paste and clip:.
http://www.kundalini-gateway.org/ksigns.html.
signs and symptoms of awakening.
dolph,
I should also point out that once a person reaches enlightenment after undergoing a kundalini awakening, all phenomena stops. Just like the others on this thread have said, the point of it all is to question and do inquiry. "Who am I"? Etc. Well after a kundalin awakening completes, you find out. And that's the end of it. No more phenomena.
So, who are you? B.
paste and clip:.
http://www.kundalini-gateway.org/ksigns.html.
signs and symptoms of awakening.
dolphman,
Forgive me. I'm only covering all the bases:
Smoked marijuana a lot when younger. Did do LSD once.Were you on any drugs (pot, LSD) when the experience you refer to occurred? How long had it been since you imbibed in narcotics when the event took place?
Growing up a JW produced a lot of trauma, however I've never been on psychiatric meds. Oh, and my Aunt does have schizophrenia. Oh, and I voted for Bush 4 years ago.I'll forgive you on the Bush thing. Do you or have you had any schizophrenic tendencies? Did you make it clear to the psychologist that a family member has schizophrenia? And, did they actually refer you to a yoga instructor, or did you do that on your own?
First, I do hold a day job at Microsoft. I also put myself through college and have been on my own since I was 17. I also directed an independent film. So, I hope this counts as evidence that I do have my shit together to some degree.To be brutally honest, that doesn't necessarily mean anything. There are millions of JWs who believe in many crazy things and they hold down a job. Some of the members of cult atrocities like Waco and Jonestown were doctors, lawyers and other well-educated, "together" people. That does not mean you didn't experience the kundalini awakening, but it by no means means that you are more credible than anyone else.
Second, it's one thing to spaz out and mutter unintelligible jibberish. It's another when it correlates exactly to old buhddist and hindu tantric mantras and practices. THIS is what I think seperates the crazies from those undergoing a direct spiritual experience.Had you ever read and/or spoken the mantras before you started to glossalate? It's always possible that you or your girlfriend "tweaked" what you said to fit the mantra, etc. That doesn't mean you're a liar, it's simply human nature to want to "fit" the experience in somehow (especially since you seem to have been very interested in this sort of thing to begin with).
Third, I spent some time after these intial experiences going to a counselor, to try and figure out their origin. I had no intention of having my life screwed up and going crazy. Needless to say I had to weed my way through a lot of New Age BS before stumbling upon the truth.Again, forgive me, but there are plenty of people reading this who will say that it is "a lot of New Age BS."
Oh, and if you know anyone, I mean anyone, who could scientifically document any of this, let me know. Lie detectors, brain scans, you name it. I've talked to the University of WA and some other research centers but get no response. They probably think I'm a quack.That would be the general impression. Ah, I'm just jesting with you. I'm more open to this sort of thing than I used to be. I just wouldn't discount that there may be other factors involved that are of a more psychological origin. Did you see multiple counselors? What type of psychologist did you see? Did they give you ANY ideas that it might be glitches in the brain? All best, Bradley
paste and clip:.
http://www.kundalini-gateway.org/ksigns.html.
signs and symptoms of awakening.
Dolph,
Do you mind if I ask if you have had any previous psychiatric problems and/or dabbled in drugs (especially LSD)?
B.
paste and clip:.
http://www.kundalini-gateway.org/ksigns.html.
signs and symptoms of awakening.
You all do realize that any lurking JW viewing this thread will be TERRIFIED.
Perhaps I am too!
Bradley
.
finally it is on line, this is a great read, enjoy!
http://www.skeptics.ca/newsletters/winter04.pdf
Sixo,
Speaking for myself, saying "you admitted you want to believe the universe is entirely naturalistic" is really just a way of saying I "want to understand things".
I disagree. If there is a "supernatural" world inherent with our own, that would be part of the "things" in which you wish to understand. People who have had mystical experiences, such as those who genuinely practice Zen Buddhism, describe understanding things in an entirely different, almost indescribable, way. Speaking as a person who has not had any type of mystical experience, all I can do is acknoweldge that such a subjective experience is possible.
At this point in the discussion, "supernatural" would really only mean entities outside of nature that play arbitrarily (at least from our perspective) with nature (and lets be honest, the part of nature we're primarilly concerned with is "humans").
There are people who believe in spirituality who do not believe in spiritual "entities" (I assume you mean God, angels, demons and disembodied souls).
That would be dissappointing.
Even if there were spiritual "entities" out there, why would their existence be dissappointing?
Bradley
.
finally it is on line, this is a great read, enjoy!
http://www.skeptics.ca/newsletters/winter04.pdf
Watson,
Some things simply are not open to scientific investigation. God, the subjective self, mysticism (now don't go apeshit that I mentioned mysticsim) etc.
Now here's a good question...what if science did in fact point to the supernatural. Since you (and many others, possibly including myself) admitted you want to believe the universe is entirely naturalistic, how would you overcome that prejudice if the data and/or subjective experience pointed otherwise? Would you be dissappointed?
Bradley
.
finally it is on line, this is a great read, enjoy!
http://www.skeptics.ca/newsletters/winter04.pdf
Now, before anyone accuses me of philosophical chaos, I do not believe all worldviews are equal. Nor do I think the atheist/skeptic "tweaks" the information they encounter (so as to make sense of it) as much as say, a backwoods Pentacostal snake-handler. On the whole, the scientific worldview is superior to any traditional religious mindset (and quite a number of untraditional ones).
But that's just the way I see it.
.
finally it is on line, this is a great read, enjoy!
http://www.skeptics.ca/newsletters/winter04.pdf
I'd like to point out, as well, that most religious believers feel they have a reson for their faith; it's not something that just comes out of nowhere. For example, a believer in a Creator will point to the universe, the amazing "fine-tuning" of the laws of physics, the Big Bang, etc as all being circumstantial evidence for a God. So their faith does have a basis.
Now, all the things I just mentioned can be looked at in a naturalistic way. And, of course, there is possible negative evidence against the existence of God (evil, bad design, etc.). The point is that people with faith do base it on something. Whether their evidence is good or not is an entirely different matter.
Bradley
PS...I would like to add that there does seem to be a certain amount of faith in the idea of a multiverse to account for the fine-tuning of the universe. Many skeptics (sometimes including myself) seem to put forth the idea as if it has already been proven. I'm not sure if it even can be proven. It's human nature to want our worldview to be "whole" so that everything "fits" with it. If one is an atheist (which I may be at this point!) there is a certain way we look at the world so as to make the evidence fit our philosophical stance. The same is true for the theist.
.
finally it is on line, this is a great read, enjoy!
http://www.skeptics.ca/newsletters/winter04.pdf
I think we're pretty much on the same page, Watson. You are simply taking issue with my creative use of the word, "faith."
In my mind, faith is trust. Faith should never be totalistic, ie, the way most religious believers use the word. The faith needed to believe something can be small (that biological evolution has/does occur) or it can be large (that there is a God). How much "faith" one is willing to put forth seems to be a matter of temperment.
Yours in the faith,
B.
anybody would agree that talking about jehovah's witnesses over and over, and then over some more can get anybody tired and sick.
except, of course, those who are obsessed over them.
don't you think there will be a point when you won't talk or even mumble about jehovah's witnesses?
This is a real nice "hit and run" thread Joker. You know, some of your ideas might approach respectibility if you actually explained/argued them. You seem bent on just downgrading people.
Pity.
Bradley
