Christian vs. Eastern Meditation: Similarities and Differences!

lonestag15 said:I went ahead and drafted that Bhovian atomic model for you—mostly because it serves as a perfect example of how "official" theories often fall apart under scrutiny... regardless of how the kids end up perceiving the concept. For them, it’ll just be little clouds where there's a higher or lower chance of finding an electron... which basically means those rigid, precise electronic orbits are getting tossed out the window in every interpretation, no matter what grade level they're in.

So, look—to me, "official science" is just the stuff you pick up through formal institutions... like what they drill into you in a university lecture hall. But unofficial science? That’s the deep dive you have to take entirely on your own. Since everyone isn't coming from the same academic background, we aren't all going to be on the same page regarding the second part... though I guess if you all went to the same Ivy League school, you might actually get it...

So where exactly are people supposed to pick up this knowledge in the meantime—you know, while we’re all just waiting around for the education system to actually catch up and create new majors? I mean, it’s not like this stuff can be widely available to everyone until it finally makes its way into the official university curricula...

And what if you’ve got more than one authority figure digging into the exact same topic?...

You really think that guy didn't apply basic scientific principles just because he has a PhD?

Oh, so we could just go, "Hey, ask the patient what they were doing before the psychosis hit and then draw a conclusion from that"?
And compare that to how other psychiatrists actually conduct research...
Would anyone consider that a legitimate scientific approach?

Whether you call it "psychosis triggered by rising Kundalini" or "Kundalini syndrome"... whatever... it doesn't matter...

If this is happening to a massive number of patients, does that prove Kundalini is real?

Apple fell.
Apple fell.
Apple fell.
...Is there some force behind why the Apple fell?
Do you need a measurement to conclude that gravity exists?

Quote:>

bluemason3 says: Example?

For instance, when talking about brain changes resulting from meditation, you discredited player number two... and it looks like you did the same to player number one (that Indian guy)... and honestly, I couldn't pull another name out of a hat if I tried. I'm not even looking it up online (though it's definitely out there).

An interesting example from the fringes of electrical engineering would be the effect of electromagnetic fields on human perception, specifically how those fields can induce "paranormal" experiences.

Well, damn... you just nuked his entire life's work, haha.

Look, I don't really care about all that murky "chakra" nonsense—what matters to me is the bottom line: "he proved increased brain activity via EEG" and the shift in brain wave frequencies...

So yeah, look at these two guys—they both reach the exact same conclusions... any third party could easily step into a lab and prove the same thing...
Plus, I've been looking into this stuff outside of their specific scope and ended up reaching the same conclusions myself...

You can't just make up EEG data.

I can't, but I assume it follows the logic of increased electrical activity as measured by an EEG.

Cause and effect

I don't know, give that Indian guy a call and ask him yourself... haha...

I mean, yeah, jerking off triggers a dopamine spike, but it tanks your levels in the long run... just like how supposedly "raising Kundalini" spikes your dopamine... but evidence? Please... everyone's got an opinion...

At the end of the day, the practice speaks for itself anyway...

You won't exactly be deep-diving into the Bhorov model during your time at university. So, if that's the case, why is it considered "official" when the school is a state-funded institution?

I'm not entirely sure if an elementary schooler could wrap their head around models based on Islamic field theory.

It’s not like nothing here qualifies as "official science," and it's certainly not true that more advanced models fall under the "unofficial" category. Quite the opposite, actually.

To me, "official science" is just whatever they feed you in a classroom or through formal institutions. It’s the standardized curriculum everyone gets taught at the same time. On the other hand, unofficial knowledge? That’s stuff you have to go out and hunt for on your own. Not everyone is going to stumble upon that through a degree; you really have to seek it out yourself.

There’s a distinction between official institutions and unofficial ones, and it's worth looking at what that actually means. Take universities, for example: you have accredited schools and then you have the unaccredited ones. But research institutes are a different story entirely—they can be completely independent, private initiatives.

The whole point of using the scientific method is that everyone should end up at the same destination. That’s the idea—to establish something with actual precision and objectivity.

If you aren't using this kind of methodology, you aren't actually doing science. The idea of "unofficial science" is a nonsense phrase that doesn't hold any water.

So, where is everyone supposed to pick up this knowledge in the meantime? Not exactly easy to find while we wait for new academic tracks to actually get approved. It’s hard to make anything truly accessible to the public until it finally makes its way into official school curriculums.

You'll pick things up wherever they actually matter. In school, certain topics naturally overlap anyway. You can study the exact same concepts in neurology, physiology, psychology, or ethology—knowledge isn't some set of silos locked away in specific departments. 🤷

Educational levels exist for a reason. You aren't going to pick up surgical techniques or advanced scientific breakthroughs during elementary school, and you aren't ever going to reach that level of expertise there.

What if you have multiple authorities all digging into the exact same subject?

Authorities don't mean much. What actually matters is the research.

Every single study goes through the peer-review gauntlet first, then faces the slow grind of follow-up research and constant verification. Eventually, everything settles into whatever the evidence actually points toward.

Do you really think that even with a PhD, he managed to ignore those basic scientific principles?

Which guy, that Indian fellow? I haven't seen his work.
It's not like we haven't seen questionable PhDs around here in the States. I can't claim a paper is bad without reading it, nor can I assume it's good just because there's a doctorate attached. If it were from Harward, I might be more inclined to trust the credibility, but having seen how things operate in India, I’m skeptical.

So, could you just say, "ask the patient what they did before the psychosis and conclude that was the trigger"?
And then compare it to research by other psychiatrists...
Would that even count as a respectable scientific approach?

It isn't science because the sample size is tiny, the circumstances aren't controlled, and the conclusions rely on the subjective assessment of a patient.

Regardless, the issue isn't whether spiritual practices can trigger psychosis; the issue is using the term "kundalini" if that implies unverifiable, unconfirmable mystical religious elements and models. So, it's not about "psychosis triggered by spiritual practice," it's about "awakening kundalini."

If this happened to a large number of patients, wouldn't that prove kundalini is real?

No.

The apple fell.
The apple fell.
The apple fell.
...is there some force causing the apple to fall?
Do we need some kind of measurement to conclude gravity exists?

Sure, but that force could be gravity, or it could be that the Gods blew on the apple.
Just because a phenomenon exists doesn't mean every model describing it is equally good or accurate.

For example, regarding measurements of brain changes resulting from meditation, you discredited player number two (Stojanovica)... and it looks like you've sidelined player number one (this Indian guy) too... and off the top of my head, I can't think of anyone else to pull out of a hat. I'm not even going to bother searching online (though I'm sure they're out there).

It's not about the players; it's about the papers.

An interesting edge case in electrical engineering would be the influence of electromagnetic fields on human perception and inducing "paranormal" experiences through those fields.

That's not up for debate, but it says nothing about kundalini.

Besides, that falls under medical rather than technical territory.

Look, I don't care about vague terms like chakras and such; all that matters to me is the conclusion—that he proved increased brain activity via EEG and changes in brain wave frequencies...

A conclusion only makes sense if the methodology makes sense. I participated in some research on medical yoga in India while working at an institute dedicated to it, attended conferences, and read their published proceedings—it's incredibly poor science. I'd go as far as calling it pseudoscience. It's so bad that, compared to everything else I've seen since returning to America, American science looks like the gold standard of the world.😬

It’s such a circus over there that I don't trust a single thing without double-checking it myself. Don't get me wrong—they have top-tier scientists and engineers, but the oversight is terrible. With this much corruption and cutting corners, you can't just take someone's formal credentials at face value.

So here they are, both of them coming to the exact same conclusions... apparently some third party can just step back into a lab and prove it easily enough...
I've been digging into the subject matter beyond just those two guys, and I ended up reaching the same conclusions too...

But where is the actual research? Where are the peer-reviewed papers in serious journals (ideally Q1)? It doesn't matter what conclusions they toss around on the internet or in casual reading; that isn't science. Anyone can write whatever nonsense they want in a book, but you can't just publish whatever you feel like in a legitimate academic journal.

You can't just make up EEG data.

Why not?

lonestag15 said:But his findings actually line up with other studies... I can't give you specific names right now... but any random YouTube video about brain waves and how they tie into meditation will back up what he was writing years ago... at this point, it's practically common knowledge.

So, I get where you're coming from regarding the fake credentials and the pseudo-science nonsense... but the stuff he did with the measurements? That part is spot on...

Even if it is "psychosis triggered by Kundalini," I don't see the problem... cause and effect... there has to be some kind of link between the practice and the results if it's happening to so many people (meaning, there's a repeatable pattern here)...

The bottom line is that something concrete is actually happening during that practice... that's no longer just a matter of belief or ideology...

His rambling, lacking any real research, probably lines up perfectly with the pseudo-scientific nonsense peddled by other frauds out there.

I could be wrong, but we’re going to need some actual evidence to back that up.

I’m not entirely sure where we’ve landed on this specific topic, but it isn't exactly a controversial point that meditation—or honestly, pretty much any consistent activity—alters brain activity.

I get what you're saying about those fake credentials and all that pseudoscience nonsense. But honestly, when it comes to the actual measurements he was taking? That part was spot on.

If anything actually worked.

If people want to claim psychosis is triggered by Kundalini rising, honestly, I don't see the big deal. It’s fine by me.

The whole debate over raising Kundalini really boils down to that one specific issue. 😁

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

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

100,000 people — number of cases — percentage

Then compare those percentages.

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

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

It would be hard to prove a cause-effect Quote link to "Kundalini rising" that way.

At best, you'd point toward a somewhat realistic possibility of a correlation between a specific practice and psychotic disorders, then suggest further research.

Even establishing a correlation is difficult to do with certainty, let alone causation.

To put it simply—in your example, we would try to create two sufficiently large groups with similar profiles (using something like stratified random sampling or whatever is appropriate), apply appropriate statistical tests based on the sample size and the calculated probability that something occurred by chance, and determine the threshold for whether the pattern in the dataset is likely accidental (usually 5% or 1%). From there, we'd conclude whether there's enough reason to suspect a correlation greater than chance at that 5/1% threshold, and thus decide whether to recommend further study. Of course, it’s desirable to have certain safeguards (single-blind or double-blind procedures) between the stages or actors in the experiment to prevent unconscious subjective influence on the data analysis.
Then, several scientists in the same field (usually three) review everything to critically evaluate the methodology and hunt for potential holes.
After publication, ideally, the work is further investigated, with the experiment repeated using the same or improved methodologies and parameters.

Moving from that single experiment to a definitive (or rather, highly probable—nothing is ever truly definitive) establishment of a correlation takes quite a while, let alone proving causation. And such an experiment wouldn't even be able to identify the actual mechanisms of action.

Because

1) We easily and without research conclude that psychotic episodes happen much more frequently than in a control group (but what does "much more" actually mean? It's a very subjective and imprecise statement))

- That's an assumption, not scientific proof.

2) We easily jump to the conclusion that it's caused by Kundalini rising.

- That's obvious bias and subjective interpretation, not scientific proof.

lonestag15 said:Look, fine, I get what you mean about "hearing" in terms of processing sound waves—since there's no one around to process them... but the sound itself still exists regardless of whether someone is listening or not... which makes this whole philosophical angle feel kind of paradoxical to me.

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

neonmarlin39 said:Look, having this idea of an apple stuck in your head—or anyone else's—doesn't change the fact that the apple is actually there. It’s pretty simple: objective reality doesn't give a damn about how one person or a whole group perceives things.

But honestly, we already know a ton of stuff about space that happened way before humans or even life on Earth were even a thing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paul Rogers94 said:Time, space, matter, and energy all emerge alongside the subject—and vanish right along with it.

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

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

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

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

Paul Rogers94 said:Time, space, matter, and energy all emerge alongside the subject—and vanish right along with it.

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

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

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

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

Paul Rogers94 said:Time, space, matter, and energy all emerge alongside the subject—and vanish right along with it.

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

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

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

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

Paul Rogers94 said:Time, space, matter, and energy all emerge alongside the subject—and vanish right along with it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What you just laid out there is really just your own personal bias regarding what God is.

David Vaughn75 said:What you just laid out there is really just your own personal bias regarding what God is.

Nah, it’s more about how certain philosophical and spiritual traditions actually interpret things, like I mentioned before.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

bluemason3 said:You won't exactly be deep-diving into the Bhorov model during your time at university. So, if that's the case, why is it considered "official" when the school is a state-funded institution?

I'm not entirely sure if an elementary schooler could wrap their head around models based on Islamic field theory.

It’s not like nothing here qualifies as "official science," and it's certainly not true that more advanced models fall under the "unofficial" category. Quite the opposite, actually.

To me, "official science" is just whatever they feed you in a classroom or through formal institutions. It’s the standardized curriculum everyone gets taught at the same time. On the other hand, unofficial knowledge? That’s stuff you have to go out and hunt for on your own. Not everyone is going to stumble upon that through a degree; you really have to seek it out yourself.

There’s a distinction between official institutions and unofficial ones, and it's worth looking at what that actually means. Take universities, for example: you have accredited schools and then you have the unaccredited ones. But research institutes are a different story entirely—they can be completely independent, private initiatives.

The whole point of using the scientific method is that everyone should end up at the same destination. That’s the idea—to establish something with actual precision and objectivity.

If you aren't using this kind of methodology, you aren't actually doing science. The idea of "unofficial science" is a nonsense phrase that doesn't hold any water.

So, where is everyone supposed to pick up this knowledge in the meantime? Not exactly easy to find while we wait for new academic tracks to actually get approved. It’s hard to make anything truly accessible to the public until it finally makes its way into official school curriculums.

You'll pick things up wherever they actually matter. In school, certain topics naturally overlap anyway. You can study the exact same concepts in neurology, physiology, psychology, or ethology—knowledge isn't some set of silos locked away in specific departments. 🤷

Educational levels exist for a reason. You aren't going to pick up surgical techniques or advanced scientific breakthroughs during elementary school, and you aren't ever going to reach that level of expertise there.

What if you have multiple authorities all digging into the exact same subject?

Authorities don't mean much. What actually matters is the research.

Every single study goes through the peer-review gauntlet first, then faces the slow grind of follow-up research and constant verification. Eventually, everything settles into whatever the evidence actually points toward.

Do you really think that even with a PhD, he managed to ignore those basic scientific principles?

Which guy, that Indian fellow? I haven't seen his work.
It's not like we haven't seen questionable PhDs around here in the States. I can't claim a paper is bad without reading it, nor can I assume it's good just because there's a doctorate attached. If it were from Harward, I might be more inclined to trust the credibility, but having seen how things operate in India, I’m skeptical.

So, could you just say, "ask the patient what they did before the psychosis and conclude that was the trigger"?
And then compare it to research by other psychiatrists...
Would that even count as a respectable scientific approach?

It isn't science because the sample size is tiny, the circumstances aren't controlled, and the conclusions rely on the subjective assessment of a patient.

Regardless, the issue isn't whether spiritual practices can trigger psychosis; the issue is using the term "kundalini" if that implies unverifiable, unconfirmable mystical religious elements and models. So, it's not about "psychosis triggered by spiritual practice," it's about "awakening kundalini."

If this happened to a large number of patients, wouldn't that prove kundalini is real?

No.

The apple fell.
The apple fell.
The apple fell.
...is there some force causing the apple to fall?
Do we need some kind of measurement to conclude gravity exists?

Sure, but that force could be gravity, or it could be that the Gods blew on the apple.
Just because a phenomenon exists doesn't mean every model describing it is equally good or accurate.

For example, regarding measurements of brain changes resulting from meditation, you discredited player number two (Stojanovica)... and it looks like you've sidelined player number one (this Indian guy) too... and off the top of my head, I can't think of anyone else to pull out of a hat. I'm not even going to bother searching online (though I'm sure they're out there).

It's not about the players; it's about the papers.

An interesting edge case in electrical engineering would be the influence of electromagnetic fields on human perception and inducing "paranormal" experiences through those fields.

That's not up for debate, but it says nothing about kundalini.

Besides, that falls under medical rather than technical territory.

Look, I don't care about vague terms like chakras and such; all that matters to me is the conclusion—that he proved increased brain activity via EEG and changes in brain wave frequencies...

A conclusion only makes sense if the methodology makes sense. I participated in some research on medical yoga in India while working at an institute dedicated to it, attended conferences, and read their published proceedings—it's incredibly poor science. I'd go as far as calling it pseudoscience. It's so bad that, compared to everything else I've seen since returning to America, American science looks like the gold standard of the world.😬

It’s such a circus over there that I don't trust a single thing without double-checking it myself. Don't get me wrong—they have top-tier scientists and engineers, but the oversight is terrible. With this much corruption and cutting corners, you can't just take someone's formal credentials at face value.

So here they are, both of them coming to the exact same conclusions... apparently some third party can just step back into a lab and prove it easily enough...
I've been digging into the subject matter beyond just those two guys, and I ended up reaching the same conclusions too...

But where is the actual research? Where are the peer-reviewed papers in serious journals (ideally Q1)? It doesn't matter what conclusions they toss around on the internet or in casual reading; that isn't science. Anyone can write whatever nonsense they want in a book, but you can't just publish whatever you feel like in a legitimate academic journal.

You can't just make up EEG data.

Why not?

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

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

bluemason3 said:You won't exactly be deep-diving into the Bhorov model during your time at university. So, if that's the case, why is it considered "official" when the school is a state-funded institution?

I'm not entirely sure if an elementary schooler could wrap their head around models based on Islamic field theory.

It’s not like nothing here qualifies as "official science," and it's certainly not true that more advanced models fall under the "unofficial" category. Quite the opposite, actually.

To me, "official science" is just whatever they feed you in a classroom or through formal institutions. It’s the standardized curriculum everyone gets taught at the same time. On the other hand, unofficial knowledge? That’s stuff you have to go out and hunt for on your own. Not everyone is going to stumble upon that through a degree; you really have to seek it out yourself.

There’s a distinction between official institutions and unofficial ones, and it's worth looking at what that actually means. Take universities, for example: you have accredited schools and then you have the unaccredited ones. But research institutes are a different story entirely—they can be completely independent, private initiatives.

The whole point of using the scientific method is that everyone should end up at the same destination. That’s the idea—to establish something with actual precision and objectivity.

If you aren't using this kind of methodology, you aren't actually doing science. The idea of "unofficial science" is a nonsense phrase that doesn't hold any water.

So, where is everyone supposed to pick up this knowledge in the meantime? Not exactly easy to find while we wait for new academic tracks to actually get approved. It’s hard to make anything truly accessible to the public until it finally makes its way into official school curriculums.

You'll pick things up wherever they actually matter. In school, certain topics naturally overlap anyway. You can study the exact same concepts in neurology, physiology, psychology, or ethology—knowledge isn't some set of silos locked away in specific departments. 🤷

Educational levels exist for a reason. You aren't going to pick up surgical techniques or advanced scientific breakthroughs during elementary school, and you aren't ever going to reach that level of expertise there.

What if you have multiple authorities all digging into the exact same subject?

Authorities don't mean much. What actually matters is the research.

Every single study goes through the peer-review gauntlet first, then faces the slow grind of follow-up research and constant verification. Eventually, everything settles into whatever the evidence actually points toward.

Do you really think that even with a PhD, he managed to ignore those basic scientific principles?

Which guy, that Indian fellow? I haven't seen his work.
It's not like we haven't seen questionable PhDs around here in the States. I can't claim a paper is bad without reading it, nor can I assume it's good just because there's a doctorate attached. If it were from Harward, I might be more inclined to trust the credibility, but having seen how things operate in India, I’m skeptical.

So, could you just say, "ask the patient what they did before the psychosis and conclude that was the trigger"?
And then compare it to research by other psychiatrists...
Would that even count as a respectable scientific approach?

It isn't science because the sample size is tiny, the circumstances aren't controlled, and the conclusions rely on the subjective assessment of a patient.

Regardless, the issue isn't whether spiritual practices can trigger psychosis; the issue is using the term "kundalini" if that implies unverifiable, unconfirmable mystical religious elements and models. So, it's not about "psychosis triggered by spiritual practice," it's about "awakening kundalini."

If this happened to a large number of patients, wouldn't that prove kundalini is real?

No.

The apple fell.
The apple fell.
The apple fell.
...is there some force causing the apple to fall?
Do we need some kind of measurement to conclude gravity exists?

Sure, but that force could be gravity, or it could be that the Gods blew on the apple.
Just because a phenomenon exists doesn't mean every model describing it is equally good or accurate.

For example, regarding measurements of brain changes resulting from meditation, you discredited player number two (Stojanovica)... and it looks like you've sidelined player number one (this Indian guy) too... and off the top of my head, I can't think of anyone else to pull out of a hat. I'm not even going to bother searching online (though I'm sure they're out there).

It's not about the players; it's about the papers.

An interesting edge case in electrical engineering would be the influence of electromagnetic fields on human perception and inducing "paranormal" experiences through those fields.

That's not up for debate, but it says nothing about kundalini.

Besides, that falls under medical rather than technical territory.

Look, I don't care about vague terms like chakras and such; all that matters to me is the conclusion—that he proved increased brain activity via EEG and changes in brain wave frequencies...

A conclusion only makes sense if the methodology makes sense. I participated in some research on medical yoga in India while working at an institute dedicated to it, attended conferences, and read their published proceedings—it's incredibly poor science. I'd go as far as calling it pseudoscience. It's so bad that, compared to everything else I've seen since returning to America, American science looks like the gold standard of the world.😬

It’s such a circus over there that I don't trust a single thing without double-checking it myself. Don't get me wrong—they have top-tier scientists and engineers, but the oversight is terrible. With this much corruption and cutting corners, you can't just take someone's formal credentials at face value.

So here they are, both of them coming to the exact same conclusions... apparently some third party can just step back into a lab and prove it easily enough...
I've been digging into the subject matter beyond just those two guys, and I ended up reaching the same conclusions too...

But where is the actual research? Where are the peer-reviewed papers in serious journals (ideally Q1)? It doesn't matter what conclusions they toss around on the internet or in casual reading; that isn't science. Anyone can write whatever nonsense they want in a book, but you can't just publish whatever you feel like in a legitimate academic journal.

You can't just make up EEG data.

Why not?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Look, I can probably answer these questions like some total amateur—since I’m clearly not operating at the level of deep Hindu philosophy where the rest of you guys seem to be hanging out...

Sound exists without me because even if I wasn't around, an audio recording would prove it was there...
Just like that apple sitting on the table—it objectively exists, so I'd figure the same goes for sound.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paul Rogers94 said:Isn't the individual—the conscious entity—also a part of the universe?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paul Rogers94 said:Isn't the individual—the conscious entity—also a part of the universe?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paul Rogers94 said:Isn't the individual—the conscious entity—also a part of the universe?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paul Rogers94 said:Isn't the individual—the conscious entity—also a part of the universe?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paul Rogers94 said:Isn't the individual—the conscious entity—also a part of the universe?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paul Rogers94 said:Isn't the individual—the conscious entity—also a part of the universe?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

neonmarlin39 said:Nah, it’s more about how certain philosophical and spiritual traditions actually interpret things, like I mentioned before.

So, what you're basically doing is walking me through your own personal version of Vedic theology—just another concept you've been chewing on in that head of yours.

lonestag15 said:Look, I can probably answer these questions like some total amateur—since I’m clearly not operating at the level of deep Hindu philosophy where the rest of you guys seem to be hanging out...

Sound exists without me because even if I wasn't around, an audio recording would prove it was there...
Just like that apple sitting on the table—it objectively exists, so I'd figure the same goes for sound.

But who’s actually gonna verify the sound was recorded if there isn't some observer sitting there reviewing the footage?

David Vaughn75 said:So, what you're basically doing is walking me through your own personal version of Vedic theology—just another concept you've been chewing on in that head of yours.

But who’s actually gonna verify the sound was recorded if there isn't some observer sitting there reviewing the footage?

Look, I'm not "interpreting" any Vedic theology. You should probably do a little reading on the basics of Indian philosophy and just general Eastern thought in general before jumping to conclusions.

David Vaughn75 said:So, what you're basically doing is walking me through your own personal version of Vedic theology—just another concept you've been chewing on in that head of yours.

But who’s actually gonna verify the sound was recorded if there isn't some observer sitting there reviewing the footage?

So, no subject (listener) means no object (sound)?

Wait, so you're telling me the sound is recorded—it's right there on the tape...—but the sound doesn't actually *exist* until I hit play and decide it does?

Does that mean I'm basically just assigning existence to everything around me?

Is this some kind of teaching from The Bible? (I've read it, I actually have a massive copy at home with the original text and all those deep explanations... but I don't remember this specific theory)

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...

How does any of that actually relate to the title of this thread?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quincy:

I can’t even begin to deal with this level of nonsense right now—seriously, my head is spinning just thinking about it. You know how I feel about these corporate types trying to spin their way out of a mess, but this? This takes the absolute cake. It's like watching a slow-motion train wreck where everyone involved is too busy checking their stock options to notice the smoke. Honestly, I’ve seen some shady business in my time—spent enough years navigating the grit of Chicago to know when someone is selling you a lemon—but this feels different. It’s that specific kind of polished, high-gloss deception that only happens when people think they’re untouchable. They sit up there in their glass towers, probably sipping overpriced lattes, acting like they aren't completely cooking the books or ignoring the obvious red flags. It’s exhausting. And don't even get me started on what Paul Rogers94 was saying earlier. I saw his comment and I just had to shake my head. He thinks he's being clever, but he's missing the forest for the trees. Everything is connected, man. You can't just pull one thread without the whole damn sweater unraveling. It reminds me of that time back in Philly when that local construction firm tried to claim they hadn't cut corners on the foundation of that new high-rise. We all knew they were lying through their teeth, but they had the lawyers and the PR firms lined up to make it look like a "technical misunderstanding." Same song, different verse. Anyway, I'm just venting. It’s just one more thing to add to the pile of why the world feels like it's spinning sideways lately. Just stay skeptical, folks. If it looks too clean, it usually is. kaže: So, here’s the thing—I’ve been sitting here spiraling on this one for a while now, and honestly, it’s kind of tripping me out. If you strip away the listener, does the sound even exist? Like, if there isn't a subject there to actually perceive the vibration, can we even claim there's an object—the sound itself—to begin with? It sounds like some deep, late-night philosophy bullshit, I know, but think about it. We’re always talking about "sound" as if it’s this concrete, physical thing just hanging out in the air, waiting to be noticed. But without someone there to catch those waves, to process them through an ear and turn them into something meaningful... is it just silent kinetic energy? Is the "object" dependent on the "subject"? It’s that whole weird loop where you start questioning if anything is real unless someone is around to witness it. It's enough to make your head spin after a couple of beers. Wait, hold up—so what you’re saying is the sound is technically captured on the recording... it’s right there on the file... but that noise doesn't actually "exist" until I sit down, press play, and my brain decides to acknowledge it? That’s some straight-up existentialist nonsense right there. It’s like we’re living in some weird simulation where nothing is real unless someone’s watching the screen. Honestly, it reminds me of those late-night philosophy debates I used to get dragged into back in college—just endless, circular logic that makes you want to stare at a wall for three hours. If the data is sitting on the hard drive, the vibration happened, right? Or am I just overthinking this while staring at my coffee? This whole concept is tripping me out. So, what you're basically saying is that I'm the one pulling the strings on reality itself? Like, everything around me only exists because I’ve decided to acknowledge it? Man, that's a heavy trip to go on before my second cup of coffee—I feel like I'm staring too deep into the void here. It’s like that feeling when you’re driving down a lonely stretch of highway outside of Vegas, thinking you're totally alone, and then suddenly you realize the entire universe is just waiting for your permission to actually happen. Wild stuff. Is that some kind of lesson from The Bible? Because I’ve actually read it myself—I've got one of those massive editions sitting right on my coffee table, the one with all the original text plus those deep-dive explanations for everything... but honestly, I don't remember this specific theory at all.

Let me throw some Hegel into this mess—honestly, if we’re being real, the whole objective versus subjective thing is just one big, inseparable loop. You can't have one without the other; they're basically two sides of the same coin, stuck together forever.

loneskipper10 said:How does any of that actually relate to the title of this thread?

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