.🤣

neonmarlin39 said:Seriously, what are you even talking about? Where are you getting this from? It’s just your typical post where you throw out random conclusions without any actual evidence, totally disconnected from reality. Honestly, you're the one claiming the world isn't real, or that it's both real and unreal at the same time—just pick a side already! Either way, nothing seems truly real to you. Even at your best, you're just stuck in this dogmatic loop about how things "must" work. You clearly don't get basic concepts like the difference between an objective bottle of wine and your own mental idea of one. You seem to think a bottle of wine only becomes what it is once it hits your mind as an idea, but that's just not how it works. A bottle of wine exists objectively regardless of whether you perceive it or have some subjective concept of it floating around in your head.

You still think I’m the one who doesn't get what mental concepts actually are? Seriously? 🤣

neonmarlin39 said:Seriously, what are you even talking about? Where are you getting this from? It’s just your typical post where you throw out random conclusions without any actual evidence, totally disconnected from reality. Honestly, you're the one claiming the world isn't real, or that it's both real and unreal at the same time—just pick a side already! Either way, nothing seems truly real to you. Even at your best, you're just stuck in this dogmatic loop about how things "must" work. You clearly don't get basic concepts like the difference between an objective bottle of wine and your own mental idea of one. You seem to think a bottle of wine only becomes what it is once it hits your mind as an idea, but that's just not how it works. A bottle of wine exists objectively regardless of whether you perceive it or have some subjective concept of it floating around in your head.

You still think I’m the one who doesn't get what mental concepts actually are? Seriously? 🤣

Zachary Cox69 said:I wouldn't go that far. A man is his own priest—he was in the church every single day—but unfortunately, he passed away, and age doesn't wait for anyone.
Sure, having a personal connection with God is huge, but going to church is still a good thing. If the community isn't right, you can easily skip it—no big deal. Church isn't just about priests or other spiritual leaders; it's about the people, men and women you can stand before God alongside.