The Acid JITTERS~! ?

That's awesome auri you'll have a great time

 

Why are you associating spirituality with a path of self realization?

What I have said is that all we can be sure of is the experience itself (speaking in a practical manner).
After that, comes the interpretation of that experience, and THAT is what is belief, regardless of how strongly you feel or how powerful the experience was in the first place.

 

I hold beliefs, I'm a deist, I also believe the physical world is a matter of a science, chemistry, electricity, ect. Most of what is being described as I said was science at one point in history a long time ago. Then it was replaced. However people ignore the science behind it and still experience these things, hence try to place a deeper meaning to them.

 

And this is your deeper meaning.

 

no my deeper meaning is people need to stop looking for a deeper meaning that doesn't exist, if you want a deep meaning go read a book, don't take drugs and be like shit, my body is doing odd things.

 

in reference to the last reductionist line, when i had my kundalini awakening, the physical aspect was the least effecting, and is certainly not what contributed to the shift in my consciousness. it was the out-of-body, total visionary state where i lived parallel lives, experienced godhead light, experienced death and the stages of bardo in vivid, colorful detail, that did that .
the disconnect here is this; what i've seen, is not what you've seen.

 

And here is your fatal flaw - you actually believe that your experiences are special.

 

no that's what you're saying. i never said that at all. kundalini energy is within everyone and my experience is not special. when i said, "what i've seen, is not what you've seen", means that what you've seen, is not what i've seen just the same. i'm simply relaying my experience. nor did i mention anywhere about anything involving a 'belief'.

 

No, you did not explicitly say "my experiences are special", but you have heavily implied it by insinuating that an opposing perspective and the person in possession of it have an incorrect interpretation of reality because they have not "seen what you have seen".
If all you were doing was relaying your experiences, then there would be no need for the subsequent speculation on what the experience actually is or could mean, and there certainly wouldn't be a need to attempt to discredit someone who disagrees with you by saying something like "you haven't seen what I've seen".

And it's kind of cute, how you keep demanding to refer to your beliefs as "knowledge".

 

there was no speculation, i witnessed it all. i don't think you're really grasping that part, these aren't ideas or objects of my imagination, these are direct experiences. nor did i propose any specific meaning to be derived from it, the meaning it has only applies to my own path, of course, so no need to espouse that. again, the statement "what i've seen, is not what you've seen" works both ways, i already said that. and in saying that, it follows that there is no "correct" or "incorrect" interpretation of reality.

 

Oh don't worry, I understand what you are saying, it's just that I make a distinction between actual experience, and the interpretation of the experience. They are not the same thing. What you have described as kundalini, someone else may describe as the Holy Ghost, and yet another may describe it as a random sequence of synapses firing and brain hemispheric synchronization. Maybe someone else may even link all of these explanations as interchangeable and holistic. Regardless, each interpretation amounts to nothing more than just that, an interpretation.
While I don't doubt you have had powerful and possibly illuminating experiences, saying "wow, that was kundalini" is NOT part of that experience, it's just speculation on what it might have been. Everyone on this board has had experiences similar to what you have described, so why attempt to discredit their interpreation in favor of your own by demonizing the background that their interpretation arose from with statements like this -

So which was it, did you read about kundalini first, and then trip and decide that was what it was, or did you trip, were left in a state of confusion, and then stumbled across the concept of kundalini?

Based on your behavior so far, I'm having trouble buying that you actually believe that.

 

dracunos, the whole time i've simply been expressing my own personal truth, never once did i say anything about my truth representing the 'true universe', whatever that is.

 

As soon as you turned to Vedic science you went down the same path as those who choose materialistic science. both are systems of accounting for experience in language and cognitive framework. I know nothing of vedic science, I assume it claims to be about observation and discussion, like material science. a way of looking at the world.

so youre basically saying "MY science is better than YOUR science", when in reality both are equally flawed and equally useful. if thinking about kundalini makes sense to you, great, but understand that thinking of neurons and 5HT and current and freudian models of the mind are useful as well. it's all just tools, don't throw out your screwdriver because your hammer is better than it at hammering.

 

it was only after i came upon kundalini energy through research that i was able to ascribe certain aspects of that experience, physical and metaphysical, to certain aspects of experiences that i had already been through, but culminating with one particular experience where the physical phenomena described by vedic teachers matched perfectly the physical sensations of that particular experience.

 

i completely agree with everything you said mr. writer. but believe me, my references to vedic teachings have been solely for the purpose of the debate, all the while i keep the understanding that direct experience, true knowledge are not things that can be spoken.

 

I'm just saying we all have our pets.

 

i agree with moksha, it feels like half of what is going on here is a few individuals trying to come up with ideas and then everyone else being like 'no, your retarded'

i know that part of enunciating an idea is brought about through the criticism of the opposition, and that an arguemnt can be strengthened when looked at under a magnifying glass, but damn... where is the equal understanding of the opposition. it is like anyone that says anything about kundalini gets instantly shot down and then everyone else doesn't need to justify themselves because they are automatically right. well isn't that the main thing that you guys are criticising in the kundalini arguement? hypocrites...

so let's take a deeper look at the meaning of kundalini, shall we?

kundalini-–noun Hinduism.

the vital force lying dormant within one until activated by the practice of yoga, which leads one toward spiritual power and eventual salvation

ok, so then what is hinduism?

Hinduism--noun
A diverse body of religion, philosophy, and cultural practice native to and predominant in India, characterized by a belief in reincarnation and a supreme being of many forms and natures, by the view that opposing theories are aspects of one eternal truth, and by a desire for liberation from earthly evils.

it took me 5 minutes to find those definitions. so how about before you discount something, you try to gain an idea of what exactly you are talking about? if there is one thing that bothers me more than anything, it is ignorant criticism.

 

Have you even read the thread? lol

 

very wise words my friend.

NAMASTE

 

maybe i should stop, because there is only negativity here.