Induced spiritual experiences

Honestly, it’s incredibly easy to trip over the line where deep spiritual breakthroughs end and full-blown psychotic breaks begin.

You really have to walk on thin ice with this stuff—you can't just assume every wild vision is some divine gift.

Sandra Morgan2 said:I’m with John on this one. What scientists are capable of doing—what they can trigger or induce—just doesn't count as a true spiritual experience. To me, a real spiritual experience is enlightenment. It’s that awakening of pure consciousness. Everything else? Those are just phenomena. They're mere sensations or perceptions that don't align with our standard conscious state, our sense of space and time, or our physical perception of the body when the brain is functioning normally.

Near-Death Experiences. Always such a fascinating topic.Meditation, high fevers, schizophrenic or psychotic episodes, temporal lobe epilepsy auras, psychedelics, narcotics... DMT.Ayahuasca, electrical magnetic stimulation of brain centers—all of this can trigger a total breakdown of our everyday reality. That solid, predictable world we think we know? It starts to warp, bend, sway, and crumble until it transforms into something else entirely.

The core remains the same: the space of our consciousness where experience actually unfolds. These phenomena are always just contents within that awareness, which means no actual leap into pure consciousness has occurred. Even if someone felt larger than a mountain, experienced all three dimensions of time at once, perceived time differently, or saw their own doppelgänger—those experiences are fascinating, unique, and transformative. They’re certainly valuable. They show us how much the illusions we perceive depend on subtle shifts in brain activity, proving that reality is far more dynamic and layered than we can grasp. But even then? They aren't "spiritual" experiences. I’d call them experiences of alternative or parallel realities instead. As cool as they are, we shouldn't be slapping religious or spiritual labels on them.

On different frequencies—with entirely different brain centers firing—space, time, and our very sense of self look completely different. It’s a whole new world.

Who says this everyday reality is any more "real" than those altered states? You know the feeling—when your perception shifts and suddenly you aren't even in your own body anymore. One second you're grounded, and the next, you're floating two feet above yourself, looking down at your double sitting there... just a little bit to the right.

Quinn:

I personally believe that the fact we can actually induce these kinds of experiences proves we know far more than we realize—it’s just buried incredibly deep. From a biological evolution standpoint, no matter how profound our memories might feel, there is simply no evolutionary necessity for something like this. People who have these kinds of experiences induced usually don't know how to handle them. And I'll admit—it isn't easy dealing with them even when they just happen spontaneously! But how exactly does the fact that anyone can be induced into it serve as proof that it’s just... nothing worth mentioning?

It’s worth it if the experience actually changes you—if it expands your consciousness. But if it just drives you crazy? Then it isn't worth the trouble. For me, these little "periscopes" we use to peek out from our physical bodies and test reality feel like a claustrophobic trap. It's too limiting. To me, these shifts in perception feel exactly like being born without hearing, living my whole life in silence, and then having someone suddenly introduce me to the world of sound. An entire dimension just opens up right in front of you. It’s valuable on so many levels that I don't even know where to start...

Maybe. But aren't those experiences kind of like little windows that give us a fleeting glimpse of pure consciousness—windows we purposely slam shut because we're too terrified to actually face what's on the other side?

When you're on different frequencies, with different centers activated under different brain conditions, space, the world, time, and how you see yourself in it look completely different.

Who's to say this mundane, everyday reality is any more "true" or less of an illusion than what we see when our perception shifts—when suddenly we aren't even in our bodies anymore, but hovering two feet above ourselves, looking down at our double sitting there, a little to the right...

This standard reality might not be more "real" or less illusory than the stuff we see in altered states, but somehow, we're just incredibly tethered to it, even when we see right through the illusion.

If an experience is transformative and expands someone's understanding, then yeah, it's worth something. If it drives a person insane, then no, it's not. For me, these little periscopes we use to peek out of our bodies and test reality feel like a claustrophobic limitation. That's why many of these expanded perception experiences feel to me like, say, being born without the sense of hearing, never having heard a single sound in my life, and then suddenly someone introduces me to the entire world of audio. An entire dimension opens up right in front of you, and it's valuable on so many levels that I don't even want to get into it...

Exactly. Like any experience, these things are only valuable if we actually take them seriously. I think we tend to dismiss them, mostly because they scare the hell out of us.

David Vaughn75 said:Honestly, it’s incredibly easy to trip over the line where deep spiritual breakthroughs end and full-blown psychotic breaks begin.

You really have to walk on thin ice with this stuff—you can't just assume every wild vision is some divine gift.

I mean, man, it’s a tough call. Think about how our modern civilization would handle someone like Francis of Assisi showing up in the middle of Times Square, stripping down, and announcing he’s heading into the woods to live with the animals. Total meltdown, right? Or what if Buddha just walked up to a crowd and claimed he’d lived through 99,000 different lifetimes? People would lose it. Honestly, I can't even imagine how guys like Krishnamurti or Maharishi would fare today—they'd probably be handed a prescription by a psychiatrist before they could even finish their first sentence.
That's why I'm saying, you really have to be careful with how you approach it.

Elizabeth Castillo87 said:Maybe. But aren't those experiences kind of like little windows that give us a fleeting glimpse of pure consciousness—windows we purposely slam shut because we're too terrified to actually face what's on the other side?

When you're on different frequencies, with different centers activated under different brain conditions, space, the world, time, and how you see yourself in it look completely different.

Who's to say this mundane, everyday reality is any more "true" or less of an illusion than what we see when our perception shifts—when suddenly we aren't even in our bodies anymore, but hovering two feet above ourselves, looking down at our double sitting there, a little to the right...

This standard reality might not be more "real" or less illusory than the stuff we see in altered states, but somehow, we're just incredibly tethered to it, even when we see right through the illusion.

If an experience is transformative and expands someone's understanding, then yeah, it's worth something. If it drives a person insane, then no, it's not. For me, these little periscopes we use to peek out of our bodies and test reality feel like a claustrophobic limitation. That's why many of these expanded perception experiences feel to me like, say, being born without the sense of hearing, never having heard a single sound in my life, and then suddenly someone introduces me to the entire world of audio. An entire dimension opens up right in front of you, and it's valuable on so many levels that I don't even want to get into it...

Exactly. Like any experience, these things are only valuable if we actually take them seriously. I think we tend to dismiss them, mostly because they scare the hell out of us.

I mean, man, it’s a tough call. Think about how our modern civilization would handle someone like Francis of Assisi showing up in the middle of Times Square, stripping down, and announcing he’s heading into the woods to live with the animals. Total meltdown, right? Or what if Buddha just walked up to a crowd and claimed he’d lived through 99,000 different lifetimes? People would lose it. Honestly, I can't even imagine how guys like Krishnamurti or Maharishi would fare today—they'd probably be handed a prescription by a psychiatrist before they could even finish their first sentence.
That's why I'm saying, you really have to be careful with how you approach it.

The real question we should be asking, though, is why the hell all those miracles used to happen back in the day, yet today, it feels like absolutely nothing happens.

David Vaughn75 said:The real question we should be asking, though, is why the hell all those miracles used to happen back in the day, yet today, it feels like absolutely nothing happens.

The thing is, 'miracles' are still happening right now. It's just that people often have a totally different definition of what a miracle actually is—they don't really grasp the concept, so they assume it has to be some incredibly rare phenomenon or something strictly "supernatural." In reality, we've already witnessed massive 'miracles' on one hand, and on the other, there are even greater, more significant ones still waiting to unfold.

Look, from where I'm sitting, there seem to be two ways this could play out—in theory, at least

1. It actually tunes the brain to be a better receiver for spiritual experiences
2. Or, it just tricks the brain into feeling a fake sensation

If we happen to hit on number one—whether that’s by accident or on purpose—then everything else really just comes down to how we choose to label it. It's basically a matter of definition, I guess... what we decide counts as a "spiritual experience" in the first place

But honestly, it feels to me like that 'god helmet' thing was leaning much more toward number two than number one

Elizabeth Castillo87 said:Maybe. But aren't those experiences kind of like little windows that give us a fleeting glimpse of pure consciousness—windows we purposely slam shut because we're too terrified to actually face what's on the other side?

When you're on different frequencies, with different centers activated under different brain conditions, space, the world, time, and how you see yourself in it look completely different.

Who's to say this mundane, everyday reality is any more "true" or less of an illusion than what we see when our perception shifts—when suddenly we aren't even in our bodies anymore, but hovering two feet above ourselves, looking down at our double sitting there, a little to the right...

This standard reality might not be more "real" or less illusory than the stuff we see in altered states, but somehow, we're just incredibly tethered to it, even when we see right through the illusion.

If an experience is transformative and expands someone's understanding, then yeah, it's worth something. If it drives a person insane, then no, it's not. For me, these little periscopes we use to peek out of our bodies and test reality feel like a claustrophobic limitation. That's why many of these expanded perception experiences feel to me like, say, being born without the sense of hearing, never having heard a single sound in my life, and then suddenly someone introduces me to the entire world of audio. An entire dimension opens up right in front of you, and it's valuable on so many levels that I don't even want to get into it...

Exactly. Like any experience, these things are only valuable if we actually take them seriously. I think we tend to dismiss them, mostly because they scare the hell out of us.

I mean, man, it’s a tough call. Think about how our modern civilization would handle someone like Francis of Assisi showing up in the middle of Times Square, stripping down, and announcing he’s heading into the woods to live with the animals. Total meltdown, right? Or what if Buddha just walked up to a crowd and claimed he’d lived through 99,000 different lifetimes? People would lose it. Honestly, I can't even imagine how guys like Krishnamurti or Maharishi would fare today—they'd probably be handed a prescription by a psychiatrist before they could even finish their first sentence.
That's why I'm saying, you really have to be careful with how you approach it.

They aren't "windows" into pure consciousness. Because in pure consciousness, there is no content. No objects. No events. No phenomena. Paradoxically, there isn't even anyone there to be conscious of being in a state of pure consciousness. It’s a pure non-dual experience... which, of course, isn't an "experience." For an experience to exist, you need a subject doing the experiencing and a sense of time passing—both of which are just more content, more objects within consciousness. They are just our usual worldly tendency to divide things into a watcher, the watching, and the thing being watched.

Exactly. Like any other experience, these are only valuable if we actually acknowledge them. I think we tend to reject them. Mostly because they scare us.

That fear you mentioned? To me, it's a beautiful protective mechanism. It’s good that it exists! It pulls us back to where we belong right now—to the world where we have to pay the bills, raise kids, maintain a home, and make sure we have a hot meal on the table every day. If we slipped into some parallel reality, we'd look like total lunatics in this one. We'd be swept away by experiences that serve no practical purpose, eventually needing someone to take care of us or ending up in a mental health facility.

So, in this case, fear serves a vital function: it keeps us grounded.

Sandra Morgan2 said:They aren't "windows" into pure consciousness. Because in pure consciousness, there is no content. No objects. No events. No phenomena. Paradoxically, there isn't even anyone there to be conscious of being in a state of pure consciousness. It’s a pure non-dual experience... which, of course, isn't an "experience." For an experience to exist, you need a subject doing the experiencing and a sense of time passing—both of which are just more content, more objects within consciousness. They are just our usual worldly tendency to divide things into a watcher, the watching, and the thing being watched.

Exactly. Like any other experience, these are only valuable if we actually acknowledge them. I think we tend to reject them. Mostly because they scare us.

That fear you mentioned? To me, it's a beautiful protective mechanism. It’s good that it exists! It pulls us back to where we belong right now—to the world where we have to pay the bills, raise kids, maintain a home, and make sure we have a hot meal on the table every day. If we slipped into some parallel reality, we'd look like total lunatics in this one. We'd be swept away by experiences that serve no practical purpose, eventually needing someone to take care of us or ending up in a mental health facility.

So, in this case, fear serves a vital function: it keeps us grounded.

But honestly? Fear is nothing more than a restrictive trap that just drags you down.

Sandra Morgan2 said:They aren't "windows" into pure consciousness. Because in pure consciousness, there is no content. No objects. No events. No phenomena. Paradoxically, there isn't even anyone there to be conscious of being in a state of pure consciousness. It’s a pure non-dual experience... which, of course, isn't an "experience." For an experience to exist, you need a subject doing the experiencing and a sense of time passing—both of which are just more content, more objects within consciousness. They are just our usual worldly tendency to divide things into a watcher, the watching, and the thing being watched.

Exactly. Like any other experience, these are only valuable if we actually acknowledge them. I think we tend to reject them. Mostly because they scare us.

That fear you mentioned? To me, it's a beautiful protective mechanism. It’s good that it exists! It pulls us back to where we belong right now—to the world where we have to pay the bills, raise kids, maintain a home, and make sure we have a hot meal on the table every day. If we slipped into some parallel reality, we'd look like total lunatics in this one. We'd be swept away by experiences that serve no practical purpose, eventually needing someone to take care of us or ending up in a mental health facility.

So, in this case, fear serves a vital function: it keeps us grounded.

Usually, the people who fall into that hole are those dealing with a whole history of health issues—including panic attacks, which obviously tie right back to that fear.

There is absolutely nothing good to be found in fear.

"Quincy"

Angela Cox4 said:But honestly? Fear is nothing more than a restrictive trap that just drags you down.

Usually, the people who fall into that hole are those dealing with a whole history of health issues—including panic attacks, which obviously tie right back to that fear.

There is absolutely nothing good to be found in fear.

I said... fear. In this case.:

"Quincy:"

So fear actually serves a purpose here—it keeps us grounded.

Fear is an emotion, sure—but at its core, it’s an instinct. It's a survival mechanism designed to keep us alive.

Let's be clear: irrational fears, anxiety, and panic attacks are negative psychological states—disorders that can absolutely paralyze you. But fear itself? Fear is actually positive when it serves a purpose. It’s meant to protect us from physical harm like death, injury, or illness, as well as those hits to our emotional and mental stability.

Anyone who’s ever gone through a massive shift in how they see the world—or themselves—knows that underlying dread. That quiet fear that you might actually lose your grip on reality. Honestly? That fear is healthy. It’s a survival instinct. Because if you aren't careful, you really can snap. You could end up totally checked out from society, just staring into space, or like... well, like Ramakrishna, jumping wildly from branch to branch thinking he's a monkey.

Imagine this: someone starts messing around with Kundalini energy and ends up curled up in a corner of their room, shaking with pure electricity. They’re babbling nonsense in languages they don't even know, twitching and convulsing, unable to eat or sleep because they're being flooded by some intense light that feels like a massive data download. That terror you feel in that moment? It’s a warning. It's an alarm bell ringing in the mind, telling you that if you keep pushing like this, things are not going to end well.

David Vaughn75 said:The real question we should be asking, though, is why the hell all those miracles used to happen back in the day, yet today, it feels like absolutely nothing happens.

Perhaps they are simply so ubiquitous today—occurring all around us constantly—that we have grown blind to them, treating what was once extraordinary as mere everyday routine. 😁

Paul Jones7 said:Look, from where I'm sitting, there seem to be two ways this could play out—in theory, at least

1. It actually tunes the brain to be a better receiver for spiritual experiences
2. Or, it just tricks the brain into feeling a fake sensation

If we happen to hit on number one—whether that’s by accident or on purpose—then everything else really just comes down to how we choose to label it. It's basically a matter of definition, I guess... what we decide counts as a "spiritual experience" in the first place

But honestly, it feels to me like that 'god helmet' thing was leaning much more toward number two than number one

😁 But how would one actually distinguish between the first and the second?

Is that merely a matter of your own subjective judgment? Is there any way to measure this objectively?

In your reasoning, there appears to be a logical fallacy, specifically because you are building an entire thesis upon the unproven assumption that certain experiences exist without a material origin.

If there is some Source X that serves as the origin of spiritual experiences, you claim that X represents the "spirit," whereas I contend that X is simply "matter."

Neither of us possesses absolute proof regarding the true nature of X, yet we can at least agree that matter exists; we cannot definitively say whether anything exists beyond the material realm.

I may be mistaken in my hypothesis, but at least I am constructing it upon a foundation that is undeniably real.

Your hypothesis lacks validity because it rests upon something whose very existence remains entirely unknown.

urbanwalker72 said:😁 But how would one actually distinguish between the first and the second?

Is that merely a matter of your own subjective judgment? Is there any way to measure this objectively?

In your reasoning, there appears to be a logical fallacy, specifically because you are building an entire thesis upon the unproven assumption that certain experiences exist without a material origin.

If there is some Source X that serves as the origin of spiritual experiences, you claim that X represents the "spirit," whereas I contend that X is simply "matter."

Neither of us possesses absolute proof regarding the true nature of X, yet we can at least agree that matter exists; we cannot definitively say whether anything exists beyond the material realm.

I may be mistaken in my hypothesis, but at least I am constructing it upon a foundation that is undeniably real.

Your hypothesis lacks validity because it rests upon something whose very existence remains entirely unknown.

I mean—it’s not like I actually need to know. And honestly? How would you even tell the difference anyway? I couldn't tell you if my life depended on it, and frankly, I don't think I'd even want to get mixed up in that mess.

urbanwalker72 said:😁 But how would one actually distinguish between the first and the second?

Is that merely a matter of your own subjective judgment? Is there any way to measure this objectively?

In your reasoning, there appears to be a logical fallacy, specifically because you are building an entire thesis upon the unproven assumption that certain experiences exist without a material origin.

If there is some Source X that serves as the origin of spiritual experiences, you claim that X represents the "spirit," whereas I contend that X is simply "matter."

Neither of us possesses absolute proof regarding the true nature of X, yet we can at least agree that matter exists; we cannot definitively say whether anything exists beyond the material realm.

I may be mistaken in my hypothesis, but at least I am constructing it upon a foundation that is undeniably real.

Your hypothesis lacks validity because it rests upon something whose very existence remains entirely unknown.

So, what—we can’t even put forward a thesis without a mountain of evidence? I mean, are we just not allowed to have an opinion anymore unless we've published a peer-reviewed paper in some academic journal? Even if you aren't exactly a scientist, you know... I guess we're just supposed to sit here in silence? Honestly, it feels like we're being policed. 🙂

Man, you’re out here writing like you're submitting a PhD dissertation on spirituality—it’s a forum, not a lecture hall. You don't need a ten-page thesis just to say what's on your mind, I guess.

Paul Jones7 said:Look, from where I'm sitting, there seem to be two ways this could play out—in theory, at least

1. It actually tunes the brain to be a better receiver for spiritual experiences
2. Or, it just tricks the brain into feeling a fake sensation

If we happen to hit on number one—whether that’s by accident or on purpose—then everything else really just comes down to how we choose to label it. It's basically a matter of definition, I guess... what we decide counts as a "spiritual experience" in the first place

But honestly, it feels to me like that 'god helmet' thing was leaning much more toward number two than number one

Though, I guess there might be a third option too:

3. maybe it's an influence that triggers dormant areas of the brain (if you want to be vague about it, like the "right hemisphere") which might eventually happen through evolution, though who knows when that would actually kick in...

If that were the case, then a ton of untapped potential could suddenly flip on and become available to everyone, instead of just being limited to those rare few people we see who seem to have these crazy, unexplainable gifts for stuff like memory, math, or intuition and all that sort of thing

Quincy:

Paul Jones7 As stated by: I don't necessarily need to know the specifics. However, one might wonder how to discern the truth in a more general sense. I wouldn't presume to offer my opinion, nor would I wish to involve myself in such matters.

That was a fair assessment.

Quincy:

If we strictly adhere to the principle that a hypothesis cannot be proposed without absolute empirical proof, one might wonder if the very concept of sharing an opinion becomes obsolete. Must we all become career researchers just to voice a thought? It seems almost as though we are being asked to follow the rigid protocols of a federal investigation just to engage in basic conversation. 🙂 My friend, you are treating this like a spiritual treatise in PDF format; there is certainly no need to write a scientific dissertation here just to share an opinion.

The notion that one should refrain from forming or expressing an opinion is a fallacy; in truth, such intellectual engagement is not merely permitted, but essential to a healthy discourse.

I am not searching this space for rigorous scientific precision or a strict methodological framework, nor am I looking for an analysis of that spirituality PDF; rather, what I am seeking is a fundamental sense of intellectual honesty. It feels as though one is attempting to construct a thesis that is intentionally shielded from verification—a proposition where, as you suggest, being held to any standard of proof simply isn't the objective.

Unverifiable premises may serve as a legitimate foundation for faith or hope, yet they certainly lack the substance required to constitute an intellectually rigorous argument.

Gregory Jackson said:Though, I guess there might be a third option too:

3. maybe it's an influence that triggers dormant areas of the brain (if you want to be vague about it, like the "right hemisphere") which might eventually happen through evolution, though who knows when that would actually kick in...

If that were the case, then a ton of untapped potential could suddenly flip on and become available to everyone, instead of just being limited to those rare few people we see who seem to have these crazy, unexplainable gifts for stuff like memory, math, or intuition and all that sort of thing

I’ve touched on what this looks like in practice before, based on something a man once shared with me:

The technique goes like this: You work in dyads—in pairs. All you need is two people: say, you and me. First, you answer the question: "Who am I?" You tell me about yourself. At first, it just boils down to recounting little stories from your life. Once you feel like you’ve exhausted the topic, then I answer the question of who I am. My response triggers something in you, and when I feel finished, you go back to answering who you are. We just keep going until we break.
A buddy and I did something very similar.
What actually happens during an intensive? Well, whenever we got bored with the actual work, we’d make coffee, grill some sausages—we even had a drink before bed once. As the intensive progressed, the answers started getting heavier, more serious. The last thing I said right before enlightenment was: "Well, my planet is broke..." to which my friend replied: "Yeah, mine too..." And then it happened. I just... woke up. There was nothing left to say because every single word was coming from within me. If I had uttered even one more syllable, it would have felt like I was just talking to myself. I couldn't help but laugh. There wasn't a single realization that didn't originate from deep inside. So, there was no point in speaking. Ken happened to both of us at the exact same moment.

We stepped out onto the patio, and there was this breeze—it felt like the air was flowing right through my physical body. I didn't feel any weight at all. Everything—the sun, the leaves—everything looked brand new, over and over again, as if I were seeing the entire reality for the very first time, every single time. Some music was playing on a laptop, clouds were drifting across the sky, the treetops were swaying in the wind, and—it was all part of one interconnected rhythm. It was all my consciousness.

Man, I’ve been there myself—more times than I care to admit, actually.
It was back in the day, maybe 10 or 15 years ago, when I was out there blowing smoke through all kinds of different ways—
And honestly? I wasn't looking to achieve anything or hoping for some big breakthrough. If anything, it was the exact opposite... I was practically begging to just zone out and completely wreck my own life.

Gregory Jackson said:Though, I guess there might be a third option too:

3. maybe it's an influence that triggers dormant areas of the brain (if you want to be vague about it, like the "right hemisphere") which might eventually happen through evolution, though who knows when that would actually kick in...

If that were the case, then a ton of untapped potential could suddenly flip on and become available to everyone, instead of just being limited to those rare few people we see who seem to have these crazy, unexplainable gifts for stuff like memory, math, or intuition and all that sort of thing

Man, I would give anything to have a photographic memory, seriously... 😳

But honestly? Most of us are always using our memory, probably pushing it pretty close to the limit—the real struggle is just figuring out how to organize all that data so it actually makes sense when you need it.

urbanwalker72 said:Quincy:

Paul Jones7 As stated by: I don't necessarily need to know the specifics. However, one might wonder how to discern the truth in a more general sense. I wouldn't presume to offer my opinion, nor would I wish to involve myself in such matters.

That was a fair assessment.

Quincy:

If we strictly adhere to the principle that a hypothesis cannot be proposed without absolute empirical proof, one might wonder if the very concept of sharing an opinion becomes obsolete. Must we all become career researchers just to voice a thought? It seems almost as though we are being asked to follow the rigid protocols of a federal investigation just to engage in basic conversation. 🙂 My friend, you are treating this like a spiritual treatise in PDF format; there is certainly no need to write a scientific dissertation here just to share an opinion.

The notion that one should refrain from forming or expressing an opinion is a fallacy; in truth, such intellectual engagement is not merely permitted, but essential to a healthy discourse.

I am not searching this space for rigorous scientific precision or a strict methodological framework, nor am I looking for an analysis of that spirituality PDF; rather, what I am seeking is a fundamental sense of intellectual honesty. It feels as though one is attempting to construct a thesis that is intentionally shielded from verification—a proposition where, as you suggest, being held to any standard of proof simply isn't the objective.

Unverifiable premises may serve as a legitimate foundation for faith or hope, yet they certainly lack the substance required to constitute an intellectually rigorous argument.

I mean, I guess you’re looking at intellectual value through this strictly pragmatic, scientific lens—which, honestly, feels like a pretty narrow way to see things. It’s almost like looking through a keyhole, if you will. There’s actually a specific term for that kind of tunnel vision.

Paul Jones7 said:I mean, I guess you’re looking at intellectual value through this strictly pragmatic, scientific lens—which, honestly, feels like a pretty narrow way to see things. It’s almost like looking through a keyhole, if you will. There’s actually a specific term for that kind of tunnel vision.

I had a distant neighbor who was the definition of a total moron. He could have easily downed 30 beers a day if he wanted to, but he couldn't always pull it off—and honestly, that wasn't even a scientific problem, just a matter of his bank account.

Sandra Morgan2 said:They aren't "windows" into pure consciousness. Because in pure consciousness, there is no content. No objects. No events. No phenomena. Paradoxically, there isn't even anyone there to be conscious of being in a state of pure consciousness. It’s a pure non-dual experience... which, of course, isn't an "experience." For an experience to exist, you need a subject doing the experiencing and a sense of time passing—both of which are just more content, more objects within consciousness. They are just our usual worldly tendency to divide things into a watcher, the watching, and the thing being watched.

Exactly. Like any other experience, these are only valuable if we actually acknowledge them. I think we tend to reject them. Mostly because they scare us.

That fear you mentioned? To me, it's a beautiful protective mechanism. It’s good that it exists! It pulls us back to where we belong right now—to the world where we have to pay the bills, raise kids, maintain a home, and make sure we have a hot meal on the table every day. If we slipped into some parallel reality, we'd look like total lunatics in this one. We'd be swept away by experiences that serve no practical purpose, eventually needing someone to take care of us or ending up in a mental health facility.

So, in this case, fear serves a vital function: it keeps us grounded.

Do you really think, Sandra Morgan2, that people can just forget experiences like that?

That fear you're talking about? Personally, I think it's a beautiful built-in safety switch. It's actually good that it exists. It drags us back to where we belong for now—to the reality of paying the mortgage, raising kids, keeping the house running, and making sure there's a hot meal on the table tonight. If you just slip over to some parallel reality and get lost in it, you end up looking like a total nutcase in this one. You get swept away by experiences that don't serve any practical purpose, and before you know it, you're either a burden on someone else or checking into a psych ward.

So, in this context, fear actually serves a purpose: it keeps us grounded.

Sure, maybe fear works as a defense mechanism as long as we're using it to push experiences away—using it as the ultimate block. But once you've actually lived through it? That block is gone. At that point, it can lead you straight into an illusion of monsters and pure evil. That's why, in the Abrahamic traditions where they have these super clear-cut archetypes of good versus evil, you see all these mystics—people who clearly had an awakening—preaching wildly about hellfire and divine wrath. The most obvious example is St. Paul in the Christian tradition, who basically steered the entire course of Christianity.
Bottom line: I don't think fear is a good friend. Caution, maybe. I remember this one Zen master—can't for the life of me remember his name, shoot—who said something that stuck with me:
"Before enlightenment, mountains were mountains and hills were hills. After enlightenment, mountains are still mountains and hills are still hills."

Paul Jones7 said:I mean, I guess you’re looking at intellectual value through this strictly pragmatic, scientific lens—which, honestly, feels like a pretty narrow way to see things. It’s almost like looking through a keyhole, if you will. There’s actually a specific term for that kind of tunnel vision.

Perhaps consider it this way—in what area of human endeavor is it considered honest or meaningful to present a claim that simply cannot be verified?