Sunmaster

I think I'm qualified enough to try to answer this question based on my own experience. I stated before that roughly 25 years ago I had this shift in perception. At that point I considered myself an atheist with zero trust in any religion and I had no idea what spirituality was all about. My life was all about girls, friends, music and parties. This shift was so radical and transformative that it changed my whole worldview. It was only AFTER, that I started reading up on what had happened to me and try to make some sense of it. I found out that it was called kundalini awakening, and that it was some kind of energy that resides at the base of the spine. It is sometimes released during acute trauma, near death experiences or as a result of meditation, for example. Now, if this experience would have been all a result of my imagination, how come it coincides so neatly with other people's stories? People throughout history and different places. Remember, I had no idea about it beforehand. So, my dilemma was...could I have somehow tapped into some sort of mass hallucination, that affects random individuals in time and space? And how comes these hallucinations all point towards the same principles of unity, love, transcendence and interconnectedness? Science had absolutely no answers for me. Or is it more plausible that the kundalini is indeed a real thing, just like it was described in certain old books and relived again and again by people around the world? These people, normal people like you and me, with no spiritual background whatsoever, described their own experience and it matched my own almost perfectly. How is that possible? You will probably roll your eyes at this, but the whole thing was infinitely more real than the reality I'm in right now. It was therefore impossible to discard it as a mere figment of my imagination. And it was therefore impossible to deny the existence of this other, spiritual dimension of which we are part of, just like we are part of the physical world. How would you explain it?

I don't criticize science because I have a grudge or agenda towards it. Far from that. I appreciate science just like you. The idea that if one is interested in spirituality he must reject science, is a fairytale. I know science is not hindering me and I'm not seeking for science to validate my subjective experiences. The problem is that whenever we talk about such experiences, the white knights of scientific inquiry here state quite unequivocally that these experiences are worthless/delusions/attempts at manipulating gullible people/ outright deceptions/lies/crazy-talk/mumbo jumbo....take your pick. So, while you say that science as a discipline is not hindering me in my pursuit of knowledge (thank you science), it is also true that many science followers use it as a measuring tape to judge what is supposed to be real and what is not. Science itself doesn't make that claim. Yes, Kundalini awakenings are not common, but they are also not so rare that they are statistically irrelevant. One may be able to facilitate its rising (I'm not sure about that), but it's not possible to predict it in any meaningful manner so that it can be researched it in a controlled environment. What to do? At this point you can either forget about it, if you think there is no value in it and don't believe that's it's possible to start with. Or, you can set your prejudice aside for a while and approach the subject with curiosity and a willingness to be surprised. Learning opportunities often lie in the most unexpected places. Do you agree?

The evidence requested has to fit in their own framework to be accepted. If the evidence doesn't fit that framework, then it's not considered evidence. That's the problem. How can you take subjective data and expect to measure it with objective tools? Has sciences ever seriously researched the kundalini? Not that I know of. Yet, this phenomena has been described throughout history, by sources unrelated to each other, and I can personally attest to its validity. So, now you have this phenomena that is real (unless one is arrogant enough to say that people who experienced it are all delusional, liars or both), but can not be measured as you would measure the voltage of an electrical current. What does that mean? That it doesn't exist? Does it mean we should ignore it, until science may or may not catch up and validate it some time in the future? Even if you're a hardcore materialist, one would expect a healthy human curiosity as to why people claim to have had the same or very similar experiences. Even if it's only a physiological or psychological effect. You've been here for a while now. Do you think I'm a liar? Do you think I'm incoherent and delusional? It must be said very clearly: Science is great, but it is NOT the only source of knowledge. Can science tell you who you are? Who can? PS: I do think Seth's teachings are valid, but I'm not qualified to defend them, nor am I interested in doing so. I prefer to speak from my own experience.

The official stance of science is that "spirituality" has no place in science, so yeah, one might be critical of scientists claiming anything about spirituality.

Tbh, I'm more interested to read your answers to the other questions.

No,,never heard. Why don't you like to speculate? Go on, speculate! ???? Do you think those extra dimensions are always present? Do you think those extra dimensions are accessible in some way? How do you think it feels like being consciously aware in one of these extra dimensions?

That's OK, thanks. ????????

You say "some people think". What do you think?

I don't know the background of this theory, so it's hard to wrap my head around this. Let's not make it too academic please. ????

Yes, I imagine it to be like that, with the only difference that the expansion is not something developing in time in a linear fashion, but already present, fully formed and organized at all times.

I'm not familiar with this theory. How do you know that the observer in 4D or higher would experience time as in 3D?

To try to answer that, we have to make sure we agree on the definition of "higher dimensions", so there can't be any misunderstandings later.

Well, whatever he decides to do, I wish him well. I hope he'll find the question to his questions.

It's a test, @Confuscious ????????

And he'll be back in 3....2....1...... ????

Cool, why not start your own thread and teach people how to best waste their time then?

And you still keep on reading those stupid answers, again and again, knowing that they are stupid. What does that make you then?

KhunLa's questions have been asked and answered several times here already. If the answers don't satisfy you, why are you still sticking around? Prey tell! I know why. Its because your own answers to those questions don't satisfy you either. You're like a reptile whose old skin is becoming too tight, but not ready yet to shed it completely.

The only twilight zone is the space between your ears. And I'm not even joking.

Anyway, I thought you left the discussion already. 3-4 times actually. Are you some kind of masochist?

So you're saying you don't understand the concepts we discuss and you blame us for that!? That's funny. Funny. Funny. Funny.

I'm a visual learner, so this is my take on the question of time. I imagine a rotating disc, the "disc of creation". As we know, the edges of the disc will rotate much faster than the center. The closer we get to the center, the lower the speed. Imagining the center being close to infinite (say 1×10−a gazillion), makes time at that point close to zero (timeless/NOW). I also imagine there to be a slope, with the highest point in the center. That way, the center has a 360 degree view of the whole disc at all times. The closer you get to the edge, the less of the disc is visible to the observer. An observer on the edge of the disc will experience time very differently from an observer on other points of the disc, closer to the center. For the observer on the edge, time seems to be linear, with a past, a present and a future, but for the observer closer to the center, those 3 points are observable and coexist all at the same time. This model explains the paradox Tippaporn was talking about. Time exists, is relative to the distance from the center, becomes less binding the closer we get to the center, and ceases to exist at the center. So, where is God in this model? "God" is the center of the "disc of creation", all seeing, all knowing, timeless. But God is also the disc itself. There is nothing in creation that is not God.

Well, it is nature, isn't it? Your assumption is that because cancer in children exists (or simply put, death exists), then that means there can't be a God. So my question is, what should God do to satisfy your sense of justice and make you happy? Eliminate all diseases and death? Animals shouldn't kill each other? People shouldn't kill animals for food?

Why only children? You can ask why God created cancer for all. Or simply ask, why did God create death. Should everything created last forever? Would that be practical? Would you want to be immortal? Why?

You must be a genius. I humbly bow down to your higher intellect.