Christian vs. Eastern Meditation: Similarities and Differences!

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

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

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

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

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

And yeah, if we're talking about standard meditation—just sitting there, breathing deep for 15 minutes, and quieting down that chatter in your head... sure, that leads to some kind of mental peace. Same goes for chanting, singing spiritual songs, prayer, whatever. It’s all fine...

The thing is, when it comes to actually forcing a kundalini awakening, there isn't anything "spiritual" about it. It's basically just a shortcut to flooding your brain with a massive chemical hit.

If you do end up hitting one of those ecstatic states, that should really be the starting line of a spiritual journey, not the finish line itself...

That’s why, when looking at Eastern "spiritual" practices, this is the most important factor for our discussion on differences. You get these results attributed to the exercise incredibly fast—it's tempting, it feels mystical, but at the same time, it's dangerous (both for your psyche and because it drags you away from the actual path of spirituality).

Paul Rogers94 said:Look, this isn't some shallow "self-help" New age think-pink nonsense.

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

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

I am absolutely down for that! haha 👍

Christian mystics have always been outcasts within their own circles—take Meister Eckhart, for instance—and honestly, that whole mystical movement has never really held much weight inside mainstream Christianity...

That’s why I spent so much time wandering through Gnosticism, Kabbalah, Hermeticism, all that Kundalini stuff, and whatever else... basically because Christianity is missing that core element of actual realization. Everything feels like just being "near" God, but nothing actually offers direct insight. Even the way Christian meditation is described? That's not it. It’s basically just prayer with a bit more intense focus...

Paul Rogers94 said:Look, this isn't some shallow "self-help" New age think-pink nonsense.

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

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

Man, that sounds like one hardcore priest. If his superiors caught wind of him, they’d probably kick him right out of that brainwashed community... the problem is, you rarely find Christian priests with actual personal insights. Most of them just know the theory and regurgitate it—half of them are just clinging to nationalism or trying to protect the institution. Ask a standard priest a deep question and he’ll just stare at you like a deer in headlights before hitting you with that blank look and asking, "Why are you asking me this, son?" Even if the question is strictly within the bounds of Christian theology...

And let’s be real, the community itself doesn't bother questioning things or doing any actual research if they're just handed pre-packaged conclusions they're expected to accept blindly.

I once went to a lecture on exorcism—and honestly, the odds of finding someone actually authorized and knowledgeable enough to speak on the subject are slim. My friend (an atheist, by the way) and I had a ton of questions ready, so we sat there listening to this priest... then suddenly, someone in the audience raises their hand. The priest asks, "Yes?" And this woman goes, "So, how can I live according to the Bible?" ...Like, most people don't even have a priest to ask something that basic... but okay, he tries to move on. Then another hand goes up: "How do I avoid sinning?" ...Give me a break!

There I am, finally getting to hear something meaningful from a guy who actually has experience, only to watch these sheep start grilling him with questions so banal they could have asked their local parish priest... To make matters worse, at one point, someone suggests, "Let's all sing!" and the whole crowd starts belting out, "There's a long road that leads to heaven..." and so on. The priest looked stunned, I was losing my mind, and my friend and I just bailed. I left feeling deeply disappointed in those sheep and how unprepared the whole community is for anything outside the framework of their mindless beliefs.

That’s why there’s no strong Christian mysticism—there just aren't enough people interested. If anyone within their ranks actually starts digging, the community drags them back down. It's like crabs in a bucket... if one tries to climb out, the others just pull him back under.

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

Man, you could've at least tried reading through the discussion if you were actually curious. You would've seen exactly what it was about and who it was meant for.

lonestag15 said:And yeah, if we're talking about standard meditation—just sitting there, breathing deep for 15 minutes, and quieting down that chatter in your head... sure, that leads to some kind of mental peace. Same goes for chanting, singing spiritual songs, prayer, whatever. It’s all fine...

The thing is, when it comes to actually forcing a kundalini awakening, there isn't anything "spiritual" about it. It's basically just a shortcut to flooding your brain with a massive chemical hit.

If you do end up hitting one of those ecstatic states, that should really be the starting line of a spiritual journey, not the finish line itself...

That’s why, when looking at Eastern "spiritual" practices, this is the most important factor for our discussion on differences. You get these results attributed to the exercise incredibly fast—it's tempting, it feels mystical, but at the same time, it's dangerous (both for your psyche and because it drags you away from the actual path of spirituality).

Look, we’ve already been through this. You laid out your arguments and your sources, and it’s pretty obvious they're just pseudoscience with zero actual connection to reality. Yet, here you are, still doubling down on this idea that someone's mental instability or losing their grip can be equated to "kundalini rising." 🤣(Honestly, I totally get how someone could trick themselves into using "kundalini" as an excuse for being unstable or even losing their mind. It’s not surprising that people just feed into those delusions in all sorts of ways; if they've heard the term or hang out in those circles, it's easy to get stuck on it.) Plus, based on everything you're saying, the way you define and use "kundalini" is pure New age vibes—just the negative side of it. It has absolutely nothing to do with the definitions found in the original spiritual traditions where the term actually comes from (which, by the way, are strictly Tantric traditions). So, if you're going to latch onto a specific traditional term like kundalini and try to throw it around even in scientific discussions, it might be a good idea to actually educate yourself on what it actually represents in its original context.

neonmarlin39 said:Look, we’ve already been through this. You laid out your arguments and your sources, and it’s pretty obvious they're just pseudoscience with zero actual connection to reality. Yet, here you are, still doubling down on this idea that someone's mental instability or losing their grip can be equated to "kundalini rising." 🤣(Honestly, I totally get how someone could trick themselves into using "kundalini" as an excuse for being unstable or even losing their mind. It’s not surprising that people just feed into those delusions in all sorts of ways; if they've heard the term or hang out in those circles, it's easy to get stuck on it.) Plus, based on everything you're saying, the way you define and use "kundalini" is pure New age vibes—just the negative side of it. It has absolutely nothing to do with the definitions found in the original spiritual traditions where the term actually comes from (which, by the way, are strictly Tantric traditions). So, if you're going to latch onto a specific traditional term like kundalini and try to throw it around even in scientific discussions, it might be a good idea to actually educate yourself on what it actually represents in its original context.

First off, I already told you—I'm done arguing with you. You aren't exactly pleasant to talk to, so just respect that...

And second, EEG research has wandered into these waters countless times... basically, Beljki has already discredited two guys... one because he uses murky terminology and the other just because he’s from India... apparently, the EEG results don't even matter to him.

Then there's Ljubis Stojanovic, who was measuring the effects of these practices ten years ago and publishing everything in detail... and honestly, what university someone graduated from has nothing to do with the validity of that work...

So yeah, both of them were dismissed purely based on Beljki's "gut feeling."

Furthermore:
The phenomenology of kundalini activation is well documented, but the psychophysiology is yet to be fully described and understood scientifically.

The present EEG studies explore some neural correlates and provide objective validation of a profound and transformative subjective experience. Kundalini activation is recorded as a high voltage discharge of delta and theta brainwaves, followed by increased Beta and Gamma power. The subjects report an ecstatic multi orgasmic experience lasting tens of minutes following the initial discharge. These pioneering studies aim to demystify this remarkable phenomenon.

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

Am I really supposed to keep wasting my time online, or are you going to find your own sources?

lonestag15 said:First off, I already told you—I'm done arguing with you. You aren't exactly pleasant to talk to, so just respect that...

And second, EEG research has wandered into these waters countless times... basically, Beljki has already discredited two guys... one because he uses murky terminology and the other just because he’s from India... apparently, the EEG results don't even matter to him.

Then there's Ljubis Stojanovic, who was measuring the effects of these practices ten years ago and publishing everything in detail... and honestly, what university someone graduated from has nothing to do with the validity of that work...

So yeah, both of them were dismissed purely based on Beljki's "gut feeling."

Furthermore:
The phenomenology of kundalini activation is well documented, but the psychophysiology is yet to be fully described and understood scientifically.

The present EEG studies explore some neural correlates and provide objective validation of a profound and transformative subjective experience. Kundalini activation is recorded as a high voltage discharge of delta and theta brainwaves, followed by increased Beta and Gamma power. The subjects report an ecstatic multi orgasmic experience lasting tens of minutes following the initial discharge. These pioneering studies aim to demystify this remarkable phenomenon.

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

Am I really supposed to keep wasting my time online, or are you going to find your own sources?

First off, you're the one who started picking on me. Don't forget that. Second, anyone can comment on your posts whenever they feel like it—you can't really tell people not to. If it gets annoying, just hit that ignore button to make life easier.

lonestag15 said:First off, I already told you—I'm done arguing with you. You aren't exactly pleasant to talk to, so just respect that...

And second, EEG research has wandered into these waters countless times... basically, Beljki has already discredited two guys... one because he uses murky terminology and the other just because he’s from India... apparently, the EEG results don't even matter to him.

Then there's Ljubis Stojanovic, who was measuring the effects of these practices ten years ago and publishing everything in detail... and honestly, what university someone graduated from has nothing to do with the validity of that work...

So yeah, both of them were dismissed purely based on Beljki's "gut feeling."

Furthermore:
The phenomenology of kundalini activation is well documented, but the psychophysiology is yet to be fully described and understood scientifically.

The present EEG studies explore some neural correlates and provide objective validation of a profound and transformative subjective experience. Kundalini activation is recorded as a high voltage discharge of delta and theta brainwaves, followed by increased Beta and Gamma power. The subjects report an ecstatic multi orgasmic experience lasting tens of minutes following the initial discharge. These pioneering studies aim to demystify this remarkable phenomenon.

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

Am I really supposed to keep wasting my time online, or are you going to find your own sources?

Alright then, if those are the sources you're leaning on, 😁 New age as I mentioned, we also have to point out that this guy claims to be a "reiki master" and thinks reiki is totally scientific based on his logic. Just saw that. 🤣 You were talking about actual scientific criteria earlier, yet here you are still digging your heels in and pushing pseudoscience...

neonmarlin39 said:First off, you're the one who started picking on me. Don't forget that. Second, anyone can comment on your posts whenever they feel like it—you can't really tell people not to. If it gets annoying, just hit that ignore button to make life easier.

Alright then, if those are the sources you're leaning on, 😁 New age as I mentioned, we also have to point out that this guy claims to be a "reiki master" and thinks reiki is totally scientific based on his logic. Just saw that. 🤣 You were talking about actual scientific criteria earlier, yet here you are still digging your heels in and pushing pseudoscience...

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

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

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

What did Beljki say about scientific criteria?

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

Anad, B. K., China, G. S., & Singh, B. (1961). Some aspects of electroencephalographic studies in yoga. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology

Bagchi, B. K., & Wegner, M. A. (1957). Electrophysiological correlates of some yogi exercises. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology

Becker, D. E., & Shapiro, D. (1981). Physiological responses to clicks during zen, yoga, and TM meditation.

Corby, J. C., Roth, W. T., Zarcone Jr, V. P., & Kopell, B. S. (1978). Psychophysiological correlates of tantric yoga meditation. Archives of General Psychiatry

Das, N. N., & Gastaut, H. (1957). Variations de l'activite electrique du cerveau du coeur et des muscles quelletiques au cours de la meditation et de l'extase yogique. Electroencephalgraphy and Clinical Neurophysiology

Delmonte, M. M. (1984a). Electrocortical activity and related phenomen Associated with meditation practice : a literatura Review. International Journal of Neurosciences

Dostalek, C., Faber, J., Krasa, H., & Vele, F. (1979). Meditational yoga exercises in EEG and EMG. Psychologie Hebert

Hebert, R., & Lehmann, D. (1977). Theta bursts: An EEG pattern in normal subjects practicing the transcendental meditation technique. Electroencephalgraphy and Clinical Neurophysiology

Jevning, R., Wallace, R. K., & Beidebach, M. (1992). The physiology of meditation: A review. A wakeful Hypometabolic integrated response. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews

Kasamatsu, A., Okuma,T., & Takenaka, S. (1957). The EEG of zen and yoga practitioners. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology

Vassiliadis (1973). Longitudinal and physiological changes of TM practice. Paper presented at APA convention, Montreal.

Woolfolk, R. L. (1975). Psychophysiological correlates of meditation. Archives of General Psychiatry

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

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

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

What did Beljki say about scientific criteria?

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

Just pay a little more attention and maybe things will start making sense...

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

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

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

What did Beljki say about scientific criteria?

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

Look, his stuff with Reiki and all those New age terms and pseudoscience definitions... it doesn't change a thing here.

Quote:

lonestag15 says: Do you get that this keeps coming up in studies? Kundalini activation

Which studies though? You haven't actually cited a single one to back up your claims—you know, the ones about Kundalini existing, or equating being mentally unstable with "kundalini rising," and all that other stuff you brought up. Besides a few pseudo-scientific bits, which we already said don't count because we specifically asked for real scientific research. The real question is, do you actually understand what’s being said to you? Are you even listening when people talk about scientific criteria?

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

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

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

What did Beljki say about scientific criteria?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

neonmarlin39 said: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.

God, you are such a headache. You just threw Indian philosophy at me like that was the solution, but that misses the entire point.

If you believe in Purusha, then Purusha is just a concept in your own mind that you're processing and then passing along.
If you think Purusha is actually perceiving something, then what you're really just describing is the concept of Purusha perception.
And honestly? Googling stuff isn't going to make you any damn bit smarter.

Paul Rogers94 said:Scientific criteria? Please. Kundalini shakti is divine energy—it can't be measured by any gadget, nor is it subject to any scientific scrutiny. When you talk about kundalini, you have to step outside of science and scientific metalanguage entirely. Sure, you might eventually measure some physical side effects from the "shift" during a kundalini rise, but that energy isn't part of this energetic system the human body inhabits. That energy is OUT THERE, and it is so unimaginably powerful that your body would turn into a pile of ash the instant you tried to translate it into this limited energetic system we live in. We’re talking about the energy that creates the universe; it is the source of all other energies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Look, I get what people mean when they talk about Kundalini through that Hindu lens... but let's be real—the electrical component of that energy? That's actually provable stuff...
If kundalini energy is actually going to make an impact on this world, it’s gotta manifest in a way we can actually wrap our heads around... and honestly, electricity is pretty much the most subtle phenomenon we've got a handle on...
Look, I’ve been saying this from the jump—kundalini is a massive, complex concept... but it definitely has an electrical component to it—amongst all the other bits that are mostly just speculation...

Paul Rogers94 said:Scientific criteria? Please. Kundalini shakti is divine energy—it can't be measured by any gadget, nor is it subject to any scientific scrutiny. When you talk about kundalini, you have to step outside of science and scientific metalanguage entirely. Sure, you might eventually measure some physical side effects from the "shift" during a kundalini rise, but that energy isn't part of this energetic system the human body inhabits. That energy is OUT THERE, and it is so unimaginably powerful that your body would turn into a pile of ash the instant you tried to translate it into this limited energetic system we live in. We’re talking about the energy that creates the universe; it is the source of all other energies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looks like you got your wires crossed on who was saying what... yeah... I wrote the exact same thing you did... basically saying that the "third eye" is identified with the pineal gland because—fictitiously speaking—that’s where it's physically located.
I've grabbed a bit of Hindu wisdom from "Seven Chakras"... seven states of consciousness... Predrag Kezele... I mean, I get that it’s about states of being or consciousness, but man—that guy Guilman was really out there nitpicking over the whole concept in his own typical way...

Paul Rogers94 said:Scientific criteria? Please. Kundalini shakti is divine energy—it can't be measured by any gadget, nor is it subject to any scientific scrutiny. When you talk about kundalini, you have to step outside of science and scientific metalanguage entirely. Sure, you might eventually measure some physical side effects from the "shift" during a kundalini rise, but that energy isn't part of this energetic system the human body inhabits. That energy is OUT THERE, and it is so unimaginably powerful that your body would turn into a pile of ash the instant you tried to translate it into this limited energetic system we live in. We’re talking about the energy that creates the universe; it is the source of all other energies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

That’s just not true... everything is connected—like, seriously. Take what people call "quieting the mind" in spiritual circles; you can actually measure that stuff. You could track it by counting thoughts per minute, or even looking at thought frequency... it's all right there.

So, you've got this specific spectrum of waves, right? And what you're actually doing when you meditate is basically just dialing down the frequency of those "thoughts over time." We're talking about measurable, comparable, data-crunchable electrical patterns here—real stuff... It’s all expressed in Hz—Hertz, if you want to get technical—which is just the number of times something repeats within a single second.

Gamma (40 - 100 Hz) — the fast lane (basically "maximum thoughts")
Beta (12 – 40 Hz)
Alpha (8 – 12 Hz)
Theta (4 – 8 Hz)
Delta (0 – 4 Hz) — the slow crawl ("minimum thoughts")

Practicing kundalini lifting triggers these massive voltage spikes in the theta and delta ranges—those deep subconscious waves... there was this guy I mentioned before, Ljubis Stojanovic, who actually spent his time developing techniques to tap into these lower frequencies and then went ahead and measured them in a lab setting

There are also ways to basically hack your brain waves to hit specific spectrums—say, dialing up alpha and beta if you're trying to study... or dropping down into those deep Theta/Delta levels right before bed to let your subconscious chew on info while you sleep

The OG pioneer in this field was this (maybe pseudo?) scientist named Silva—the guy who gave us the first "Silva Method" for mind control... though, honestly, things have moved way past his era and evolved into actual, legit science now

David Vaughn75 said:God, you are such a headache. You just threw Indian philosophy at me like that was the solution, but that misses the entire point.

If you believe in Purusha, then Purusha is just a concept in your own mind that you're processing and then passing along.
If you think Purusha is actually perceiving something, then what you're really just describing is the concept of Purusha perception.
And honestly? Googling stuff isn't going to make you any damn bit smarter.

The whole point is that within this philosophy, you don't actually need God or Purusha to understand why lightning strikes or to feel confident that the world is real. Get what I'm saying? You still managed to get a view from both a spiritual and a philosophical angle, though.
And honestly, you don't even have to "believe" in something to work with a concept. Like I said before, whether I personally believe it or someone else does doesn't change the logic. This isn't some brand-new philosophy invented yesterday. You're totally free to offer a better, more meaningful explanation—philosophical or otherwise—or just tear it apart with a critique. Nobody's stopping you.

David Vaughn75 said:God, you are such a headache. You just threw Indian philosophy at me like that was the solution, but that misses the entire point.

If you believe in Purusha, then Purusha is just a concept in your own mind that you're processing and then passing along.
If you think Purusha is actually perceiving something, then what you're really just describing is the concept of Purusha perception.
And honestly? Googling stuff isn't going to make you any damn bit smarter.

What are you even talking about?

Honestly, because of this kind of arrogance, I don't want you commenting on anything else I write. I’m asking you what exactly you're basing your stance on if my arguments aren't valid, and instead you just write

neonmarlin39 said:Just pay a little more attention and maybe things will start making sense...

Look, his stuff with Reiki and all those New age terms and pseudoscience definitions... it doesn't change a thing here.

Quote:

lonestag15 says: Do you get that this keeps coming up in studies? Kundalini activation

Which studies though? You haven't actually cited a single one to back up your claims—you know, the ones about Kundalini existing, or equating being mentally unstable with "kundalini rising," and all that other stuff you brought up. Besides a few pseudo-scientific bits, which we already said don't count because we specifically asked for real scientific research. The real question is, do you actually understand what’s being said to you? Are you even listening when people talk about scientific criteria?

So basically, you're leaning on your own ego and arrogance... you're just like that total idiot Guilman...

You've convinced yourself that being obnoxious is actually expertise, and that your condescension is just "confidence"... I already did your psychoanalysis a few days ago and I know exactly who I'm dealing with... so I'm done with your comments. You get that? Or are you actually a psycho?

Since you mentioned there's an ignore option, why haven't I used it—instead, you're back at it again, commenting on a post that wasn't even directed at you?
You previously wrote something smug like, "you haven't provided evidence, so the debate is over," and I was like, fine, whatever... yet here you are, jumping into debates I have zero interest in having with you. So, you decided the discussion was finished, and now you're still pushing it... just like a straight-up psycho...

I gave you over ten studies—actual conclusions from actual scientists—and I shared what I learned back when I was digging through those papers (like 10 years ago)... yet you're still being stubborn.

I'm not getting dragged into these arguments with the dog and the bear, so don't drag me into yours either... damn, you really are a maniac...

lonestag15 said:Honestly, because of this kind of arrogance, I don't want you commenting on anything else I write. I’m asking you what exactly you're basing your stance on if my arguments aren't valid, and instead you just write

So basically, you're leaning on your own ego and arrogance... you're just like that total idiot Guilman...

You've convinced yourself that being obnoxious is actually expertise, and that your condescension is just "confidence"... I already did your psychoanalysis a few days ago and I know exactly who I'm dealing with... so I'm done with your comments. You get that? Or are you actually a psycho?

Since you mentioned there's an ignore option, why haven't I used it—instead, you're back at it again, commenting on a post that wasn't even directed at you?
You previously wrote something smug like, "you haven't provided evidence, so the debate is over," and I was like, fine, whatever... yet here you are, jumping into debates I have zero interest in having with you. So, you decided the discussion was finished, and now you're still pushing it... just like a straight-up psycho...

I gave you over ten studies—actual conclusions from actual scientists—and I shared what I learned back when I was digging through those papers (like 10 years ago)... yet you're still being stubborn.

I'm not getting dragged into these arguments with the dog and the bear, so don't drag me into yours either... damn, you really are a maniac...

Honestly, like I even care about what you want...

lonestag15 said:Honestly, because of this kind of arrogance, I don't want you commenting on anything else I write. I’m asking you what exactly you're basing your stance on if my arguments aren't valid, and instead you just write

So basically, you're leaning on your own ego and arrogance... you're just like that total idiot Guilman...

You've convinced yourself that being obnoxious is actually expertise, and that your condescension is just "confidence"... I already did your psychoanalysis a few days ago and I know exactly who I'm dealing with... so I'm done with your comments. You get that? Or are you actually a psycho?

Since you mentioned there's an ignore option, why haven't I used it—instead, you're back at it again, commenting on a post that wasn't even directed at you?
You previously wrote something smug like, "you haven't provided evidence, so the debate is over," and I was like, fine, whatever... yet here you are, jumping into debates I have zero interest in having with you. So, you decided the discussion was finished, and now you're still pushing it... just like a straight-up psycho...

I gave you over ten studies—actual conclusions from actual scientists—and I shared what I learned back when I was digging through those papers (like 10 years ago)... yet you're still being stubborn.

I'm not getting dragged into these arguments with the dog and the bear, so don't drag me into yours either... damn, you really are a maniac...

And I already told you to take a closer look, then you'll see...

lonestag15 said:Honestly, because of this kind of arrogance, I don't want you commenting on anything else I write. I’m asking you what exactly you're basing your stance on if my arguments aren't valid, and instead you just write

So basically, you're leaning on your own ego and arrogance... you're just like that total idiot Guilman...

You've convinced yourself that being obnoxious is actually expertise, and that your condescension is just "confidence"... I already did your psychoanalysis a few days ago and I know exactly who I'm dealing with... so I'm done with your comments. You get that? Or are you actually a psycho?

Since you mentioned there's an ignore option, why haven't I used it—instead, you're back at it again, commenting on a post that wasn't even directed at you?
You previously wrote something smug like, "you haven't provided evidence, so the debate is over," and I was like, fine, whatever... yet here you are, jumping into debates I have zero interest in having with you. So, you decided the discussion was finished, and now you're still pushing it... just like a straight-up psycho...

I gave you over ten studies—actual conclusions from actual scientists—and I shared what I learned back when I was digging through those papers (like 10 years ago)... yet you're still being stubborn.

I'm not getting dragged into these arguments with the dog and the bear, so don't drag me into yours either... damn, you really are a maniac...

I'm sticking to science here (since you're the one who brought up scientific evidence for this topic), along with traditional teachings on kundalini in that context. And man, you seem really obsessed with that Guilman guy—you've brought him up twice now out of nowhere. 🤣 It looks like being insulting is just your default setting...

lonestag15 said:Honestly, because of this kind of arrogance, I don't want you commenting on anything else I write. I’m asking you what exactly you're basing your stance on if my arguments aren't valid, and instead you just write

So basically, you're leaning on your own ego and arrogance... you're just like that total idiot Guilman...

You've convinced yourself that being obnoxious is actually expertise, and that your condescension is just "confidence"... I already did your psychoanalysis a few days ago and I know exactly who I'm dealing with... so I'm done with your comments. You get that? Or are you actually a psycho?

Since you mentioned there's an ignore option, why haven't I used it—instead, you're back at it again, commenting on a post that wasn't even directed at you?
You previously wrote something smug like, "you haven't provided evidence, so the debate is over," and I was like, fine, whatever... yet here you are, jumping into debates I have zero interest in having with you. So, you decided the discussion was finished, and now you're still pushing it... just like a straight-up psycho...

I gave you over ten studies—actual conclusions from actual scientists—and I shared what I learned back when I was digging through those papers (like 10 years ago)... yet you're still being stubborn.

I'm not getting dragged into these arguments with the dog and the bear, so don't drag me into yours either... damn, you really are a maniac...

Nah, that's just what you've made up to justify yourself because you can't face the fact that you're talking nonsense...

lonestag15 said:Honestly, because of this kind of arrogance, I don't want you commenting on anything else I write. I’m asking you what exactly you're basing your stance on if my arguments aren't valid, and instead you just write

So basically, you're leaning on your own ego and arrogance... you're just like that total idiot Guilman...

You've convinced yourself that being obnoxious is actually expertise, and that your condescension is just "confidence"... I already did your psychoanalysis a few days ago and I know exactly who I'm dealing with... so I'm done with your comments. You get that? Or are you actually a psycho?

Since you mentioned there's an ignore option, why haven't I used it—instead, you're back at it again, commenting on a post that wasn't even directed at you?
You previously wrote something smug like, "you haven't provided evidence, so the debate is over," and I was like, fine, whatever... yet here you are, jumping into debates I have zero interest in having with you. So, you decided the discussion was finished, and now you're still pushing it... just like a straight-up psycho...

I gave you over ten studies—actual conclusions from actual scientists—and I shared what I learned back when I was digging through those papers (like 10 years ago)... yet you're still being stubborn.

I'm not getting dragged into these arguments with the dog and the bear, so don't drag me into yours either... damn, you really are a maniac...

Looks like you're back at it with the outbursts again, still under the impression that you can actually perform psychoanalysis. Feel free to go give yourself one instead.😁

lonestag15 said:Honestly, because of this kind of arrogance, I don't want you commenting on anything else I write. I’m asking you what exactly you're basing your stance on if my arguments aren't valid, and instead you just write

So basically, you're leaning on your own ego and arrogance... you're just like that total idiot Guilman...

You've convinced yourself that being obnoxious is actually expertise, and that your condescension is just "confidence"... I already did your psychoanalysis a few days ago and I know exactly who I'm dealing with... so I'm done with your comments. You get that? Or are you actually a psycho?

Since you mentioned there's an ignore option, why haven't I used it—instead, you're back at it again, commenting on a post that wasn't even directed at you?
You previously wrote something smug like, "you haven't provided evidence, so the debate is over," and I was like, fine, whatever... yet here you are, jumping into debates I have zero interest in having with you. So, you decided the discussion was finished, and now you're still pushing it... just like a straight-up psycho...

I gave you over ten studies—actual conclusions from actual scientists—and I shared what I learned back when I was digging through those papers (like 10 years ago)... yet you're still being stubborn.

I'm not getting dragged into these arguments with the dog and the bear, so don't drag me into yours either... damn, you really are a maniac...

Look, I’m not trying to be the one kicking things off by whining or making a bunch of demands on a public forum. I'm really not that guy. Since we've already made this clear, you've got the ignore.

lonestag15 said:Honestly, because of this kind of arrogance, I don't want you commenting on anything else I write. I’m asking you what exactly you're basing your stance on if my arguments aren't valid, and instead you just write

So basically, you're leaning on your own ego and arrogance... you're just like that total idiot Guilman...

You've convinced yourself that being obnoxious is actually expertise, and that your condescension is just "confidence"... I already did your psychoanalysis a few days ago and I know exactly who I'm dealing with... so I'm done with your comments. You get that? Or are you actually a psycho?

Since you mentioned there's an ignore option, why haven't I used it—instead, you're back at it again, commenting on a post that wasn't even directed at you?
You previously wrote something smug like, "you haven't provided evidence, so the debate is over," and I was like, fine, whatever... yet here you are, jumping into debates I have zero interest in having with you. So, you decided the discussion was finished, and now you're still pushing it... just like a straight-up psycho...

I gave you over ten studies—actual conclusions from actual scientists—and I shared what I learned back when I was digging through those papers (like 10 years ago)... yet you're still being stubborn.

I'm not getting dragged into these arguments with the dog and the bear, so don't drag me into yours either... damn, you really are a maniac...

And here I go again, diving back into the psychoanalysis. 😁

lonestag15 said:Honestly, because of this kind of arrogance, I don't want you commenting on anything else I write. I’m asking you what exactly you're basing your stance on if my arguments aren't valid, and instead you just write

So basically, you're leaning on your own ego and arrogance... you're just like that total idiot Guilman...

You've convinced yourself that being obnoxious is actually expertise, and that your condescension is just "confidence"... I already did your psychoanalysis a few days ago and I know exactly who I'm dealing with... so I'm done with your comments. You get that? Or are you actually a psycho?

Since you mentioned there's an ignore option, why haven't I used it—instead, you're back at it again, commenting on a post that wasn't even directed at you?
You previously wrote something smug like, "you haven't provided evidence, so the debate is over," and I was like, fine, whatever... yet here you are, jumping into debates I have zero interest in having with you. So, you decided the discussion was finished, and now you're still pushing it... just like a straight-up psycho...

I gave you over ten studies—actual conclusions from actual scientists—and I shared what I learned back when I was digging through those papers (like 10 years ago)... yet you're still being stubborn.

I'm not getting dragged into these arguments with the dog and the bear, so don't drag me into yours either... damn, you really are a maniac...

And there you go again, trying to lead them straight into psychoanalysis. 😁

lonestag15 Asks:
Look, I gave you over 10 different studies, including the actual conclusions those scientists reached. Everything I said was just stuff I remembered from when I was deep-diving into that research about 10 years ago... yet here you are, still digging your heels in.

Man, you really are persistent with those wrong conclusions of yours...

lonestag15 said:Honestly, because of this kind of arrogance, I don't want you commenting on anything else I write. I’m asking you what exactly you're basing your stance on if my arguments aren't valid, and instead you just write

So basically, you're leaning on your own ego and arrogance... you're just like that total idiot Guilman...

You've convinced yourself that being obnoxious is actually expertise, and that your condescension is just "confidence"... I already did your psychoanalysis a few days ago and I know exactly who I'm dealing with... so I'm done with your comments. You get that? Or are you actually a psycho?

Since you mentioned there's an ignore option, why haven't I used it—instead, you're back at it again, commenting on a post that wasn't even directed at you?
You previously wrote something smug like, "you haven't provided evidence, so the debate is over," and I was like, fine, whatever... yet here you are, jumping into debates I have zero interest in having with you. So, you decided the discussion was finished, and now you're still pushing it... just like a straight-up psycho...

I gave you over ten studies—actual conclusions from actual scientists—and I shared what I learned back when I was digging through those papers (like 10 years ago)... yet you're still being stubborn.

I'm not getting dragged into these arguments with the dog and the bear, so don't drag me into yours either... damn, you really are a maniac...

You’re clearly not being very realistic if you didn't even notice your last post—you know, that whole insulting, quasi-psychoanalysis thing you used to jump into this debate. 😁

man, you are actually unhinged... seriously...

lonestag15 said:man, you are actually unhinged... seriously...

And here I go again, trying to psychoanalyze you😁

I literally dropped ten different studies on your lap—all covering the exact same topic... and you just breeze right past them to keep pushing your little "philosophy," telling me I'm talking nonsense. Seriously, man, are you actually okay?

You keep hiding behind the word "science," but even when you're faced with a mountain of research that proves you wrong, you still insist on running your own little circus... can't stop once someone calls you out... look, don't be a total psycho, just skip the posts when you realize you're wrong and go argue your own stuff elsewhere.

Here’s the verbatim breakdown of what went down:
YOU:
LOL. No way. You need to cite an actual peer-reviewed paper or a consensus from the scientific community. Until you do that, everything you're saying counts as my position being right and yours being nothing but pseudoscience—claiming things as "scientific fact" that haven't been proven at all.

ME:
Fine, whatever. We'll just pretend your version of reality is the truth if it means this conversation finally ends. I honestly don't have the energy to keep going in circles with you personally anymore.

I gave you a perfectly civil response... yet somehow you still can't just drop it...