CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Society › Spirituality › Christian vs. Eastern Meditation: Similarities and Differences!

Christian vs. Eastern Meditation: Similarities and Differences!

Started by Zachary Cox69 · · 👁 14 views · 317 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Zachary Cox69bluemason3goldenjackal6Joseph Bailey41neonmarlin39wearyowl29Benjamin Taylor6lonestag15David Vaughn75Paul Rogers94Anthony Perez9casualtiger2Steven Stewart3frozenstag9Morgan Howard4mistybisonThomas Nelson25Peter Hall56loneskipper10Elizabeth Castillo87hiddenpuma75
lonestag15 lonestag15 Active Member
100 messages
joined Apr 2022
#221 ·
neonmarlin39 said:First off, if we're talking about mainstream science, there's no such thing as "Kundalini rising." Not even close. And those symptoms you're talking about? Science doesn't explain them away by calling it "Kundalini."

It’s not even about whether you can measure dopamine or not. The point is, you shouldn't just jump to conclusions and link all those random things to "Kundalini rising." That's exactly what you're doing, and it's why you've wandered way too far from actual science. Plenty of different practices can mess with your endocrine system and hormone secretion (I have no idea why you're so hung up on dopamine specifically), just like psychedelics, psychoactive substances, and a whole bunch of other stuff.

Please, don't tell me there's no "official" science behind this—just look it up online. This guy literally has a PhD on the subject, specifically focused on EEG research. And that’s not even touching on everything we know from the psychiatry side of things...

Piezoelectricity is a legitimate science... just like the connection between your spine and your brain...

Then there’s this other point I made—there isn't some official academic department where you just sit in a lecture hall learning about ways to shift brainwave frequencies (which doesn't mean people haven't spent their lives messing around with that and presenting data, obviously)... If you look into electrical engineering, there’s a massive pile of research out there regarding fringe science—or quasi-science, if you want to be pedantic—and a ton of it is just sitting online waiting for you, provided you actually have the drive to go find it. "Official" is just a label for whatever was taught twenty years ago... and honestly, it hasn't changed since.

neonmarlin39 said:First off, if we're talking about mainstream science, there's no such thing as "Kundalini rising." Not even close. And those symptoms you're talking about? Science doesn't explain them away by calling it "Kundalini."

It’s not even about whether you can measure dopamine or not. The point is, you shouldn't just jump to conclusions and link all those random things to "Kundalini rising." That's exactly what you're doing, and it's why you've wandered way too far from actual science. Plenty of different practices can mess with your endocrine system and hormone secretion (I have no idea why you're so hung up on dopamine specifically), just like psychedelics, psychoactive substances, and a whole bunch of other stuff.

Is there actually a link between raising your Kundalini and spiking your dopamine levels? Or am I just tripping...

neonmarlin39 said:First off, if we're talking about mainstream science, there's no such thing as "Kundalini rising." Not even close. And those symptoms you're talking about? Science doesn't explain them away by calling it "Kundalini."

It’s not even about whether you can measure dopamine or not. The point is, you shouldn't just jump to conclusions and link all those random things to "Kundalini rising." That's exactly what you're doing, and it's why you've wandered way too far from actual science. Plenty of different practices can mess with your endocrine system and hormone secretion (I have no idea why you're so hung up on dopamine specifically), just like psychedelics, psychoactive substances, and a whole bunch of other stuff.

So first you go ahead and confirm that all these different approaches actually work...

So, why does dopamine even matter in all this? Because spiking those levels—or just having your receptors acting wonky—is exactly what triggers psychosis, schizophrenia, or even schizoaffective disorder. That’s why I keep hammering home that specific shared link between Kundalini practices and full-blown psychosis... It’s the common thread. Whether a certain dopamine threshold is going to flip someone's switch or not depends on the individual, obviously, but generally speaking? A little "proceed with caution" is probably the best advice you can get...
neonmarlin39 neonmarlin39 Active Member
139 messages
joined May 2019
#222 ·
Paul Rogers94 said:as if
(you're presenting this as "arguments and evidence," but the sentence doesn't even make sense syntactically, let alone regarding the topic at hand. I have no idea how you arrived at that thought or what logic you used to get there; it's just a naked assertion based on your conviction that that's just how things are)
there is no wine bottle
a wine bottle doesn't know it's a wine bottle; it only becomes one as an idea in your mind
likewise, a dog doesn't know it's a dog or have any ideas about such things; it only becomes a dog in your mind
there is no dog
an apple doesn't know it's an apple until you define/conceptualize it in your mind, and so on
the universe is merely your own mental construct
the person you think you are also exists only as an idea in your mind

what we perceive as reality is simply a mental interpretation
outside of our interpretation, there is no reality
because we/Brahman are the only true reality, not the individual persona we identify with

I think I've explained—as clearly and simply as possible, given my limited abilities—why I believe the phenomenal universe is neither real nor unreal, and that it only takes on those qualities when viewed through the categories of the mind. I've also clarified why trying to resolve this through mental categorization is impossible and pointless. I don't care if anyone agrees with me; the fact that you find this unacceptable isn't my problem. So stop badgering me about it and instead present some actual 😁 "arguments and evidence" for why you think it's real. I've already explained why being a slave to mental categories is a dead end and why debating them is futile, and I've noted that the only way to resolve the question is through direct insight

yet, you still haven't defined what mental concepts actually are
(nor have you provided any proof to support your claims that I'm "detached from reality," that I'm "drawing wrong conclusions," or that I'm "slaving to dogmas"—it honestly looks like you've just decided that's how it is)

Ultimately, you don't even know how to hold a basic debate because you lack the necessary tools. You're hollow, aimless, and seemingly lacking the cognitive capacity for this
your persistent whining about "arguments and evidence" is getting ridiculous.😬 , and there isn't a single trace of anything like that in the entire history of your senseless, frustrated little forum posts

Now, go ahead—say it out loud three times to yourself;

'Existence and non-existence are not mental concepts.'
'Existence and non-existence are not mental concepts.'
'Existence and non-existence are not mental concepts.'

Then, try to notice the impression that leaves on you (if there's even any sense left to feel)

Does that statement have any actual grounding, or does it just exist within your exhausted mind?

See, that’s the thing—all your so-called "evidence" and "arguments" feel just as hollow as your constant, stubborn insistence on using them.

For every single one of your "proofs," anyone could spend sixty seconds on Google and find thousands of counter-points and rebuttals.

You're nonsensical—honestly, you're even more nonsensical than Zachary Cox69, and you're easily the most nonsensical person here when it comes to this "reasoned debate" you keep trying to force...

Man, you still haven't grasped the basics, like the difference between subjective and objective. You're just talking nonsense. There is no dog? No apple? The objective existence of a dog or an apple has absolutely nothing to do with your subjectivity. If you imagine some imaginary dog-unicorn in your head, that doesn't make it real. Also, a real dog and its existence have zero connection to your subjectivity, your definitions, your perception, or how you understand things. A wine bottle doesn't need to "know" it's a bottle to exist, just like you don't need to know it either, and neither does any other individual or group. When it exists, it just exists. It isn't dependent on you or your subjective perception, which has zero impact on that bottle. What kind of fantasy are you peddling here? Are you high, or are you just totally disconnected from the real world? Or is this like how Christians hope for heaven—you're just hoping for an escape from some illusory world?

Not to mention, when a person is asleep and not dreaming, they aren't having thoughts or concepts, but they still exist just fine, just like the universe still exists during that time😁

Paul Rogers94 said:as if
(you're presenting this as "arguments and evidence," but the sentence doesn't even make sense syntactically, let alone regarding the topic at hand. I have no idea how you arrived at that thought or what logic you used to get there; it's just a naked assertion based on your conviction that that's just how things are)
there is no wine bottle
a wine bottle doesn't know it's a wine bottle; it only becomes one as an idea in your mind
likewise, a dog doesn't know it's a dog or have any ideas about such things; it only becomes a dog in your mind
there is no dog
an apple doesn't know it's an apple until you define/conceptualize it in your mind, and so on
the universe is merely your own mental construct
the person you think you are also exists only as an idea in your mind

what we perceive as reality is simply a mental interpretation
outside of our interpretation, there is no reality
because we/Brahman are the only true reality, not the individual persona we identify with

I think I've explained—as clearly and simply as possible, given my limited abilities—why I believe the phenomenal universe is neither real nor unreal, and that it only takes on those qualities when viewed through the categories of the mind. I've also clarified why trying to resolve this through mental categorization is impossible and pointless. I don't care if anyone agrees with me; the fact that you find this unacceptable isn't my problem. So stop badgering me about it and instead present some actual 😁 "arguments and evidence" for why you think it's real. I've already explained why being a slave to mental categories is a dead end and why debating them is futile, and I've noted that the only way to resolve the question is through direct insight

yet, you still haven't defined what mental concepts actually are
(nor have you provided any proof to support your claims that I'm "detached from reality," that I'm "drawing wrong conclusions," or that I'm "slaving to dogmas"—it honestly looks like you've just decided that's how it is)

Ultimately, you don't even know how to hold a basic debate because you lack the necessary tools. You're hollow, aimless, and seemingly lacking the cognitive capacity for this
your persistent whining about "arguments and evidence" is getting ridiculous.😬 , and there isn't a single trace of anything like that in the entire history of your senseless, frustrated little forum posts

Now, go ahead—say it out loud three times to yourself;

'Existence and non-existence are not mental concepts.'
'Existence and non-existence are not mental concepts.'
'Existence and non-existence are not mental concepts.'

Then, try to notice the impression that leaves on you (if there's even any sense left to feel)

Does that statement have any actual grounding, or does it just exist within your exhausted mind?

See, that’s the thing—all your so-called "evidence" and "arguments" feel just as hollow as your constant, stubborn insistence on using them.

For every single one of your "proofs," anyone could spend sixty seconds on Google and find thousands of counter-points and rebuttals.

You're nonsensical—honestly, you're even more nonsensical than Zachary Cox69, and you're easily the most nonsensical person here when it comes to this "reasoned debate" you keep trying to force...

Reality has nothing to do with your interpretation. Reality is one thing, and your interpretation is something else entirely. Even if you (and your mind) didn't exist, reality would still be right there. The whole universe exists and is real regardless of whether you're around to see it or not, believe it or not.

Paul Rogers94 said:as if
(you're presenting this as "arguments and evidence," but the sentence doesn't even make sense syntactically, let alone regarding the topic at hand. I have no idea how you arrived at that thought or what logic you used to get there; it's just a naked assertion based on your conviction that that's just how things are)
there is no wine bottle
a wine bottle doesn't know it's a wine bottle; it only becomes one as an idea in your mind
likewise, a dog doesn't know it's a dog or have any ideas about such things; it only becomes a dog in your mind
there is no dog
an apple doesn't know it's an apple until you define/conceptualize it in your mind, and so on
the universe is merely your own mental construct
the person you think you are also exists only as an idea in your mind

what we perceive as reality is simply a mental interpretation
outside of our interpretation, there is no reality
because we/Brahman are the only true reality, not the individual persona we identify with

I think I've explained—as clearly and simply as possible, given my limited abilities—why I believe the phenomenal universe is neither real nor unreal, and that it only takes on those qualities when viewed through the categories of the mind. I've also clarified why trying to resolve this through mental categorization is impossible and pointless. I don't care if anyone agrees with me; the fact that you find this unacceptable isn't my problem. So stop badgering me about it and instead present some actual 😁 "arguments and evidence" for why you think it's real. I've already explained why being a slave to mental categories is a dead end and why debating them is futile, and I've noted that the only way to resolve the question is through direct insight

yet, you still haven't defined what mental concepts actually are
(nor have you provided any proof to support your claims that I'm "detached from reality," that I'm "drawing wrong conclusions," or that I'm "slaving to dogmas"—it honestly looks like you've just decided that's how it is)

Ultimately, you don't even know how to hold a basic debate because you lack the necessary tools. You're hollow, aimless, and seemingly lacking the cognitive capacity for this
your persistent whining about "arguments and evidence" is getting ridiculous.😬 , and there isn't a single trace of anything like that in the entire history of your senseless, frustrated little forum posts

Now, go ahead—say it out loud three times to yourself;

'Existence and non-existence are not mental concepts.'
'Existence and non-existence are not mental concepts.'
'Existence and non-existence are not mental concepts.'

Then, try to notice the impression that leaves on you (if there's even any sense left to feel)

Does that statement have any actual grounding, or does it just exist within your exhausted mind?

See, that’s the thing—all your so-called "evidence" and "arguments" feel just as hollow as your constant, stubborn insistence on using them.

For every single one of your "proofs," anyone could spend sixty seconds on Google and find thousands of counter-points and rebuttals.

You're nonsensical—honestly, you're even more nonsensical than Zachary Cox69, and you're easily the most nonsensical person here when it comes to this "reasoned debate" you keep trying to force...

You didn't really clear anything up, man. You just laid out your own dogmas and these super vague claims that honestly don't hold water once you look at them through any actual philosophical lens or even basic logic. It feels like you’re just leaning on stuff you believe in without having any real evidence or solid arguments to back it up. So, come on—give me just one single shred of proof, a decent argument, or even a hint of something that suggests the universe isn't exactly as "real" as you seem to think it is.

Paul Rogers94 said:as if
(you're presenting this as "arguments and evidence," but the sentence doesn't even make sense syntactically, let alone regarding the topic at hand. I have no idea how you arrived at that thought or what logic you used to get there; it's just a naked assertion based on your conviction that that's just how things are)
there is no wine bottle
a wine bottle doesn't know it's a wine bottle; it only becomes one as an idea in your mind
likewise, a dog doesn't know it's a dog or have any ideas about such things; it only becomes a dog in your mind
there is no dog
an apple doesn't know it's an apple until you define/conceptualize it in your mind, and so on
the universe is merely your own mental construct
the person you think you are also exists only as an idea in your mind

what we perceive as reality is simply a mental interpretation
outside of our interpretation, there is no reality
because we/Brahman are the only true reality, not the individual persona we identify with

I think I've explained—as clearly and simply as possible, given my limited abilities—why I believe the phenomenal universe is neither real nor unreal, and that it only takes on those qualities when viewed through the categories of the mind. I've also clarified why trying to resolve this through mental categorization is impossible and pointless. I don't care if anyone agrees with me; the fact that you find this unacceptable isn't my problem. So stop badgering me about it and instead present some actual 😁 "arguments and evidence" for why you think it's real. I've already explained why being a slave to mental categories is a dead end and why debating them is futile, and I've noted that the only way to resolve the question is through direct insight

yet, you still haven't defined what mental concepts actually are
(nor have you provided any proof to support your claims that I'm "detached from reality," that I'm "drawing wrong conclusions," or that I'm "slaving to dogmas"—it honestly looks like you've just decided that's how it is)

Ultimately, you don't even know how to hold a basic debate because you lack the necessary tools. You're hollow, aimless, and seemingly lacking the cognitive capacity for this
your persistent whining about "arguments and evidence" is getting ridiculous.😬 , and there isn't a single trace of anything like that in the entire history of your senseless, frustrated little forum posts

Now, go ahead—say it out loud three times to yourself;

'Existence and non-existence are not mental concepts.'
'Existence and non-existence are not mental concepts.'
'Existence and non-existence are not mental concepts.'

Then, try to notice the impression that leaves on you (if there's even any sense left to feel)

Does that statement have any actual grounding, or does it just exist within your exhausted mind?

See, that’s the thing—all your so-called "evidence" and "arguments" feel just as hollow as your constant, stubborn insistence on using them.

For every single one of your "proofs," anyone could spend sixty seconds on Google and find thousands of counter-points and rebuttals.

You're nonsensical—honestly, you're even more nonsensical than Zachary Cox69, and you're easily the most nonsensical person here when it comes to this "reasoned debate" you keep trying to force...

But honestly, the biggest issue is how you just keep overthinking everything. You’re constantly trying to spin these deep, broken philosophical excuses for even the most basic stuff—like we were already talking about. I mean, seriously? Subjectivity vs. objectivity, imagination versus reality, relativity versus the absolute... you're making simple things way more complicated than they need to be.

Paul Rogers94 said:as if
(you're presenting this as "arguments and evidence," but the sentence doesn't even make sense syntactically, let alone regarding the topic at hand. I have no idea how you arrived at that thought or what logic you used to get there; it's just a naked assertion based on your conviction that that's just how things are)
there is no wine bottle
a wine bottle doesn't know it's a wine bottle; it only becomes one as an idea in your mind
likewise, a dog doesn't know it's a dog or have any ideas about such things; it only becomes a dog in your mind
there is no dog
an apple doesn't know it's an apple until you define/conceptualize it in your mind, and so on
the universe is merely your own mental construct
the person you think you are also exists only as an idea in your mind

what we perceive as reality is simply a mental interpretation
outside of our interpretation, there is no reality
because we/Brahman are the only true reality, not the individual persona we identify with

I think I've explained—as clearly and simply as possible, given my limited abilities—why I believe the phenomenal universe is neither real nor unreal, and that it only takes on those qualities when viewed through the categories of the mind. I've also clarified why trying to resolve this through mental categorization is impossible and pointless. I don't care if anyone agrees with me; the fact that you find this unacceptable isn't my problem. So stop badgering me about it and instead present some actual 😁 "arguments and evidence" for why you think it's real. I've already explained why being a slave to mental categories is a dead end and why debating them is futile, and I've noted that the only way to resolve the question is through direct insight

yet, you still haven't defined what mental concepts actually are
(nor have you provided any proof to support your claims that I'm "detached from reality," that I'm "drawing wrong conclusions," or that I'm "slaving to dogmas"—it honestly looks like you've just decided that's how it is)

Ultimately, you don't even know how to hold a basic debate because you lack the necessary tools. You're hollow, aimless, and seemingly lacking the cognitive capacity for this
your persistent whining about "arguments and evidence" is getting ridiculous.😬 , and there isn't a single trace of anything like that in the entire history of your senseless, frustrated little forum posts

Now, go ahead—say it out loud three times to yourself;

'Existence and non-existence are not mental concepts.'
'Existence and non-existence are not mental concepts.'
'Existence and non-existence are not mental concepts.'

Then, try to notice the impression that leaves on you (if there's even any sense left to feel)

Does that statement have any actual grounding, or does it just exist within your exhausted mind?

See, that’s the thing—all your so-called "evidence" and "arguments" feel just as hollow as your constant, stubborn insistence on using them.

For every single one of your "proofs," anyone could spend sixty seconds on Google and find thousands of counter-points and rebuttals.

You're nonsensical—honestly, you're even more nonsensical than Zachary Cox69, and you're easily the most nonsensical person here when it comes to this "reasoned debate" you keep trying to force...

Look, the thing is, reality doesn't care if you're ready for it or not. You can sit there clinging to whatever dogmas you want, acting like the world isn't actually happening around you, but those beliefs don't mean squat once you step outside. It’s like when I was walking down a street in Chicago last year and tripped over a curb—suddenly, that hard concrete becomes very, very real. If a brick hits you in the face, that's about as much proof as you'll ever need that the universe is definitely real and it definitely exists.

Paul Rogers94 said:as if
(you're presenting this as "arguments and evidence," but the sentence doesn't even make sense syntactically, let alone regarding the topic at hand. I have no idea how you arrived at that thought or what logic you used to get there; it's just a naked assertion based on your conviction that that's just how things are)
there is no wine bottle
a wine bottle doesn't know it's a wine bottle; it only becomes one as an idea in your mind
likewise, a dog doesn't know it's a dog or have any ideas about such things; it only becomes a dog in your mind
there is no dog
an apple doesn't know it's an apple until you define/conceptualize it in your mind, and so on
the universe is merely your own mental construct
the person you think you are also exists only as an idea in your mind

what we perceive as reality is simply a mental interpretation
outside of our interpretation, there is no reality
because we/Brahman are the only true reality, not the individual persona we identify with

I think I've explained—as clearly and simply as possible, given my limited abilities—why I believe the phenomenal universe is neither real nor unreal, and that it only takes on those qualities when viewed through the categories of the mind. I've also clarified why trying to resolve this through mental categorization is impossible and pointless. I don't care if anyone agrees with me; the fact that you find this unacceptable isn't my problem. So stop badgering me about it and instead present some actual 😁 "arguments and evidence" for why you think it's real. I've already explained why being a slave to mental categories is a dead end and why debating them is futile, and I've noted that the only way to resolve the question is through direct insight

yet, you still haven't defined what mental concepts actually are
(nor have you provided any proof to support your claims that I'm "detached from reality," that I'm "drawing wrong conclusions," or that I'm "slaving to dogmas"—it honestly looks like you've just decided that's how it is)

Ultimately, you don't even know how to hold a basic debate because you lack the necessary tools. You're hollow, aimless, and seemingly lacking the cognitive capacity for this
your persistent whining about "arguments and evidence" is getting ridiculous.😬 , and there isn't a single trace of anything like that in the entire history of your senseless, frustrated little forum posts

Now, go ahead—say it out loud three times to yourself;

'Existence and non-existence are not mental concepts.'
'Existence and non-existence are not mental concepts.'
'Existence and non-existence are not mental concepts.'

Then, try to notice the impression that leaves on you (if there's even any sense left to feel)

Does that statement have any actual grounding, or does it just exist within your exhausted mind?

See, that’s the thing—all your so-called "evidence" and "arguments" feel just as hollow as your constant, stubborn insistence on using them.

For every single one of your "proofs," anyone could spend sixty seconds on Google and find thousands of counter-points and rebuttals.

You're nonsensical—honestly, you're even more nonsensical than Zachary Cox69, and you're easily the most nonsensical person here when it comes to this "reasoned debate" you keep trying to force...

Take a look at that stuff above regarding the brickwork to get things started, along with all the other points people have been throwing out there.

Paul Rogers94 said:as if
(you're presenting this as "arguments and evidence," but the sentence doesn't even make sense syntactically, let alone regarding the topic at hand. I have no idea how you arrived at that thought or what logic you used to get there; it's just a naked assertion based on your conviction that that's just how things are)
there is no wine bottle
a wine bottle doesn't know it's a wine bottle; it only becomes one as an idea in your mind
likewise, a dog doesn't know it's a dog or have any ideas about such things; it only becomes a dog in your mind
there is no dog
an apple doesn't know it's an apple until you define/conceptualize it in your mind, and so on
the universe is merely your own mental construct
the person you think you are also exists only as an idea in your mind

what we perceive as reality is simply a mental interpretation
outside of our interpretation, there is no reality
because we/Brahman are the only true reality, not the individual persona we identify with

I think I've explained—as clearly and simply as possible, given my limited abilities—why I believe the phenomenal universe is neither real nor unreal, and that it only takes on those qualities when viewed through the categories of the mind. I've also clarified why trying to resolve this through mental categorization is impossible and pointless. I don't care if anyone agrees with me; the fact that you find this unacceptable isn't my problem. So stop badgering me about it and instead present some actual 😁 "arguments and evidence" for why you think it's real. I've already explained why being a slave to mental categories is a dead end and why debating them is futile, and I've noted that the only way to resolve the question is through direct insight

yet, you still haven't defined what mental concepts actually are
(nor have you provided any proof to support your claims that I'm "detached from reality," that I'm "drawing wrong conclusions," or that I'm "slaving to dogmas"—it honestly looks like you've just decided that's how it is)

Ultimately, you don't even know how to hold a basic debate because you lack the necessary tools. You're hollow, aimless, and seemingly lacking the cognitive capacity for this
your persistent whining about "arguments and evidence" is getting ridiculous.😬 , and there isn't a single trace of anything like that in the entire history of your senseless, frustrated little forum posts

Now, go ahead—say it out loud three times to yourself;

'Existence and non-existence are not mental concepts.'
'Existence and non-existence are not mental concepts.'
'Existence and non-existence are not mental concepts.'

Then, try to notice the impression that leaves on you (if there's even any sense left to feel)

Does that statement have any actual grounding, or does it just exist within your exhausted mind?

See, that’s the thing—all your so-called "evidence" and "arguments" feel just as hollow as your constant, stubborn insistence on using them.

For every single one of your "proofs," anyone could spend sixty seconds on Google and find thousands of counter-points and rebuttals.

You're nonsensical—honestly, you're even more nonsensical than Zachary Cox69, and you're easily the most nonsensical person here when it comes to this "reasoned debate" you keep trying to force...

Man, you’re just proving once again that when you run out of actual points, you just resort to insults. Not a single one of your posts can go by without you getting nasty. It’s like you never learned how to actually have a decent, civilized debate...

Paul Rogers94 said:as if
(you're presenting this as "arguments and evidence," but the sentence doesn't even make sense syntactically, let alone regarding the topic at hand. I have no idea how you arrived at that thought or what logic you used to get there; it's just a naked assertion based on your conviction that that's just how things are)
there is no wine bottle
a wine bottle doesn't know it's a wine bottle; it only becomes one as an idea in your mind
likewise, a dog doesn't know it's a dog or have any ideas about such things; it only becomes a dog in your mind
there is no dog
an apple doesn't know it's an apple until you define/conceptualize it in your mind, and so on
the universe is merely your own mental construct
the person you think you are also exists only as an idea in your mind

what we perceive as reality is simply a mental interpretation
outside of our interpretation, there is no reality
because we/Brahman are the only true reality, not the individual persona we identify with

I think I've explained—as clearly and simply as possible, given my limited abilities—why I believe the phenomenal universe is neither real nor unreal, and that it only takes on those qualities when viewed through the categories of the mind. I've also clarified why trying to resolve this through mental categorization is impossible and pointless. I don't care if anyone agrees with me; the fact that you find this unacceptable isn't my problem. So stop badgering me about it and instead present some actual 😁 "arguments and evidence" for why you think it's real. I've already explained why being a slave to mental categories is a dead end and why debating them is futile, and I've noted that the only way to resolve the question is through direct insight

yet, you still haven't defined what mental concepts actually are
(nor have you provided any proof to support your claims that I'm "detached from reality," that I'm "drawing wrong conclusions," or that I'm "slaving to dogmas"—it honestly looks like you've just decided that's how it is)

Ultimately, you don't even know how to hold a basic debate because you lack the necessary tools. You're hollow, aimless, and seemingly lacking the cognitive capacity for this
your persistent whining about "arguments and evidence" is getting ridiculous.😬 , and there isn't a single trace of anything like that in the entire history of your senseless, frustrated little forum posts

Now, go ahead—say it out loud three times to yourself;

'Existence and non-existence are not mental concepts.'
'Existence and non-existence are not mental concepts.'
'Existence and non-existence are not mental concepts.'

Then, try to notice the impression that leaves on you (if there's even any sense left to feel)

Does that statement have any actual grounding, or does it just exist within your exhausted mind?

See, that’s the thing—all your so-called "evidence" and "arguments" feel just as hollow as your constant, stubborn insistence on using them.

For every single one of your "proofs," anyone could spend sixty seconds on Google and find thousands of counter-points and rebuttals.

You're nonsensical—honestly, you're even more nonsensical than Zachary Cox69, and you're easily the most nonsensical person here when it comes to this "reasoned debate" you keep trying to force...

Maybe try reading more carefully and working on your logic, then you might actually see the point in some of my posts. I can't really help you there, especially since you're being so arrogant and rude—you should probably start by fixing that attitude. Honestly, you're the only one sounding frustrated and nonsensical here; your posts basically scream it. Or are you just seeing things that aren't there and living in a fantasy world?

Paul Rogers94 said:as if
(you're presenting this as "arguments and evidence," but the sentence doesn't even make sense syntactically, let alone regarding the topic at hand. I have no idea how you arrived at that thought or what logic you used to get there; it's just a naked assertion based on your conviction that that's just how things are)
there is no wine bottle
a wine bottle doesn't know it's a wine bottle; it only becomes one as an idea in your mind
likewise, a dog doesn't know it's a dog or have any ideas about such things; it only becomes a dog in your mind
there is no dog
an apple doesn't know it's an apple until you define/conceptualize it in your mind, and so on
the universe is merely your own mental construct
the person you think you are also exists only as an idea in your mind

what we perceive as reality is simply a mental interpretation
outside of our interpretation, there is no reality
because we/Brahman are the only true reality, not the individual persona we identify with

I think I've explained—as clearly and simply as possible, given my limited abilities—why I believe the phenomenal universe is neither real nor unreal, and that it only takes on those qualities when viewed through the categories of the mind. I've also clarified why trying to resolve this through mental categorization is impossible and pointless. I don't care if anyone agrees with me; the fact that you find this unacceptable isn't my problem. So stop badgering me about it and instead present some actual 😁 "arguments and evidence" for why you think it's real. I've already explained why being a slave to mental categories is a dead end and why debating them is futile, and I've noted that the only way to resolve the question is through direct insight

yet, you still haven't defined what mental concepts actually are
(nor have you provided any proof to support your claims that I'm "detached from reality," that I'm "drawing wrong conclusions," or that I'm "slaving to dogmas"—it honestly looks like you've just decided that's how it is)

Ultimately, you don't even know how to hold a basic debate because you lack the necessary tools. You're hollow, aimless, and seemingly lacking the cognitive capacity for this
your persistent whining about "arguments and evidence" is getting ridiculous.😬 , and there isn't a single trace of anything like that in the entire history of your senseless, frustrated little forum posts

Now, go ahead—say it out loud three times to yourself;

'Existence and non-existence are not mental concepts.'
'Existence and non-existence are not mental concepts.'
'Existence and non-existence are not mental concepts.'

Then, try to notice the impression that leaves on you (if there's even any sense left to feel)

Does that statement have any actual grounding, or does it just exist within your exhausted mind?

See, that’s the thing—all your so-called "evidence" and "arguments" feel just as hollow as your constant, stubborn insistence on using them.

For every single one of your "proofs," anyone could spend sixty seconds on Google and find thousands of counter-points and rebuttals.

You're nonsensical—honestly, you're even more nonsensical than Zachary Cox69, and you're easily the most nonsensical person here when it comes to this "reasoned debate" you keep trying to force...

Work on your deductive reasoning. Quality matters way more than quantity, which is pretty obvious from what you just wrote, since you didn't actually say anything meaningful or concrete.

Paul Rogers94 said:as if
(you're presenting this as "arguments and evidence," but the sentence doesn't even make sense syntactically, let alone regarding the topic at hand. I have no idea how you arrived at that thought or what logic you used to get there; it's just a naked assertion based on your conviction that that's just how things are)
there is no wine bottle
a wine bottle doesn't know it's a wine bottle; it only becomes one as an idea in your mind
likewise, a dog doesn't know it's a dog or have any ideas about such things; it only becomes a dog in your mind
there is no dog
an apple doesn't know it's an apple until you define/conceptualize it in your mind, and so on
the universe is merely your own mental construct
the person you think you are also exists only as an idea in your mind

what we perceive as reality is simply a mental interpretation
outside of our interpretation, there is no reality
because we/Brahman are the only true reality, not the individual persona we identify with

I think I've explained—as clearly and simply as possible, given my limited abilities—why I believe the phenomenal universe is neither real nor unreal, and that it only takes on those qualities when viewed through the categories of the mind. I've also clarified why trying to resolve this through mental categorization is impossible and pointless. I don't care if anyone agrees with me; the fact that you find this unacceptable isn't my problem. So stop badgering me about it and instead present some actual 😁 "arguments and evidence" for why you think it's real. I've already explained why being a slave to mental categories is a dead end and why debating them is futile, and I've noted that the only way to resolve the question is through direct insight

yet, you still haven't defined what mental concepts actually are
(nor have you provided any proof to support your claims that I'm "detached from reality," that I'm "drawing wrong conclusions," or that I'm "slaving to dogmas"—it honestly looks like you've just decided that's how it is)

Ultimately, you don't even know how to hold a basic debate because you lack the necessary tools. You're hollow, aimless, and seemingly lacking the cognitive capacity for this
your persistent whining about "arguments and evidence" is getting ridiculous.😬 , and there isn't a single trace of anything like that in the entire history of your senseless, frustrated little forum posts

Now, go ahead—say it out loud three times to yourself;

'Existence and non-existence are not mental concepts.'
'Existence and non-existence are not mental concepts.'
'Existence and non-existence are not mental concepts.'

Then, try to notice the impression that leaves on you (if there's even any sense left to feel)

Does that statement have any actual grounding, or does it just exist within your exhausted mind?

See, that’s the thing—all your so-called "evidence" and "arguments" feel just as hollow as your constant, stubborn insistence on using them.

For every single one of your "proofs," anyone could spend sixty seconds on Google and find thousands of counter-points and rebuttals.

You're nonsensical—honestly, you're even more nonsensical than Zachary Cox69, and you're easily the most nonsensical person here when it comes to this "reasoned debate" you keep trying to force...

I don't even think that. That's just your take. The sentence was "You don't understand basic concepts like an objective bottle of wine versus your own concept of a bottle of wine and how you perceive it." I didn't say "You don't understand basic concepts like the concept of an objective bottle of wine versus your own concept..." like you wrongly concluded while trying to act smart.

But since you brought it up, "objective concept" is an actual term, but let's not get sidetracked. At least now you know the term exists and how people actually use it. 😁

Paul Rogers94 said:as if
(you're presenting this as "arguments and evidence," but the sentence doesn't even make sense syntactically, let alone regarding the topic at hand. I have no idea how you arrived at that thought or what logic you used to get there; it's just a naked assertion based on your conviction that that's just how things are)
there is no wine bottle
a wine bottle doesn't know it's a wine bottle; it only becomes one as an idea in your mind
likewise, a dog doesn't know it's a dog or have any ideas about such things; it only becomes a dog in your mind
there is no dog
an apple doesn't know it's an apple until you define/conceptualize it in your mind, and so on
the universe is merely your own mental construct
the person you think you are also exists only as an idea in your mind

what we perceive as reality is simply a mental interpretation
outside of our interpretation, there is no reality
because we/Brahman are the only true reality, not the individual persona we identify with

I think I've explained—as clearly and simply as possible, given my limited abilities—why I believe the phenomenal universe is neither real nor unreal, and that it only takes on those qualities when viewed through the categories of the mind. I've also clarified why trying to resolve this through mental categorization is impossible and pointless. I don't care if anyone agrees with me; the fact that you find this unacceptable isn't my problem. So stop badgering me about it and instead present some actual 😁 "arguments and evidence" for why you think it's real. I've already explained why being a slave to mental categories is a dead end and why debating them is futile, and I've noted that the only way to resolve the question is through direct insight

yet, you still haven't defined what mental concepts actually are
(nor have you provided any proof to support your claims that I'm "detached from reality," that I'm "drawing wrong conclusions," or that I'm "slaving to dogmas"—it honestly looks like you've just decided that's how it is)

Ultimately, you don't even know how to hold a basic debate because you lack the necessary tools. You're hollow, aimless, and seemingly lacking the cognitive capacity for this
your persistent whining about "arguments and evidence" is getting ridiculous.😬 , and there isn't a single trace of anything like that in the entire history of your senseless, frustrated little forum posts

Now, go ahead—say it out loud three times to yourself;

'Existence and non-existence are not mental concepts.'
'Existence and non-existence are not mental concepts.'
'Existence and non-existence are not mental concepts.'

Then, try to notice the impression that leaves on you (if there's even any sense left to feel)

Does that statement have any actual grounding, or does it just exist within your exhausted mind?

See, that’s the thing—all your so-called "evidence" and "arguments" feel just as hollow as your constant, stubborn insistence on using them.

For every single one of your "proofs," anyone could spend sixty seconds on Google and find thousands of counter-points and rebuttals.

You're nonsensical—honestly, you're even more nonsensical than Zachary Cox69, and you're easily the most nonsensical person here when it comes to this "reasoned debate" you keep trying to force...

It's pretty clear who's losing it.

Paul Rogers94 said:as if
(you're presenting this as "arguments and evidence," but the sentence doesn't even make sense syntactically, let alone regarding the topic at hand. I have no idea how you arrived at that thought or what logic you used to get there; it's just a naked assertion based on your conviction that that's just how things are)
there is no wine bottle
a wine bottle doesn't know it's a wine bottle; it only becomes one as an idea in your mind
likewise, a dog doesn't know it's a dog or have any ideas about such things; it only becomes a dog in your mind
there is no dog
an apple doesn't know it's an apple until you define/conceptualize it in your mind, and so on
the universe is merely your own mental construct
the person you think you are also exists only as an idea in your mind

what we perceive as reality is simply a mental interpretation
outside of our interpretation, there is no reality
because we/Brahman are the only true reality, not the individual persona we identify with

I think I've explained—as clearly and simply as possible, given my limited abilities—why I believe the phenomenal universe is neither real nor unreal, and that it only takes on those qualities when viewed through the categories of the mind. I've also clarified why trying to resolve this through mental categorization is impossible and pointless. I don't care if anyone agrees with me; the fact that you find this unacceptable isn't my problem. So stop badgering me about it and instead present some actual 😁 "arguments and evidence" for why you think it's real. I've already explained why being a slave to mental categories is a dead end and why debating them is futile, and I've noted that the only way to resolve the question is through direct insight

yet, you still haven't defined what mental concepts actually are
(nor have you provided any proof to support your claims that I'm "detached from reality," that I'm "drawing wrong conclusions," or that I'm "slaving to dogmas"—it honestly looks like you've just decided that's how it is)

Ultimately, you don't even know how to hold a basic debate because you lack the necessary tools. You're hollow, aimless, and seemingly lacking the cognitive capacity for this
your persistent whining about "arguments and evidence" is getting ridiculous.😬 , and there isn't a single trace of anything like that in the entire history of your senseless, frustrated little forum posts

Now, go ahead—say it out loud three times to yourself;

'Existence and non-existence are not mental concepts.'
'Existence and non-existence are not mental concepts.'
'Existence and non-existence are not mental concepts.'

Then, try to notice the impression that leaves on you (if there's even any sense left to feel)

Does that statement have any actual grounding, or does it just exist within your exhausted mind?

See, that’s the thing—all your so-called "evidence" and "arguments" feel just as hollow as your constant, stubborn insistence on using them.

For every single one of your "proofs," anyone could spend sixty seconds on Google and find thousands of counter-points and rebuttals.

You're nonsensical—honestly, you're even more nonsensical than Zachary Cox69, and you're easily the most nonsensical person here when it comes to this "reasoned debate" you keep trying to force...

Keep up the insults and the usual lack of class.

Also, I can see you're struggling to keep up, so I’m gonna paste some of my original points and questions again, but this time I’ll **bold** them for you.

You could reach that conclusion pretty easily if you actually used some basic logic, looked at things through an objective scientific lens, or even dove into philosophical methods—hell, even spiritual insights (like what Buddha realized) would get you there. But, like you said, you claim you arrived at this "final" conclusion all on your own, even though you're basically just parroting someone else's dogmas... And honestly, whether these conclusions are yours or someone else's doesn't even matter that much; plenty of other people have already tried to break down this topic. Plus, since you believe everything is just an illusion, then by your own logic, you and everything you're saying are also just illusions. You're basically debunking yourself and your own arguments because you're claiming nothing is real—including the words coming out of your mouth (assuming you're pushing that Advaita Vedanta/Shankara interpretation of Maya that I've noticed you're leaning into). Why would anyone listen to the illusory rambling of an illusory figure who, by your own admission, doesn't even exist? It's not real, so why would his words be real? Or do you only notice contradictions when you're arguing that the universe isn't real? And why on earth would Brahman bother creating some pointless illusion like the universe and everything in it, where everything is fake and unreal? Where does Maya come from in your version of the story? You haven't even touched on the heavy hitters here. You're mixing up fundamental philosophical concepts like relativity, the Absolute, reality, and illusion—which is pretty obvious looking at your thread about how the universe is an illusion.

Earlier in our chats, people pointed you toward specific teachings and systems that tear down these philosophical dogmas regarding the unreality of the universe, providing solid philosophical frameworks, but you just ignored them and stuck to your guns. People even suggested books if you actually wanted to do some homework and see what's what. Science is a whole different beast, too. There's a huge difference between believing in something—which, hey, you're totally free to do—and trying to argue a point using clear analysis, reliable sources, philosophy, or scientific evidence. This whole thread of yours is just rambling, to put it lightly, and it falls apart under major philosophical criticisms that are well-known in both Eastern and Western traditions. Philosophy isn't some new thing, and neither is philosophical critique. Right now, most of what you say is based on pure belief and your own limited take, while you completely ignore other critiques and systems that might explain things way better than the books you've picked out and decided to follow blindly.


Another issue here, which was already mentioned, is your ego trip where you've convinced yourself you *are* the Absolute/Brahman (maybe you're reading way too much Nisargadatta 😁). Based on that dogmatic and flawed understanding of the Absolute, you make claims like the universe isn't real, or that it's both real and not real at the same time, or that reality depends on your subjectivity or someone else's. In reality, it's just your own subjectivity driving the bus.
neonmarlin39 neonmarlin39 Active Member
139 messages
joined May 2019
#223 ·
lonestag15 said:Please, don't tell me there's no "official" science behind this—just look it up online. This guy literally has a PhD on the subject, specifically focused on EEG research. And that’s not even touching on everything we know from the psychiatry side of things...

Piezoelectricity is a legitimate science... just like the connection between your spine and your brain...

Then there’s this other point I made—there isn't some official academic department where you just sit in a lecture hall learning about ways to shift brainwave frequencies (which doesn't mean people haven't spent their lives messing around with that and presenting data, obviously)... If you look into electrical engineering, there’s a massive pile of research out there regarding fringe science—or quasi-science, if you want to be pedantic—and a ton of it is just sitting online waiting for you, provided you actually have the drive to go find it. "Official" is just a label for whatever was taught twenty years ago... and honestly, it hasn't changed since.

Is there actually a link between raising your Kundalini and spiking your dopamine levels? Or am I just tripping...

So first you go ahead and confirm that all these different approaches actually work...

So, why does dopamine even matter in all this? Because spiking those levels—or just having your receptors acting wonky—is exactly what triggers psychosis, schizophrenia, or even schizoaffective disorder. That’s why I keep hammering home that specific shared link between Kundalini practices and full-blown psychosis... It’s the common thread. Whether a certain dopamine threshold is going to flip someone's switch or not depends on the individual, obviously, but generally speaking? A little "proceed with caution" is probably the best advice you can get...

Look, I'll say it again: there's zero scientific proof for Kundalini. It just isn't recognized by any actual science out there.

lonestag15 said:Please, don't tell me there's no "official" science behind this—just look it up online. This guy literally has a PhD on the subject, specifically focused on EEG research. And that’s not even touching on everything we know from the psychiatry side of things...

Piezoelectricity is a legitimate science... just like the connection between your spine and your brain...

Then there’s this other point I made—there isn't some official academic department where you just sit in a lecture hall learning about ways to shift brainwave frequencies (which doesn't mean people haven't spent their lives messing around with that and presenting data, obviously)... If you look into electrical engineering, there’s a massive pile of research out there regarding fringe science—or quasi-science, if you want to be pedantic—and a ton of it is just sitting online waiting for you, provided you actually have the drive to go find it. "Official" is just a label for whatever was taught twenty years ago... and honestly, it hasn't changed since.

Is there actually a link between raising your Kundalini and spiking your dopamine levels? Or am I just tripping...

So first you go ahead and confirm that all these different approaches actually work...

So, why does dopamine even matter in all this? Because spiking those levels—or just having your receptors acting wonky—is exactly what triggers psychosis, schizophrenia, or even schizoaffective disorder. That’s why I keep hammering home that specific shared link between Kundalini practices and full-blown psychosis... It’s the common thread. Whether a certain dopamine threshold is going to flip someone's switch or not depends on the individual, obviously, but generally speaking? A little "proceed with caution" is probably the best advice you can get...

Where exactly in any actual scientific discipline do you even see Kundalini being mentioned? Like, is there any single academic community out there that actually recognizes it as legit?

lonestag15 said:Please, don't tell me there's no "official" science behind this—just look it up online. This guy literally has a PhD on the subject, specifically focused on EEG research. And that’s not even touching on everything we know from the psychiatry side of things...

Piezoelectricity is a legitimate science... just like the connection between your spine and your brain...

Then there’s this other point I made—there isn't some official academic department where you just sit in a lecture hall learning about ways to shift brainwave frequencies (which doesn't mean people haven't spent their lives messing around with that and presenting data, obviously)... If you look into electrical engineering, there’s a massive pile of research out there regarding fringe science—or quasi-science, if you want to be pedantic—and a ton of it is just sitting online waiting for you, provided you actually have the drive to go find it. "Official" is just a label for whatever was taught twenty years ago... and honestly, it hasn't changed since.

Is there actually a link between raising your Kundalini and spiking your dopamine levels? Or am I just tripping...

So first you go ahead and confirm that all these different approaches actually work...

So, why does dopamine even matter in all this? Because spiking those levels—or just having your receptors acting wonky—is exactly what triggers psychosis, schizophrenia, or even schizoaffective disorder. That’s why I keep hammering home that specific shared link between Kundalini practices and full-blown psychosis... It’s the common thread. Whether a certain dopamine threshold is going to flip someone's switch or not depends on the individual, obviously, but generally speaking? A little "proceed with caution" is probably the best advice you can get...

Nah, officially there’s zero connection to how much stuff you actually learned back in the day. Pseudoscience just isn't science, plain and simple.

lonestag15 said:Please, don't tell me there's no "official" science behind this—just look it up online. This guy literally has a PhD on the subject, specifically focused on EEG research. And that’s not even touching on everything we know from the psychiatry side of things...

Piezoelectricity is a legitimate science... just like the connection between your spine and your brain...

Then there’s this other point I made—there isn't some official academic department where you just sit in a lecture hall learning about ways to shift brainwave frequencies (which doesn't mean people haven't spent their lives messing around with that and presenting data, obviously)... If you look into electrical engineering, there’s a massive pile of research out there regarding fringe science—or quasi-science, if you want to be pedantic—and a ton of it is just sitting online waiting for you, provided you actually have the drive to go find it. "Official" is just a label for whatever was taught twenty years ago... and honestly, it hasn't changed since.

Is there actually a link between raising your Kundalini and spiking your dopamine levels? Or am I just tripping...

So first you go ahead and confirm that all these different approaches actually work...

So, why does dopamine even matter in all this? Because spiking those levels—or just having your receptors acting wonky—is exactly what triggers psychosis, schizophrenia, or even schizoaffective disorder. That’s why I keep hammering home that specific shared link between Kundalini practices and full-blown psychosis... It’s the common thread. Whether a certain dopamine threshold is going to flip someone's switch or not depends on the individual, obviously, but generally speaking? A little "proceed with caution" is probably the best advice you can get...

You're trying to link those two things together, but honestly, that's just not how it works. In actual science, there's zero connection between them—elevated dopamine levels have nothing to do with what you're talking about.

lonestag15 said:Please, don't tell me there's no "official" science behind this—just look it up online. This guy literally has a PhD on the subject, specifically focused on EEG research. And that’s not even touching on everything we know from the psychiatry side of things...

Piezoelectricity is a legitimate science... just like the connection between your spine and your brain...

Then there’s this other point I made—there isn't some official academic department where you just sit in a lecture hall learning about ways to shift brainwave frequencies (which doesn't mean people haven't spent their lives messing around with that and presenting data, obviously)... If you look into electrical engineering, there’s a massive pile of research out there regarding fringe science—or quasi-science, if you want to be pedantic—and a ton of it is just sitting online waiting for you, provided you actually have the drive to go find it. "Official" is just a label for whatever was taught twenty years ago... and honestly, it hasn't changed since.

Is there actually a link between raising your Kundalini and spiking your dopamine levels? Or am I just tripping...

So first you go ahead and confirm that all these different approaches actually work...

So, why does dopamine even matter in all this? Because spiking those levels—or just having your receptors acting wonky—is exactly what triggers psychosis, schizophrenia, or even schizoaffective disorder. That’s why I keep hammering home that specific shared link between Kundalini practices and full-blown psychosis... It’s the common thread. Whether a certain dopamine threshold is going to flip someone's switch or not depends on the individual, obviously, but generally speaking? A little "proceed with caution" is probably the best advice you can get...

Look, I already made it clear—there are definitely practices out there that can actually mess with how your body releases hormones.

lonestag15 said:Please, don't tell me there's no "official" science behind this—just look it up online. This guy literally has a PhD on the subject, specifically focused on EEG research. And that’s not even touching on everything we know from the psychiatry side of things...

Piezoelectricity is a legitimate science... just like the connection between your spine and your brain...

Then there’s this other point I made—there isn't some official academic department where you just sit in a lecture hall learning about ways to shift brainwave frequencies (which doesn't mean people haven't spent their lives messing around with that and presenting data, obviously)... If you look into electrical engineering, there’s a massive pile of research out there regarding fringe science—or quasi-science, if you want to be pedantic—and a ton of it is just sitting online waiting for you, provided you actually have the drive to go find it. "Official" is just a label for whatever was taught twenty years ago... and honestly, it hasn't changed since.

Is there actually a link between raising your Kundalini and spiking your dopamine levels? Or am I just tripping...

So first you go ahead and confirm that all these different approaches actually work...

So, why does dopamine even matter in all this? Because spiking those levels—or just having your receptors acting wonky—is exactly what triggers psychosis, schizophrenia, or even schizoaffective disorder. That’s why I keep hammering home that specific shared link between Kundalini practices and full-blown psychosis... It’s the common thread. Whether a certain dopamine threshold is going to flip someone's switch or not depends on the individual, obviously, but generally speaking? A little "proceed with caution" is probably the best advice you can get...

Man, you are seriously stuck on this dopamine thing. The human endocrine system is incredibly complex; it’s way more than just dopamine being the MVP or the only hormone that matters. Linking psychosis directly to "Kundalini rising" and blaming the practice is just your own take—it isn't some established scientific fact.
lonestag15 lonestag15 Active Member
100 messages
joined Apr 2022
#224 ·
neonmarlin39 said:Look, I'll say it again: there's zero scientific proof for Kundalini. It just isn't recognized by any actual science out there.

Where exactly in any actual scientific discipline do you even see Kundalini being mentioned? Like, is there any single academic community out there that actually recognizes it as legit?

Nah, officially there’s zero connection to how much stuff you actually learned back in the day. Pseudoscience just isn't science, plain and simple.

You're trying to link those two things together, but honestly, that's just not how it works. In actual science, there's zero connection between them—elevated dopamine levels have nothing to do with what you're talking about.

Look, I already made it clear—there are definitely practices out there that can actually mess with how your body releases hormones.

Man, you are seriously stuck on this dopamine thing. The human endocrine system is incredibly complex; it’s way more than just dopamine being the MVP or the only hormone that matters. Linking psychosis directly to "Kundalini rising" and blaming the practice is just your own take—it isn't some established scientific fact.

Just because it hasn't hit the mainstream scientific consensus yet doesn't mean there isn't actual research out there—it just means the studies are too recent to be officially "recognized" by the establishment. It’s a timing thing, really. Do yourself a favor, look it up online, and actually educate yourself on the topic...

Look, just because some method for measuring brain waves hasn't been officially sanctioned by the FDA doesn't mean the data isn't real. Someone actually sat down, did the work, and pulled legitimate readings from the measurements... Just because it isn't "official" doesn't automatically make it wrong...

neonmarlin39 said:Look, I'll say it again: there's zero scientific proof for Kundalini. It just isn't recognized by any actual science out there.

Where exactly in any actual scientific discipline do you even see Kundalini being mentioned? Like, is there any single academic community out there that actually recognizes it as legit?

Nah, officially there’s zero connection to how much stuff you actually learned back in the day. Pseudoscience just isn't science, plain and simple.

You're trying to link those two things together, but honestly, that's just not how it works. In actual science, there's zero connection between them—elevated dopamine levels have nothing to do with what you're talking about.

Look, I already made it clear—there are definitely practices out there that can actually mess with how your body releases hormones.

Man, you are seriously stuck on this dopamine thing. The human endocrine system is incredibly complex; it’s way more than just dopamine being the MVP or the only hormone that matters. Linking psychosis directly to "Kundalini rising" and blaming the practice is just your own take—it isn't some established scientific fact.

People have already started throwing around the whole "kundalini symptoms" thing lately—but honestly? Psychiatrists have been well aware of those exact same signs for ages... just like the gurus have.

neonmarlin39 said:Look, I'll say it again: there's zero scientific proof for Kundalini. It just isn't recognized by any actual science out there.

Where exactly in any actual scientific discipline do you even see Kundalini being mentioned? Like, is there any single academic community out there that actually recognizes it as legit?

Nah, officially there’s zero connection to how much stuff you actually learned back in the day. Pseudoscience just isn't science, plain and simple.

You're trying to link those two things together, but honestly, that's just not how it works. In actual science, there's zero connection between them—elevated dopamine levels have nothing to do with what you're talking about.

Look, I already made it clear—there are definitely practices out there that can actually mess with how your body releases hormones.

Man, you are seriously stuck on this dopamine thing. The human endocrine system is incredibly complex; it’s way more than just dopamine being the MVP or the only hormone that matters. Linking psychosis directly to "Kundalini rising" and blaming the practice is just your own take—it isn't some established scientific fact.

Look, just because all the theories being tossed around right now aren't considered "official science" doesn't mean they're wrong... it just means they haven't been vetted yet. And honestly, if we decide that anything labeled "pseudoscience" is automatically garbage, we might as well just pack up the lab coats and stop researching new fields altogether—because, let’s be real, everything starts out looking like pseudoscience until it isn't...

neonmarlin39 said:Look, I'll say it again: there's zero scientific proof for Kundalini. It just isn't recognized by any actual science out there.

Where exactly in any actual scientific discipline do you even see Kundalini being mentioned? Like, is there any single academic community out there that actually recognizes it as legit?

Nah, officially there’s zero connection to how much stuff you actually learned back in the day. Pseudoscience just isn't science, plain and simple.

You're trying to link those two things together, but honestly, that's just not how it works. In actual science, there's zero connection between them—elevated dopamine levels have nothing to do with what you're talking about.

Look, I already made it clear—there are definitely practices out there that can actually mess with how your body releases hormones.

Man, you are seriously stuck on this dopamine thing. The human endocrine system is incredibly complex; it’s way more than just dopamine being the MVP or the only hormone that matters. Linking psychosis directly to "Kundalini rising" and blaming the practice is just your own take—it isn't some established scientific fact.

You’re 100% wrong about this...
Honestly, I’m pretty much done with this whole debate—I want to wrap this thing up right now... Going off to dig through books or scour the internet just feels like a massive waste of my energy. This entire conversation is honestly going nowhere... Just go learn about the subject on your own, because arguing this with anyone is just a drain on my time. Not that I’m trying to shade you personally or anything—it’s just pointless to keep clashing like this. It’s literally a waste of breath... You're better off actually studying the topic from people who have actual legitimacy—you know, folks who have written 200-page books on the matter...

neonmarlin39 said:Look, I'll say it again: there's zero scientific proof for Kundalini. It just isn't recognized by any actual science out there.

Where exactly in any actual scientific discipline do you even see Kundalini being mentioned? Like, is there any single academic community out there that actually recognizes it as legit?

Nah, officially there’s zero connection to how much stuff you actually learned back in the day. Pseudoscience just isn't science, plain and simple.

You're trying to link those two things together, but honestly, that's just not how it works. In actual science, there's zero connection between them—elevated dopamine levels have nothing to do with what you're talking about.

Look, I already made it clear—there are definitely practices out there that can actually mess with how your body releases hormones.

Man, you are seriously stuck on this dopamine thing. The human endocrine system is incredibly complex; it’s way more than just dopamine being the MVP or the only hormone that matters. Linking psychosis directly to "Kundalini rising" and blaming the practice is just your own take—it isn't some established scientific fact.

And yeah, raising Kundalini falls right into that category.

neonmarlin39 said:Look, I'll say it again: there's zero scientific proof for Kundalini. It just isn't recognized by any actual science out there.

Where exactly in any actual scientific discipline do you even see Kundalini being mentioned? Like, is there any single academic community out there that actually recognizes it as legit?

Nah, officially there’s zero connection to how much stuff you actually learned back in the day. Pseudoscience just isn't science, plain and simple.

You're trying to link those two things together, but honestly, that's just not how it works. In actual science, there's zero connection between them—elevated dopamine levels have nothing to do with what you're talking about.

Look, I already made it clear—there are definitely practices out there that can actually mess with how your body releases hormones.

Man, you are seriously stuck on this dopamine thing. The human endocrine system is incredibly complex; it’s way more than just dopamine being the MVP or the only hormone that matters. Linking psychosis directly to "Kundalini rising" and blaming the practice is just your own take—it isn't some established scientific fact.

Who even said dopamine was the most important part of the whole hormonal system? Don't put words in my mouth. You asked why I kept bringing up dopamine, so I answered you because its role is huge when it comes to developing mental illness...

neonmarlin39 said:Look, I'll say it again: there's zero scientific proof for Kundalini. It just isn't recognized by any actual science out there.

Where exactly in any actual scientific discipline do you even see Kundalini being mentioned? Like, is there any single academic community out there that actually recognizes it as legit?

Nah, officially there’s zero connection to how much stuff you actually learned back in the day. Pseudoscience just isn't science, plain and simple.

You're trying to link those two things together, but honestly, that's just not how it works. In actual science, there's zero connection between them—elevated dopamine levels have nothing to do with what you're talking about.

Look, I already made it clear—there are definitely practices out there that can actually mess with how your body releases hormones.

Man, you are seriously stuck on this dopamine thing. The human endocrine system is incredibly complex; it’s way more than just dopamine being the MVP or the only hormone that matters. Linking psychosis directly to "Kundalini rising" and blaming the practice is just your own take—it isn't some established scientific fact.

My "personal theory" plus the experiences of millions of people plus actual gurus who warn about these exact issues... and you just dismiss all of that in one single sentence—which, honestly, you probably haven't even practiced long enough to know, because if you had, you'd get it...

If you actually bothered to learn anything about what I'm talking about, you'd wrap your head around it in five minutes... well, five minutes just to read it, really...

So, bottom line: go pick up some books, hit the internet, and actually educate yourself...

...I don't have the energy to go back and forth like this forever if you aren't willing to actually study the subject...

As far as I'm concerned, I'm done with this topic. I've laid out the theory, the evidence, and the subjective experiences... whether you want to take something from it or not, I don't know... I'd suggest one more time that you maybe reread what's already been written...
bluemason3 bluemason3 Veteran
1.1K messages
joined Jun 2016
#225 ·
What exactly do you mean by "official" versus "unofficial," or "recognized" versus "unrecognized"?
There isn't some "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" in the scientific community that gets to decide what's allowed.
If someone conducts solid research, publishes it in a reputable journal, and—if possible—has their findings verified by independent teams, then they have a scientific argument. If not, they don't. It’s pretty straightforward. 🤷

The way you're defining pseudoscience is off. Pseudoscience isn't just some "cutting-edge" field where people are testing unproven hypotheses. Real pseudoscience is using "expert-sounding" jargon to create an illusion of legitimacy while completely ignoring, or actively avoiding, actual scientific methodology.
neonmarlin39 neonmarlin39 Active Member
139 messages
joined May 2019
#226 ·
lonestag15 said:Just because it hasn't hit the mainstream scientific consensus yet doesn't mean there isn't actual research out there—it just means the studies are too recent to be officially "recognized" by the establishment. It’s a timing thing, really. Do yourself a favor, look it up online, and actually educate yourself on the topic...

Look, just because some method for measuring brain waves hasn't been officially sanctioned by the FDA doesn't mean the data isn't real. Someone actually sat down, did the work, and pulled legitimate readings from the measurements... Just because it isn't "official" doesn't automatically make it wrong...

People have already started throwing around the whole "kundalini symptoms" thing lately—but honestly? Psychiatrists have been well aware of those exact same signs for ages... just like the gurus have.

Look, just because all the theories being tossed around right now aren't considered "official science" doesn't mean they're wrong... it just means they haven't been vetted yet. And honestly, if we decide that anything labeled "pseudoscience" is automatically garbage, we might as well just pack up the lab coats and stop researching new fields altogether—because, let’s be real, everything starts out looking like pseudoscience until it isn't...

You’re 100% wrong about this...
Honestly, I’m pretty much done with this whole debate—I want to wrap this thing up right now... Going off to dig through books or scour the internet just feels like a massive waste of my energy. This entire conversation is honestly going nowhere... Just go learn about the subject on your own, because arguing this with anyone is just a drain on my time. Not that I’m trying to shade you personally or anything—it’s just pointless to keep clashing like this. It’s literally a waste of breath... You're better off actually studying the topic from people who have actual legitimacy—you know, folks who have written 200-page books on the matter...

And yeah, raising Kundalini falls right into that category.

Who even said dopamine was the most important part of the whole hormonal system? Don't put words in my mouth. You asked why I kept bringing up dopamine, so I answered you because its role is huge when it comes to developing mental illness...

My "personal theory" plus the experiences of millions of people plus actual gurus who warn about these exact issues... and you just dismiss all of that in one single sentence—which, honestly, you probably haven't even practiced long enough to know, because if you had, you'd get it...

If you actually bothered to learn anything about what I'm talking about, you'd wrap your head around it in five minutes... well, five minutes just to read it, really...

So, bottom line: go pick up some books, hit the internet, and actually educate yourself...

...I don't have the energy to go back and forth like this forever if you aren't willing to actually study the subject...

As far as I'm concerned, I'm done with this topic. I've laid out the theory, the evidence, and the subjective experiences... whether you want to take something from it or not, I don't know... I'd suggest one more time that you maybe reread what's already been written...

LOL. Nah, you’re gonna need to drop a legit peer-reviewed study or something the actual scientific community agrees on. Until then, people are just gonna assume I'm right and that you're out here peddling pseudoscience—claiming things are "proven" when there's zero actual evidence to back them up.

lonestag15 said:Just because it hasn't hit the mainstream scientific consensus yet doesn't mean there isn't actual research out there—it just means the studies are too recent to be officially "recognized" by the establishment. It’s a timing thing, really. Do yourself a favor, look it up online, and actually educate yourself on the topic...

Look, just because some method for measuring brain waves hasn't been officially sanctioned by the FDA doesn't mean the data isn't real. Someone actually sat down, did the work, and pulled legitimate readings from the measurements... Just because it isn't "official" doesn't automatically make it wrong...

People have already started throwing around the whole "kundalini symptoms" thing lately—but honestly? Psychiatrists have been well aware of those exact same signs for ages... just like the gurus have.

Look, just because all the theories being tossed around right now aren't considered "official science" doesn't mean they're wrong... it just means they haven't been vetted yet. And honestly, if we decide that anything labeled "pseudoscience" is automatically garbage, we might as well just pack up the lab coats and stop researching new fields altogether—because, let’s be real, everything starts out looking like pseudoscience until it isn't...

You’re 100% wrong about this...
Honestly, I’m pretty much done with this whole debate—I want to wrap this thing up right now... Going off to dig through books or scour the internet just feels like a massive waste of my energy. This entire conversation is honestly going nowhere... Just go learn about the subject on your own, because arguing this with anyone is just a drain on my time. Not that I’m trying to shade you personally or anything—it’s just pointless to keep clashing like this. It’s literally a waste of breath... You're better off actually studying the topic from people who have actual legitimacy—you know, folks who have written 200-page books on the matter...

And yeah, raising Kundalini falls right into that category.

Who even said dopamine was the most important part of the whole hormonal system? Don't put words in my mouth. You asked why I kept bringing up dopamine, so I answered you because its role is huge when it comes to developing mental illness...

My "personal theory" plus the experiences of millions of people plus actual gurus who warn about these exact issues... and you just dismiss all of that in one single sentence—which, honestly, you probably haven't even practiced long enough to know, because if you had, you'd get it...

If you actually bothered to learn anything about what I'm talking about, you'd wrap your head around it in five minutes... well, five minutes just to read it, really...

So, bottom line: go pick up some books, hit the internet, and actually educate yourself...

...I don't have the energy to go back and forth like this forever if you aren't willing to actually study the subject...

As far as I'm concerned, I'm done with this topic. I've laid out the theory, the evidence, and the subjective experiences... whether you want to take something from it or not, I don't know... I'd suggest one more time that you maybe reread what's already been written...

I think you’re getting a bit mixed up on what actually defines science versus pseudoscience—and honestly, there's a big difference between hard data and just someone's personal take. Just because a new study comes out doesn't automatically mean everything else is fake or "pseudo." It’s not that simple.

lonestag15 said:Just because it hasn't hit the mainstream scientific consensus yet doesn't mean there isn't actual research out there—it just means the studies are too recent to be officially "recognized" by the establishment. It’s a timing thing, really. Do yourself a favor, look it up online, and actually educate yourself on the topic...

Look, just because some method for measuring brain waves hasn't been officially sanctioned by the FDA doesn't mean the data isn't real. Someone actually sat down, did the work, and pulled legitimate readings from the measurements... Just because it isn't "official" doesn't automatically make it wrong...

People have already started throwing around the whole "kundalini symptoms" thing lately—but honestly? Psychiatrists have been well aware of those exact same signs for ages... just like the gurus have.

Look, just because all the theories being tossed around right now aren't considered "official science" doesn't mean they're wrong... it just means they haven't been vetted yet. And honestly, if we decide that anything labeled "pseudoscience" is automatically garbage, we might as well just pack up the lab coats and stop researching new fields altogether—because, let’s be real, everything starts out looking like pseudoscience until it isn't...

You’re 100% wrong about this...
Honestly, I’m pretty much done with this whole debate—I want to wrap this thing up right now... Going off to dig through books or scour the internet just feels like a massive waste of my energy. This entire conversation is honestly going nowhere... Just go learn about the subject on your own, because arguing this with anyone is just a drain on my time. Not that I’m trying to shade you personally or anything—it’s just pointless to keep clashing like this. It’s literally a waste of breath... You're better off actually studying the topic from people who have actual legitimacy—you know, folks who have written 200-page books on the matter...

And yeah, raising Kundalini falls right into that category.

Who even said dopamine was the most important part of the whole hormonal system? Don't put words in my mouth. You asked why I kept bringing up dopamine, so I answered you because its role is huge when it comes to developing mental illness...

My "personal theory" plus the experiences of millions of people plus actual gurus who warn about these exact issues... and you just dismiss all of that in one single sentence—which, honestly, you probably haven't even practiced long enough to know, because if you had, you'd get it...

If you actually bothered to learn anything about what I'm talking about, you'd wrap your head around it in five minutes... well, five minutes just to read it, really...

So, bottom line: go pick up some books, hit the internet, and actually educate yourself...

...I don't have the energy to go back and forth like this forever if you aren't willing to actually study the subject...

As far as I'm concerned, I'm done with this topic. I've laid out the theory, the evidence, and the subjective experiences... whether you want to take something from it or not, I don't know... I'd suggest one more time that you maybe reread what's already been written...

Look, I’m not saying you're wrong. But seriously, can you point to even one single scientific paper that actually proves Kundalini exists? Like, at all? As far as I know, there hasn't been any actual scientific proof for stuff like that.

lonestag15 said:Just because it hasn't hit the mainstream scientific consensus yet doesn't mean there isn't actual research out there—it just means the studies are too recent to be officially "recognized" by the establishment. It’s a timing thing, really. Do yourself a favor, look it up online, and actually educate yourself on the topic...

Look, just because some method for measuring brain waves hasn't been officially sanctioned by the FDA doesn't mean the data isn't real. Someone actually sat down, did the work, and pulled legitimate readings from the measurements... Just because it isn't "official" doesn't automatically make it wrong...

People have already started throwing around the whole "kundalini symptoms" thing lately—but honestly? Psychiatrists have been well aware of those exact same signs for ages... just like the gurus have.

Look, just because all the theories being tossed around right now aren't considered "official science" doesn't mean they're wrong... it just means they haven't been vetted yet. And honestly, if we decide that anything labeled "pseudoscience" is automatically garbage, we might as well just pack up the lab coats and stop researching new fields altogether—because, let’s be real, everything starts out looking like pseudoscience until it isn't...

You’re 100% wrong about this...
Honestly, I’m pretty much done with this whole debate—I want to wrap this thing up right now... Going off to dig through books or scour the internet just feels like a massive waste of my energy. This entire conversation is honestly going nowhere... Just go learn about the subject on your own, because arguing this with anyone is just a drain on my time. Not that I’m trying to shade you personally or anything—it’s just pointless to keep clashing like this. It’s literally a waste of breath... You're better off actually studying the topic from people who have actual legitimacy—you know, folks who have written 200-page books on the matter...

And yeah, raising Kundalini falls right into that category.

Who even said dopamine was the most important part of the whole hormonal system? Don't put words in my mouth. You asked why I kept bringing up dopamine, so I answered you because its role is huge when it comes to developing mental illness...

My "personal theory" plus the experiences of millions of people plus actual gurus who warn about these exact issues... and you just dismiss all of that in one single sentence—which, honestly, you probably haven't even practiced long enough to know, because if you had, you'd get it...

If you actually bothered to learn anything about what I'm talking about, you'd wrap your head around it in five minutes... well, five minutes just to read it, really...

So, bottom line: go pick up some books, hit the internet, and actually educate yourself...

...I don't have the energy to go back and forth like this forever if you aren't willing to actually study the subject...

As far as I'm concerned, I'm done with this topic. I've laid out the theory, the evidence, and the subjective experiences... whether you want to take something from it or not, I don't know... I'd suggest one more time that you maybe reread what's already been written...

Whatever you were reading, it clearly wasn't exactly a reliable source. You're totally tripping over some of the most important details here.

lonestag15 said:Just because it hasn't hit the mainstream scientific consensus yet doesn't mean there isn't actual research out there—it just means the studies are too recent to be officially "recognized" by the establishment. It’s a timing thing, really. Do yourself a favor, look it up online, and actually educate yourself on the topic...

Look, just because some method for measuring brain waves hasn't been officially sanctioned by the FDA doesn't mean the data isn't real. Someone actually sat down, did the work, and pulled legitimate readings from the measurements... Just because it isn't "official" doesn't automatically make it wrong...

People have already started throwing around the whole "kundalini symptoms" thing lately—but honestly? Psychiatrists have been well aware of those exact same signs for ages... just like the gurus have.

Look, just because all the theories being tossed around right now aren't considered "official science" doesn't mean they're wrong... it just means they haven't been vetted yet. And honestly, if we decide that anything labeled "pseudoscience" is automatically garbage, we might as well just pack up the lab coats and stop researching new fields altogether—because, let’s be real, everything starts out looking like pseudoscience until it isn't...

You’re 100% wrong about this...
Honestly, I’m pretty much done with this whole debate—I want to wrap this thing up right now... Going off to dig through books or scour the internet just feels like a massive waste of my energy. This entire conversation is honestly going nowhere... Just go learn about the subject on your own, because arguing this with anyone is just a drain on my time. Not that I’m trying to shade you personally or anything—it’s just pointless to keep clashing like this. It’s literally a waste of breath... You're better off actually studying the topic from people who have actual legitimacy—you know, folks who have written 200-page books on the matter...

And yeah, raising Kundalini falls right into that category.

Who even said dopamine was the most important part of the whole hormonal system? Don't put words in my mouth. You asked why I kept bringing up dopamine, so I answered you because its role is huge when it comes to developing mental illness...

My "personal theory" plus the experiences of millions of people plus actual gurus who warn about these exact issues... and you just dismiss all of that in one single sentence—which, honestly, you probably haven't even practiced long enough to know, because if you had, you'd get it...

If you actually bothered to learn anything about what I'm talking about, you'd wrap your head around it in five minutes... well, five minutes just to read it, really...

So, bottom line: go pick up some books, hit the internet, and actually educate yourself...

...I don't have the energy to go back and forth like this forever if you aren't willing to actually study the subject...

As far as I'm concerned, I'm done with this topic. I've laid out the theory, the evidence, and the subjective experiences... whether you want to take something from it or not, I don't know... I'd suggest one more time that you maybe reread what's already been written...

🤣

lonestag15 said:Just because it hasn't hit the mainstream scientific consensus yet doesn't mean there isn't actual research out there—it just means the studies are too recent to be officially "recognized" by the establishment. It’s a timing thing, really. Do yourself a favor, look it up online, and actually educate yourself on the topic...

Look, just because some method for measuring brain waves hasn't been officially sanctioned by the FDA doesn't mean the data isn't real. Someone actually sat down, did the work, and pulled legitimate readings from the measurements... Just because it isn't "official" doesn't automatically make it wrong...

People have already started throwing around the whole "kundalini symptoms" thing lately—but honestly? Psychiatrists have been well aware of those exact same signs for ages... just like the gurus have.

Look, just because all the theories being tossed around right now aren't considered "official science" doesn't mean they're wrong... it just means they haven't been vetted yet. And honestly, if we decide that anything labeled "pseudoscience" is automatically garbage, we might as well just pack up the lab coats and stop researching new fields altogether—because, let’s be real, everything starts out looking like pseudoscience until it isn't...

You’re 100% wrong about this...
Honestly, I’m pretty much done with this whole debate—I want to wrap this thing up right now... Going off to dig through books or scour the internet just feels like a massive waste of my energy. This entire conversation is honestly going nowhere... Just go learn about the subject on your own, because arguing this with anyone is just a drain on my time. Not that I’m trying to shade you personally or anything—it’s just pointless to keep clashing like this. It’s literally a waste of breath... You're better off actually studying the topic from people who have actual legitimacy—you know, folks who have written 200-page books on the matter...

And yeah, raising Kundalini falls right into that category.

Who even said dopamine was the most important part of the whole hormonal system? Don't put words in my mouth. You asked why I kept bringing up dopamine, so I answered you because its role is huge when it comes to developing mental illness...

My "personal theory" plus the experiences of millions of people plus actual gurus who warn about these exact issues... and you just dismiss all of that in one single sentence—which, honestly, you probably haven't even practiced long enough to know, because if you had, you'd get it...

If you actually bothered to learn anything about what I'm talking about, you'd wrap your head around it in five minutes... well, five minutes just to read it, really...

So, bottom line: go pick up some books, hit the internet, and actually educate yourself...

...I don't have the energy to go back and forth like this forever if you aren't willing to actually study the subject...

As far as I'm concerned, I'm done with this topic. I've laid out the theory, the evidence, and the subjective experiences... whether you want to take something from it or not, I don't know... I'd suggest one more time that you maybe reread what's already been written...

I'm definitely not the type who needs that kind of lecture.

lonestag15 said:Just because it hasn't hit the mainstream scientific consensus yet doesn't mean there isn't actual research out there—it just means the studies are too recent to be officially "recognized" by the establishment. It’s a timing thing, really. Do yourself a favor, look it up online, and actually educate yourself on the topic...

Look, just because some method for measuring brain waves hasn't been officially sanctioned by the FDA doesn't mean the data isn't real. Someone actually sat down, did the work, and pulled legitimate readings from the measurements... Just because it isn't "official" doesn't automatically make it wrong...

People have already started throwing around the whole "kundalini symptoms" thing lately—but honestly? Psychiatrists have been well aware of those exact same signs for ages... just like the gurus have.

Look, just because all the theories being tossed around right now aren't considered "official science" doesn't mean they're wrong... it just means they haven't been vetted yet. And honestly, if we decide that anything labeled "pseudoscience" is automatically garbage, we might as well just pack up the lab coats and stop researching new fields altogether—because, let’s be real, everything starts out looking like pseudoscience until it isn't...

You’re 100% wrong about this...
Honestly, I’m pretty much done with this whole debate—I want to wrap this thing up right now... Going off to dig through books or scour the internet just feels like a massive waste of my energy. This entire conversation is honestly going nowhere... Just go learn about the subject on your own, because arguing this with anyone is just a drain on my time. Not that I’m trying to shade you personally or anything—it’s just pointless to keep clashing like this. It’s literally a waste of breath... You're better off actually studying the topic from people who have actual legitimacy—you know, folks who have written 200-page books on the matter...

And yeah, raising Kundalini falls right into that category.

Who even said dopamine was the most important part of the whole hormonal system? Don't put words in my mouth. You asked why I kept bringing up dopamine, so I answered you because its role is huge when it comes to developing mental illness...

My "personal theory" plus the experiences of millions of people plus actual gurus who warn about these exact issues... and you just dismiss all of that in one single sentence—which, honestly, you probably haven't even practiced long enough to know, because if you had, you'd get it...

If you actually bothered to learn anything about what I'm talking about, you'd wrap your head around it in five minutes... well, five minutes just to read it, really...

So, bottom line: go pick up some books, hit the internet, and actually educate yourself...

...I don't have the energy to go back and forth like this forever if you aren't willing to actually study the subject...

As far as I'm concerned, I'm done with this topic. I've laid out the theory, the evidence, and the subjective experiences... whether you want to take something from it or not, I don't know... I'd suggest one more time that you maybe reread what's already been written...

Your conclusion is totally off base.

lonestag15 said:Just because it hasn't hit the mainstream scientific consensus yet doesn't mean there isn't actual research out there—it just means the studies are too recent to be officially "recognized" by the establishment. It’s a timing thing, really. Do yourself a favor, look it up online, and actually educate yourself on the topic...

Look, just because some method for measuring brain waves hasn't been officially sanctioned by the FDA doesn't mean the data isn't real. Someone actually sat down, did the work, and pulled legitimate readings from the measurements... Just because it isn't "official" doesn't automatically make it wrong...

People have already started throwing around the whole "kundalini symptoms" thing lately—but honestly? Psychiatrists have been well aware of those exact same signs for ages... just like the gurus have.

Look, just because all the theories being tossed around right now aren't considered "official science" doesn't mean they're wrong... it just means they haven't been vetted yet. And honestly, if we decide that anything labeled "pseudoscience" is automatically garbage, we might as well just pack up the lab coats and stop researching new fields altogether—because, let’s be real, everything starts out looking like pseudoscience until it isn't...

You’re 100% wrong about this...
Honestly, I’m pretty much done with this whole debate—I want to wrap this thing up right now... Going off to dig through books or scour the internet just feels like a massive waste of my energy. This entire conversation is honestly going nowhere... Just go learn about the subject on your own, because arguing this with anyone is just a drain on my time. Not that I’m trying to shade you personally or anything—it’s just pointless to keep clashing like this. It’s literally a waste of breath... You're better off actually studying the topic from people who have actual legitimacy—you know, folks who have written 200-page books on the matter...

And yeah, raising Kundalini falls right into that category.

Who even said dopamine was the most important part of the whole hormonal system? Don't put words in my mouth. You asked why I kept bringing up dopamine, so I answered you because its role is huge when it comes to developing mental illness...

My "personal theory" plus the experiences of millions of people plus actual gurus who warn about these exact issues... and you just dismiss all of that in one single sentence—which, honestly, you probably haven't even practiced long enough to know, because if you had, you'd get it...

If you actually bothered to learn anything about what I'm talking about, you'd wrap your head around it in five minutes... well, five minutes just to read it, really...

So, bottom line: go pick up some books, hit the internet, and actually educate yourself...

...I don't have the energy to go back and forth like this forever if you aren't willing to actually study the subject...

As far as I'm concerned, I'm done with this topic. I've laid out the theory, the evidence, and the subjective experiences... whether you want to take something from it or not, I don't know... I'd suggest one more time that you maybe reread what's already been written...

You haven't brought up a single shred of evidence. And honestly, who knows what kind of random websites you're browsing to back this up...
neonmarlin39 neonmarlin39 Active Member
139 messages
joined May 2019
#227 ·
bluemason3 said:What exactly do you mean by "official" versus "unofficial," or "recognized" versus "unrecognized"?
There isn't some "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" in the scientific community that gets to decide what's allowed.
If someone conducts solid research, publishes it in a reputable journal, and—if possible—has their findings verified by independent teams, then they have a scientific argument. If not, they don't. It’s pretty straightforward. 🤷

The way you're defining pseudoscience is off. Pseudoscience isn't just some "cutting-edge" field where people are testing unproven hypotheses. Real pseudoscience is using "expert-sounding" jargon to create an illusion of legitimacy while completely ignoring, or actively avoiding, actual scientific methodology.

It’s pretty straightforward. When you see a scientific paper published in a legit peer-reviewed journal, it means it’s passed some basic level of scrutiny—or at least started the process. You can't just scribble something down, call it "science," and claim it's proven. I mean, sure, you see people try that move every now and then, but they usually get figured out pretty fast when nobody takes them seriously.
Zachary Cox69 Zachary Cox69 Active MemberOP
72 messages
joined Oct 2019
#228 ·
lonestag15 said:My local pastor is such a nationalist—he spends more time rambling about politics than actually preaching—so I stopped going. I used to drive halfway across town just to hear this one older priest, though. He was such an inspiring speaker that the commute was totally worth it for his sermons.

So, we've got the church as a building and the Church as a community, yet somehow it seems like neither really matters...

What he said regarding meditation basically completely stripped away any need for a priest to act as a middleman. That's actually what I like about the whole statement. You believe in Bog—you don't need a lawyer to talk to Him.

When I was younger, my priest was really strict, and like I mentioned regarding another topic, the congregation had pretty lukewarm faith—honestly, there wasn't much difference between the believers and the non-believers when it came to morals. Add in the secular education from school, and I ended up walking away from God entirely. Later on, I found my way back—just like this—by offering up one sincere prayer, and He revealed Himself to me.
Now I still go to church, but since I'm not living in a small town anymore, I get to choose where I go. I pick based on what the priest preaches and how he actually lives his life. A good priest equals a good church.
Anthony Perez9 Anthony Perez9 Regular
311 messages
joined Apr 2019
#229 ·
"Quote:"
lonestag15 said:My local pastor is such a nationalist—he spends more time rambling about politics than actually preaching—so I stopped going. I used to drive halfway across town just to hear this one older priest, though. He was such an inspiring speaker that the commute was totally worth it for his sermons.

So, we've got the church as a building and the Church as a community, yet somehow it seems like neither really matters...

What he said regarding meditation basically completely stripped away any need for a priest to act as a middleman. That's actually what I like about the whole statement. You believe in Bog—you don't need a lawyer to talk to Him.

Most of the American clergy, especially the bishops led by Bozanic, have sold their souls to the devil, playing defense for Pavelić's puppet regime.
It’s all just pure, unadulterated paranoia—this frantic, trembling fear of anything "red," any hint of communism, or even basic atheism. It's basically just common sense acting like acid on their religious fairy tales.

"Quote:"
I used to trek all the way across town just to hear this one old priest speak. The guy was such an inspiring orator that the commute was actually worth it.
Back when I was actually Catholic, nothing beat a truly inspired sermon. Nowadays, it’s just a bunch of narrow-minded fanatics masquerading as believers. I guess since nobody wants to join the priesthood anymore, they just recruit anyone they can find from the most remote backwaters in the country.

Doesn't mean the Protestant sects or Orthodox versions are any better, and don't even get me started on Islam...

"Quote:"
So, you've got the church as a building and the church as a community, but honestly? It feels like it doesn't even matter if you show up to either one.
Those buildings weren't built on thin air... someone actually broke their back to put them up.
So, community. Just how many idiots does it take to make one? The warm stench of a mob. Comfortable and secure? Please.

"Quote:"
What he said about meditation basically cuts out the need for a priest to act as a middleman. I dig that part of his statement. If you believe in God, you don't need a lawyer to talk to Him for you.
Sure. But who’s to say God won't just hand you everything on a silver platter? You already have what you need to live. There's no point kneeling before deities or begging for mercy—that isn't meditation, it's just being a pathetic beggar to some chemical concoction dreamed up by hollow, useless minds (like that whole mess involving Jesus Christ and his mother).
Paul Rogers94 Paul Rogers94 Active Member
235 messages
joined Apr 2022
#230 ·
neonmarlin39 said:It’s pretty straightforward. When you see a scientific paper published in a legit peer-reviewed journal, it means it’s passed some basic level of scrutiny—or at least started the process. You can't just scribble something down, call it "science," and claim it's proven. I mean, sure, you see people try that move every now and then, but they usually get figured out pretty fast when nobody takes them seriously.

Trying to examine spirituality through a scientific lens is like having some professional geographer attempt to analyze Gooliver's travels from a strictly academic standpoint...

Aleister Crowley
Joseph Bailey41 Joseph Bailey41 Veteran
1K messages
joined Apr 2021
#231 ·
Paul Rogers94 said:Wow... 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣

So apparently I don't understand "basic concepts like an objective bottle of wine" 🎉 (there’s zero inconsistency there, right? This statement isn't just a total paradox and completely nonsensical—it's not an oxymoron??? How can you even think an objective concept exists? You actually have to decide if something is a concept or if it's objective; it can't be both simultaneously just because you want to sound intellectual. First, try figuring out what a concept actually is, then maybe it'll be easier to make a final call)

Read this paragraph of pure nonsense again—what exactly is this "my concept of perceiving a wine bottle"

"and becoming subjective"

And you don't find that ridiculous-grotesque-intellectual-sounding-nonsense all at once?

You're lost, man...

Do you have actual problems here, or are you just stupid as hell?

If it's the former, don't worry—love conquers all. 😍

But if it's the latter... there's no helping you.

I don't know if it helps, but I'm not much smarter than you, nor is anyone else who tries to engage in any intellectual debates using "arguments and evidence" with you.

Have you ever considered just showing him a little love instead?🙂
neonmarlin39 neonmarlin39 Active Member
139 messages
joined May 2019
#232 ·
Paul Rogers94 said:Trying to examine spirituality through a scientific lens is like having some professional geographer attempt to analyze Gooliver's travels from a strictly academic standpoint...

Aleister Crowley

That’s fair, I guess, but you can't really play both sides of the fence—you can't claim science and hard data back to back when talking about this stuff.

At the end of the day, we're physical, mental, and spiritual beings all rolled into one. It's not like these are three separate silos that don't touch. Plus, the physical and mental side—which includes things like hormones—is definitely right in the wheelhouse of actual science.
lonestag15 lonestag15 Active Member
100 messages
joined Apr 2022
#233 ·
neonmarlin39 said:LOL. Nah, you’re gonna need to drop a legit peer-reviewed study or something the actual scientific community agrees on. Until then, people are just gonna assume I'm right and that you're out here peddling pseudoscience—claiming things are "proven" when there's zero actual evidence to back them up.

I think you’re getting a bit mixed up on what actually defines science versus pseudoscience—and honestly, there's a big difference between hard data and just someone's personal take. Just because a new study comes out doesn't automatically mean everything else is fake or "pseudo." It’s not that simple.

Look, I’m not saying you're wrong. But seriously, can you point to even one single scientific paper that actually proves Kundalini exists? Like, at all? As far as I know, there hasn't been any actual scientific proof for stuff like that.

Whatever you were reading, it clearly wasn't exactly a reliable source. You're totally tripping over some of the most important details here.

🤣

I'm definitely not the type who needs that kind of lecture.

Your conclusion is totally off base.

You haven't brought up a single shred of evidence. And honestly, who knows what kind of random websites you're browsing to back this up...

Fine, whatever. We'll just assume everything you wrote is gospel truth then. Honestly, I'm done with this debate—I don't really have the energy to keep going in circles with you personally...
lonestag15 lonestag15 Active Member
100 messages
joined Apr 2022
#234 ·
bluemason3 said:What exactly do you mean by "official" versus "unofficial," or "recognized" versus "unrecognized"?
There isn't some "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" in the scientific community that gets to decide what's allowed.
If someone conducts solid research, publishes it in a reputable journal, and—if possible—has their findings verified by independent teams, then they have a scientific argument. If not, they don't. It’s pretty straightforward. 🤷

The way you're defining pseudoscience is off. Pseudoscience isn't just some "cutting-edge" field where people are testing unproven hypotheses. Real pseudoscience is using "expert-sounding" jargon to create an illusion of legitimacy while completely ignoring, or actively avoiding, actual scientific methodology.

They officially teach this stuff in schools—like that whole Bhorov atomic model nonsense...
Off the record—so what does "off the record" even actually mean? I mean... seriously...

Whether it’s officially recognized or not, it doesn't really matter—since this kind of research doesn't fit into any neat little box, there isn't some grand committee sitting around deciding what makes the cut for the textbooks and what gets tossed in the bin... All you really have to go on are studies from highly qualified experts—people actually putting their reputations on the line like that. So, yeah, you won't see a psychiatrist using the term "kundalini syndrome" in a clinical setting, even if they recognize the symptoms when they see them...

bluemason3 said:What exactly do you mean by "official" versus "unofficial," or "recognized" versus "unrecognized"?
There isn't some "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" in the scientific community that gets to decide what's allowed.
If someone conducts solid research, publishes it in a reputable journal, and—if possible—has their findings verified by independent teams, then they have a scientific argument. If not, they don't. It’s pretty straightforward. 🤷

The way you're defining pseudoscience is off. Pseudoscience isn't just some "cutting-edge" field where people are testing unproven hypotheses. Real pseudoscience is using "expert-sounding" jargon to create an illusion of legitimacy while completely ignoring, or actively avoiding, actual scientific methodology.

So many people have actually put in the work and done some solid research out there...
In the electrical engineering field, they're constantly running all sorts of research into boundary areas...
So, if you actually caught my previous posts—which I doubt—here’s the deal: I’ve got an electrical engineering degree, so let’s talk shop. The whole concept of piezoelectricity is pretty straightforward once you strip away the fluff. One of the core components of kundalini is basically just current... see, by stretching the spine and inducing vibration, you're cranking up the brain's electrical activity because you're generating extra electricity through the spinal column. In layman's terms—or just plain physics—a piezoelectric material is anything that produces an extra electrical charge when it's under physical stress or tension... like the spine or the bones...

Maybe I could cite some specific study here—honestly, my memory is a bit shot on what exactly I've read—but I just did a quick double-check online to be sure...

PhD "Physiology of kundalini Yoga, 2001."
So, we’re looking at power spectrum analysis for EEGs now—basically trying to make sense of all that brainwave noise... It's essentially just breaking down those messy electrical signals into their frequency components to see which rhythms are actually doing the heavy lifting. You’ve got your deltas, your alphas, your betas—all that good stuff—and you're basically just checking how much "power" is sitting in each band. It's a bit like looking at an equalizer on a high-end stereo system, only instead of bass and treble, you're dealing with the raw data of human consciousness... pretty wild when you think about it.
Bhushan Sharma

The only way to actually get any accurate measurements from Dr. Ljubise Stojanovica is through his books—since his website vanished into thin air about ten years ago... boo... now there's just nothing left to go on...

bluemason3 said:What exactly do you mean by "official" versus "unofficial," or "recognized" versus "unrecognized"?
There isn't some "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" in the scientific community that gets to decide what's allowed.
If someone conducts solid research, publishes it in a reputable journal, and—if possible—has their findings verified by independent teams, then they have a scientific argument. If not, they don't. It’s pretty straightforward. 🤷

The way you're defining pseudoscience is off. Pseudoscience isn't just some "cutting-edge" field where people are testing unproven hypotheses. Real pseudoscience is using "expert-sounding" jargon to create an illusion of legitimacy while completely ignoring, or actively avoiding, actual scientific methodology.

So, I guess that makes me the resident pseudo-scientist then...

I started out looking into piezoelectricity and how it actually ramps up electrical activity in the brain... I’m really starting to wrap my head around this whole field of study... It’s one of those tangible phenomena you see in Eastern practices—mostly because of all that spinal vibration and stretching stuff. This is exactly what the guy was measuring with his EEG...

As for those biological symptoms that might pop up—well, you probably already have a clue... I’m not out here peddling Kundalini lifting courses or anything, especially since I've been hanging around this thread for five days straight just repeating myself, haha

If you want to see what I've actually said, just scroll back a bit... you'll end up agreeing with everything (and eventually, you'll decide for yourself whether the symptoms came from the practice or not)

Some people get drawn to this kind of stuff because they're dealing with early-stage psychosis—but if that predisposition is already there... the real question is whether Kundalini acts as the trigger or not. Personally, I think it does (just like the gurus who actually study this believe), while psychiatrists will just keep patching things up however they can...

So, are you actually questioning whether the reality of rising Kundalini even exists?
Paul Rogers94 Paul Rogers94 Active Member
235 messages
joined Apr 2022
#235 ·
lonestag15 said:They officially teach this stuff in schools—like that whole Bhorov atomic model nonsense...
Off the record—so what does "off the record" even actually mean? I mean... seriously...

Whether it’s officially recognized or not, it doesn't really matter—since this kind of research doesn't fit into any neat little box, there isn't some grand committee sitting around deciding what makes the cut for the textbooks and what gets tossed in the bin... All you really have to go on are studies from highly qualified experts—people actually putting their reputations on the line like that. So, yeah, you won't see a psychiatrist using the term "kundalini syndrome" in a clinical setting, even if they recognize the symptoms when they see them...

So many people have actually put in the work and done some solid research out there...
In the electrical engineering field, they're constantly running all sorts of research into boundary areas...
So, if you actually caught my previous posts—which I doubt—here’s the deal: I’ve got an electrical engineering degree, so let’s talk shop. The whole concept of piezoelectricity is pretty straightforward once you strip away the fluff. One of the core components of kundalini is basically just current... see, by stretching the spine and inducing vibration, you're cranking up the brain's electrical activity because you're generating extra electricity through the spinal column. In layman's terms—or just plain physics—a piezoelectric material is anything that produces an extra electrical charge when it's under physical stress or tension... like the spine or the bones...

Maybe I could cite some specific study here—honestly, my memory is a bit shot on what exactly I've read—but I just did a quick double-check online to be sure...

PhD "Physiology of kundalini Yoga, 2001."
So, we’re looking at power spectrum analysis for EEGs now—basically trying to make sense of all that brainwave noise... It's essentially just breaking down those messy electrical signals into their frequency components to see which rhythms are actually doing the heavy lifting. You’ve got your deltas, your alphas, your betas—all that good stuff—and you're basically just checking how much "power" is sitting in each band. It's a bit like looking at an equalizer on a high-end stereo system, only instead of bass and treble, you're dealing with the raw data of human consciousness... pretty wild when you think about it.
Bhushan Sharma

The only way to actually get any accurate measurements from Dr. Ljubise Stojanovica is through his books—since his website vanished into thin air about ten years ago... boo... now there's just nothing left to go on...

So, I guess that makes me the resident pseudo-scientist then...

I started out looking into piezoelectricity and how it actually ramps up electrical activity in the brain... I’m really starting to wrap my head around this whole field of study... It’s one of those tangible phenomena you see in Eastern practices—mostly because of all that spinal vibration and stretching stuff. This is exactly what the guy was measuring with his EEG...

As for those biological symptoms that might pop up—well, you probably already have a clue... I’m not out here peddling Kundalini lifting courses or anything, especially since I've been hanging around this thread for five days straight just repeating myself, haha

If you want to see what I've actually said, just scroll back a bit... you'll end up agreeing with everything (and eventually, you'll decide for yourself whether the symptoms came from the practice or not)

Some people get drawn to this kind of stuff because they're dealing with early-stage psychosis—but if that predisposition is already there... the real question is whether Kundalini acts as the trigger or not. Personally, I think it does (just like the gurus who actually study this believe), while psychiatrists will just keep patching things up however they can...

So, are you actually questioning whether the reality of rising Kundalini even exists?

Carl Gustav Jung interview on Kundalini

kundalini Carl Jung's The Psychology of kundalini Yoga

image

These apologists for scientific methodology and the materialistic paradigm don't think Jung is "scientific" enough
lonestag15 lonestag15 Active Member
100 messages
joined Apr 2022
#236 ·
Anthony Perez9 said:"Quote:"

Most of the American clergy, especially the bishops led by Bozanic, have sold their souls to the devil, playing defense for Pavelić's puppet regime.
It’s all just pure, unadulterated paranoia—this frantic, trembling fear of anything "red," any hint of communism, or even basic atheism. It's basically just common sense acting like acid on their religious fairy tales.

"Quote:"
I used to trek all the way across town just to hear this one old priest speak. The guy was such an inspiring orator that the commute was actually worth it.
Back when I was actually Catholic, nothing beat a truly inspired sermon. Nowadays, it’s just a bunch of narrow-minded fanatics masquerading as believers. I guess since nobody wants to join the priesthood anymore, they just recruit anyone they can find from the most remote backwaters in the country.

Doesn't mean the Protestant sects or Orthodox versions are any better, and don't even get me started on Islam...

"Quote:"
So, you've got the church as a building and the church as a community, but honestly? It feels like it doesn't even matter if you show up to either one.
Those buildings weren't built on thin air... someone actually broke their back to put them up.
So, community. Just how many idiots does it take to make one? The warm stench of a mob. Comfortable and secure? Please.

"Quote:"
What he said about meditation basically cuts out the need for a priest to act as a middleman. I dig that part of his statement. If you believe in God, you don't need a lawyer to talk to Him for you.
Sure. But who’s to say God won't just hand you everything on a silver platter? You already have what you need to live. There's no point kneeling before deities or begging for mercy—that isn't meditation, it's just being a pathetic beggar to some chemical concoction dreamed up by hollow, useless minds (like that whole mess involving Jesus Christ and his mother).

And honestly, that’s a core part of faith people tend to overlook... that whole oral tradition thing...

For me, growing up Catholic provided a solid moral foundation.
But obviously, things have shifted quite a bit since the days the Bible was being written...

Anthony Perez9 said:"Quote:"

Most of the American clergy, especially the bishops led by Bozanic, have sold their souls to the devil, playing defense for Pavelić's puppet regime.
It’s all just pure, unadulterated paranoia—this frantic, trembling fear of anything "red," any hint of communism, or even basic atheism. It's basically just common sense acting like acid on their religious fairy tales.

"Quote:"
I used to trek all the way across town just to hear this one old priest speak. The guy was such an inspiring orator that the commute was actually worth it.
Back when I was actually Catholic, nothing beat a truly inspired sermon. Nowadays, it’s just a bunch of narrow-minded fanatics masquerading as believers. I guess since nobody wants to join the priesthood anymore, they just recruit anyone they can find from the most remote backwaters in the country.

Doesn't mean the Protestant sects or Orthodox versions are any better, and don't even get me started on Islam...

"Quote:"
So, you've got the church as a building and the church as a community, but honestly? It feels like it doesn't even matter if you show up to either one.
Those buildings weren't built on thin air... someone actually broke their back to put them up.
So, community. Just how many idiots does it take to make one? The warm stench of a mob. Comfortable and secure? Please.

"Quote:"
What he said about meditation basically cuts out the need for a priest to act as a middleman. I dig that part of his statement. If you believe in God, you don't need a lawyer to talk to Him for you.
Sure. But who’s to say God won't just hand you everything on a silver platter? You already have what you need to live. There's no point kneeling before deities or begging for mercy—that isn't meditation, it's just being a pathetic beggar to some chemical concoction dreamed up by hollow, useless minds (like that whole mess involving Jesus Christ and his mother).

Well, if someone finds comfort there, fine by me—nobody's forcing you to join their little club...
If those kinds of communities want to exist, why not?

Anthony Perez9 said:"Quote:"

Most of the American clergy, especially the bishops led by Bozanic, have sold their souls to the devil, playing defense for Pavelić's puppet regime.
It’s all just pure, unadulterated paranoia—this frantic, trembling fear of anything "red," any hint of communism, or even basic atheism. It's basically just common sense acting like acid on their religious fairy tales.

"Quote:"
I used to trek all the way across town just to hear this one old priest speak. The guy was such an inspiring orator that the commute was actually worth it.
Back when I was actually Catholic, nothing beat a truly inspired sermon. Nowadays, it’s just a bunch of narrow-minded fanatics masquerading as believers. I guess since nobody wants to join the priesthood anymore, they just recruit anyone they can find from the most remote backwaters in the country.

Doesn't mean the Protestant sects or Orthodox versions are any better, and don't even get me started on Islam...

"Quote:"
So, you've got the church as a building and the church as a community, but honestly? It feels like it doesn't even matter if you show up to either one.
Those buildings weren't built on thin air... someone actually broke their back to put them up.
So, community. Just how many idiots does it take to make one? The warm stench of a mob. Comfortable and secure? Please.

"Quote:"
What he said about meditation basically cuts out the need for a priest to act as a middleman. I dig that part of his statement. If you believe in God, you don't need a lawyer to talk to Him for you.
Sure. But who’s to say God won't just hand you everything on a silver platter? You already have what you need to live. There's no point kneeling before deities or begging for mercy—that isn't meditation, it's just being a pathetic beggar to some chemical concoction dreamed up by hollow, useless minds (like that whole mess involving Jesus Christ and his mother).

To me, God is that concept of "I am," which is how the Bible describes the God who first revealed Himself by that name... it’s pure existence... that's why I still feel a certain respect for the idea of "God." Prayer should mainly be about gratitude...

Besides, idols are forbidden anyway (hellooo, church rules!)
bluemason3 bluemason3 Veteran
1.1K messages
joined Jun 2016
#237 ·
lonestag15 said:They officially teach this stuff in schools—like that whole Bhorov atomic model nonsense...
Off the record—so what does "off the record" even actually mean? I mean... seriously...

Whether it’s officially recognized or not, it doesn't really matter—since this kind of research doesn't fit into any neat little box, there isn't some grand committee sitting around deciding what makes the cut for the textbooks and what gets tossed in the bin... All you really have to go on are studies from highly qualified experts—people actually putting their reputations on the line like that. So, yeah, you won't see a psychiatrist using the term "kundalini syndrome" in a clinical setting, even if they recognize the symptoms when they see them...

So many people have actually put in the work and done some solid research out there...
In the electrical engineering field, they're constantly running all sorts of research into boundary areas...
So, if you actually caught my previous posts—which I doubt—here’s the deal: I’ve got an electrical engineering degree, so let’s talk shop. The whole concept of piezoelectricity is pretty straightforward once you strip away the fluff. One of the core components of kundalini is basically just current... see, by stretching the spine and inducing vibration, you're cranking up the brain's electrical activity because you're generating extra electricity through the spinal column. In layman's terms—or just plain physics—a piezoelectric material is anything that produces an extra electrical charge when it's under physical stress or tension... like the spine or the bones...

Maybe I could cite some specific study here—honestly, my memory is a bit shot on what exactly I've read—but I just did a quick double-check online to be sure...

PhD "Physiology of kundalini Yoga, 2001."
So, we’re looking at power spectrum analysis for EEGs now—basically trying to make sense of all that brainwave noise... It's essentially just breaking down those messy electrical signals into their frequency components to see which rhythms are actually doing the heavy lifting. You’ve got your deltas, your alphas, your betas—all that good stuff—and you're basically just checking how much "power" is sitting in each band. It's a bit like looking at an equalizer on a high-end stereo system, only instead of bass and treble, you're dealing with the raw data of human consciousness... pretty wild when you think about it.
Bhushan Sharma

The only way to actually get any accurate measurements from Dr. Ljubise Stojanovica is through his books—since his website vanished into thin air about ten years ago... boo... now there's just nothing left to go on...

So, I guess that makes me the resident pseudo-scientist then...

I started out looking into piezoelectricity and how it actually ramps up electrical activity in the brain... I’m really starting to wrap my head around this whole field of study... It’s one of those tangible phenomena you see in Eastern practices—mostly because of all that spinal vibration and stretching stuff. This is exactly what the guy was measuring with his EEG...

As for those biological symptoms that might pop up—well, you probably already have a clue... I’m not out here peddling Kundalini lifting courses or anything, especially since I've been hanging around this thread for five days straight just repeating myself, haha

If you want to see what I've actually said, just scroll back a bit... you'll end up agreeing with everything (and eventually, you'll decide for yourself whether the symptoms came from the practice or not)

Some people get drawn to this kind of stuff because they're dealing with early-stage psychosis—but if that predisposition is already there... the real question is whether Kundalini acts as the trigger or not. Personally, I think it does (just like the gurus who actually study this believe), while psychiatrists will just keep patching things up however they can...

So, are you actually questioning whether the reality of rising Kundalini even exists?

Education isn't one-size-fits-all. Obviously, you aren't going to teach the same curriculum to a third grader that you'd give to someone finishing a postdoc in physics. It's just common sense.

Kids can't grasp the basics yet. They really need to master fundamental skills first. At this stage, it’s far more important for them to wrap their heads around calculus and how it actually applies to physics than to get bogged down by complex questions that are way over their heads.

There are plenty of things tucked away in school textbooks that don't actually have any scientific consensus behind them. That isn't even a real criterion for what we call "official science."

Honestly, that term doesn't even exist. The whole phrase just doesn't make much sense to begin with.

Whether it's officially recognized or still flying under the radar, those studies don't really fit into any of the existing categories.

There’s plenty of research out there that crosses lines, where different fields overlap and blur. Trying to force everything into one strict category doesn't really mean much anyway.

I wish there were some kind of oversight committee deciding what actually makes the cut for official reading lists and what doesn't.

There’s no official handbook on this, and no oversight committee to call. Science isn't some centralized hierarchy built on someone else's authority.

The only research worth any serious consideration comes from highly qualified experts—people who are actually putting their reputations on the line when they speak up.

That’s basically the definition of science. It isn't about having a specific set of credentials on paper—even if we all know that matters in the real world—but rather about the quality of the research, the methodology used, and the actual results you get.

Psychiatrists will likely never touch the phrase "kundalini syndrome" in their official diagnoses, even if they recognize those exact symptoms in their patients.

No psychiatrist is actually going to touch this, and here’s why.

That isn't listed as an actual diagnosis in either of the two main diagnostic manuals. That doesn't mean it isn't real, of course. Manuals aren't science itself; they’re just a set of agreed-upon standards that shift from one generation to the next. But for purely administrative reasons, an official report can only list what's actually written in the book.

As far as I know, there isn't anything in current scientific research or even at the absolute cutting edge of science that actually points to the existence of Kundalini syndrome.

You could certainly use that term to describe a phenomenon similar to psychosis triggered by spiritual practices. However, it shouldn't imply that Kundalini is an objective reality or a proven "energy model" for what’s happening. As of right now, there just isn't any scientific basis to back that up.

Plenty of people have actually conducted solid research here...

An example?

Electrical engineering fields conduct all sorts of studies on these fringe areas.

Any examples?

Doctorate "Physiology of kundalini Yoga, 2001."
(power spectrum analysis of electroencephalogram)
Prof. Bhushan Sharma

I haven't found the paper myself, so I can't really comment on it. That said, the guy clearly leans heavily into guru-style pseudoscience. Besides, scientific standards in India tend to be pretty loose in these specific niches. I wouldn't take anything too seriously unless the work is published in Q1 or at least Q2 international peer-reviewed journals.

Regarding Dr. Ljubise Stojanovica, the only accurate measurement data is in his books. His website used to exist about ten years ago, but now it's gone... boo... nothing left.

Random claims made in books are irrelevant. You need published papers with precise methodologies that others can actually scrutinize, review, and replicate to verify.
Just because someone plays scientist and uses technical jargon doesn't make the writing scientific (on the contrary, it's often pseudoscientific—or necessarily so, if it isn't based on actual research and peer-reviewed publications, but is instead just making things up as they go and inventing data on the fly)

I started with piezoelectricity and how it amplifies brain activity... I understand this field of science... it's one of the concrete phenomena in those Eastern practices (due to vibrations and spinal stretching).

Can you point me toward a specific study that experimentally proves how spinal stretching via piezoelectricity affects brain activity?

Plus, how does that link back to Kundalini? Eating chocolate or masturbating probably changes brain activity too. A common confirmation bias among spiritualists is declaring any change resulting from a practice to be something magical and "super-uber" without any proof of its actual significance or importance.
bluemason3 bluemason3 Veteran
1.1K messages
joined Jun 2016
#238 ·
lonestag15 said:They officially teach this stuff in schools—like that whole Bhorov atomic model nonsense...
Off the record—so what does "off the record" even actually mean? I mean... seriously...

Whether it’s officially recognized or not, it doesn't really matter—since this kind of research doesn't fit into any neat little box, there isn't some grand committee sitting around deciding what makes the cut for the textbooks and what gets tossed in the bin... All you really have to go on are studies from highly qualified experts—people actually putting their reputations on the line like that. So, yeah, you won't see a psychiatrist using the term "kundalini syndrome" in a clinical setting, even if they recognize the symptoms when they see them...

So many people have actually put in the work and done some solid research out there...
In the electrical engineering field, they're constantly running all sorts of research into boundary areas...
So, if you actually caught my previous posts—which I doubt—here’s the deal: I’ve got an electrical engineering degree, so let’s talk shop. The whole concept of piezoelectricity is pretty straightforward once you strip away the fluff. One of the core components of kundalini is basically just current... see, by stretching the spine and inducing vibration, you're cranking up the brain's electrical activity because you're generating extra electricity through the spinal column. In layman's terms—or just plain physics—a piezoelectric material is anything that produces an extra electrical charge when it's under physical stress or tension... like the spine or the bones...

Maybe I could cite some specific study here—honestly, my memory is a bit shot on what exactly I've read—but I just did a quick double-check online to be sure...

PhD "Physiology of kundalini Yoga, 2001."
So, we’re looking at power spectrum analysis for EEGs now—basically trying to make sense of all that brainwave noise... It's essentially just breaking down those messy electrical signals into their frequency components to see which rhythms are actually doing the heavy lifting. You’ve got your deltas, your alphas, your betas—all that good stuff—and you're basically just checking how much "power" is sitting in each band. It's a bit like looking at an equalizer on a high-end stereo system, only instead of bass and treble, you're dealing with the raw data of human consciousness... pretty wild when you think about it.
Bhushan Sharma

The only way to actually get any accurate measurements from Dr. Ljubise Stojanovica is through his books—since his website vanished into thin air about ten years ago... boo... now there's just nothing left to go on...

So, I guess that makes me the resident pseudo-scientist then...

I started out looking into piezoelectricity and how it actually ramps up electrical activity in the brain... I’m really starting to wrap my head around this whole field of study... It’s one of those tangible phenomena you see in Eastern practices—mostly because of all that spinal vibration and stretching stuff. This is exactly what the guy was measuring with his EEG...

As for those biological symptoms that might pop up—well, you probably already have a clue... I’m not out here peddling Kundalini lifting courses or anything, especially since I've been hanging around this thread for five days straight just repeating myself, haha

If you want to see what I've actually said, just scroll back a bit... you'll end up agreeing with everything (and eventually, you'll decide for yourself whether the symptoms came from the practice or not)

Some people get drawn to this kind of stuff because they're dealing with early-stage psychosis—but if that predisposition is already there... the real question is whether Kundalini acts as the trigger or not. Personally, I think it does (just like the gurus who actually study this believe), while psychiatrists will just keep patching things up however they can...

So, are you actually questioning whether the reality of rising Kundalini even exists?

Just your typical pseudo-science fraud, by the way.

Classic fake doctorate and phony academic credentials. He doesn't hold an electrical engineering PhD from any accredited university.

That’s how these alternative scammers usually play it. One fraud sets up some LLC or association and calls it the "XYZ College" or "XYZ Academy" (usually something nonsense like quantum medicine or energy healing), then they charge fees for useless, often mail-in courses just to hand out a "doctorate."

It’s about as legitimate as if I drew my own diploma in Photoshop and printed it at home. There's zero scientific weight here; it's a total lie.

You see the same thing in Russia too—they set up some private club and call it an "Academy," because nobody can stop you from using that name. People join and brag about being members of the Russian Academy, conveniently forgetting it's just some guy's private hobby with no connection to actual science or the state-run academies.

Honestly, just reading the first three minutes of his bio makes it obvious he's a pseudo-scientific charlatan with intentionally lazy "qualifications." I'm fairly certain there is absolutely no real scientific foundation for anything he claims.

Are you questioning the reality of rising kundalini?

Of course I am. The experience itself isn't in question—I've witnessed it firsthand, secondhand, and thirdhand—but his labeling it as "kundalini" instead of psychosis or something similar is what's questionable.
Right now, there's no reason to accept "kundalini theory" as anything more than "demonic possession theory." Both are models built on faith and superstition, especially when these phenomena can be explained by much more basic psychological mechanisms and diagnoses.
Paul Rogers94 Paul Rogers94 Active Member
235 messages
joined Apr 2022
#239 ·
neonmarlin39 said:That’s fair, I guess, but you can't really play both sides of the fence—you can't claim science and hard data back to back when talking about this stuff.

At the end of the day, we're physical, mental, and spiritual beings all rolled into one. It's not like these are three separate silos that don't touch. Plus, the physical and mental side—which includes things like hormones—is definitely right in the wheelhouse of actual science.

Where did you get the idea I’d ever try to hide behind science—or, God forbid, religion?

I have zero respect for scientific dogma or the whole materialist worldview, just like I have no patience for religious dogma or any other kind of rigid belief system.

Frankly, I'm repelled by any sort of "scientific" or religious mindset... both are just two sides of the same coin when it comes to being narrow-minded and trapped in a limited perspective.
bluemason3 bluemason3 Veteran
1.1K messages
joined Jun 2016
#240 ·
Paul Rogers94 said:Carl Gustav Jung interview on Kundalini

kundalini Carl Jung's The Psychology of kundalini Yoga

image

These apologists for scientific methodology and the materialistic paradigm don't think Jung is "scientific" enough

The Materialist paradigm isn't really relevant here, and let's be honest, Jung definitely isn't "scientific" by modern standards.

Take Djokovic, for example. He’s a man of faith, so his worldview isn't Materialist, yet everything he does in medicine follows strict scientific protocols.

What Jung was doing wasn't based on exact scientific methodology; it was more about speculative theoretical musing. It sits much closer to philosophy and theology than to hard science.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads