Do you believe in God and why

[Sunmaster]

39 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

That's what I am hoping for. I wonder how long it will take for all those people who believe to overcome their delusions.

By now there should be enough evidence that there is no god. And no evidence that there is a god.

 

Ok, let's start something productive here: Let's imagine for a moment no religion would exist today. Nobody would believe in any god. And no parents would tell their children religions fairytales. People would learn and understand science.

Now in that kind of situation who would get the idea to "invent" god? Would anybody somehow feel: This supernatural whatever talked to me and wants that I pray? I don't think that would happen.

As far as I see most (all?) those believers exist because mostly their parents told them, when they were young and ignorant, that there is a god. And be a good girl/boy otherwise god is angry...

Alright, let's assume there were a society without religion and were only science and hard facts are thought at school. 

I'm 100% sure that sooner or later one or the other would have some experiences that would not fit in the scientific paradigm, maybe as a result of extreme trauma, an accident, or just a moment of grace during a walk through a forest. He would tell the story to his friends, but as much as they try to bang into him that these experiences were only the result of random neurons firing in his brain, he could never be satisfied with such a non-explanation. He knows there must be another explanation, there must be more to life than what science has taught him until now. And so he goes on a quest to find out what actually happened to him and in an abandoned ancient library, he finds books about the spiritual side of life. Amazingly, these books help him to understand his experience in a way no science book could ever do. 
So he goes back home happy and tries to share his findings at his local science club, but guess what happens? Blank stares, confused looks, giggles and some sneers. He decides it's best to keep these things for himself, as they wouldn't be able to understand anyway. The End

You know why I'm so convinced? Because the same thing happened to me. Up to when I was 23 years old I rejected God and all religions (for me there was no distinction at the time) and I was a proud atheist. I was proud to be rational and forward-thinking and not like the backward church-mice in my family. 
Then something happened that radically changed the very core of my being. 

Delusions? 
Well, from what I see, the ones living in delusion are those who can't see that we're all connected in a way that for the most part is a big mystery, and that everything and everybody is imbibed with divine energy. 

 

39 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

As far as I see most (all?) those believers exist because mostly their parents told them

Many probably yes, definitely not all.

Edited May 9, 2020 by Sunmaster

[thaibeachlovers]

10 hours ago, Logosone said:

If you think Buddha believed in a supreme being, where does he say so?

Buddha was a human man. He didn't know everything.

[thaibeachlovers]

17 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

You know why I'm so convinced? Because the same thing happened to me. Up to when I was 23 years old I rejected God and all religions (for me there was no distinction at the time) and I was a proud atheist. I was proud to be rational and forward-thinking and not like the backward church-mice in my family. 
Then something happened that radically changed the very core of my being. 

Delusions? 
Well, from what I see, the ones living in delusion are those who can't see that we're all connected in a way that for the most part is a big mystery, and that everything and everybody is imbibed with divine energy. 

Unbelievers are just people that have not had something happen to enlighten them.

Enlightenment came on me without warning or expectation.

[thaibeachlovers]

10 hours ago, Retarded said:

If I were god, I will do things differently.

I will leave written manifest to show how I made man in detail with diagram. 

So there will be no war between tribes who believe different theory of creation. 

And I will update my creation from time to time to make it up to date. 

For an instance, to control over population of my invention, I will update them not to have sex more than once in three years. 

 

The way man was made now is total disaster. 

 

 

You are believing in God as religion portrays. God is beyond all what you wrote. God created billions and billions of stars and worlds and life of every sort, and yet is supposed to be taking care of each and every person? If anything, God cares as much about every mosquito and slug as humans. Only humans think they are special enough that God looks after them. The evidence is that God does not. In every war, men die praying to God to save them, but God does not. God created, IMO, and then left the created to get on with it. However, when our body dies, IMO we will be reunited with God, from whence we came.

[thaibeachlovers]

56 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

As far as I see most (all?) those believers exist because mostly their parents told them, when they were young and ignorant, that there is a god. And be a good girl/boy otherwise god is angry...

I was agnostic. My parents sent me to Sunday school but they didn't tell me anything about God. We didn't even say grace. They didn't even mention God.

I believe because of an experience I had in my 30s, but I'm not religious, as I don't believe in religion.

[Skeptic7]

5 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Here we go again with the downsplaining.... 
No, it's not just my interpretation. There is a vast consensus among those who practice one or the other introspective practice. There are not millions of individual interpretations and potential new religions, there are not millions of spaghetti monster type of gods, are there?

 

Now that's a good question.
Society is a conglomerate of many individuals. If an individual, or a group of individuals, makes personal development and the search for God its main goal, they will foremost have a personal benefit from it. Society will then benefit from their achievements as a result. 
It's just like when you meet a person who is content, happy and radiates love....how do you feel and how does it affect your day? Everybody benefits from that, consciously or not.

I'm not saying only spiritual people can be content, happy and loving, but I think the depth and the quality (intensity perhaps) are different. 
 

Once you went from believing (or in my case NOT believing) to knowing, do you think you could go back to simply believing?
And if you're content with just believing (or in your case, not believing), what incentive would you need to go to knowing?

"Downsplaining"...is that meant to be insulting or offensive?  But anyway...

 

It's all just your interpretation, nothing more. You've made another claim about some vast consensus of your special club that most couldn't give a <deleted> about. You can label it "god" or whatever you want. Someone claims their dreams are "god" or the Universe is "god" or their coffee mug is "god" or a cosmic Jewish zombie is "god"...doesn't make any of the claims correct or true. Just claims with your/their interpretations. No demonstrable evidence...which equals unconvincing and uncompelling. 

 

I'm happy you're content, but so am I. Exceedingly. I disagree with your depth and quality claims about love, contentment and happiness. How and why would you assume just because you spend your time sitting around...not thinking and doing nothing...that you are happier than anyone else? You may be, but you may not be. How can you ever make that claim? It's an impossible claim to make as you can't possibly have the slightest clue about most others true feelings and level of happiness. 

 

I want to know as many true...meaningful...things as possible and disregard the untrue and/or useless. I assume you do also, but we have vastly different ideas about reality and what is acceptable to be labeled "god". Thus far in my life I've heard a grand total of zero acceptable explanations of any "god".

 

I accept that meditation is pleasant and beneficial to the individual. I accept it can have positive influences on one's self. I disagree that their is any "god" or supernatural or "spiritual" involved. Just altered state of mind to which you're attaching all sorts of unnecessary and extraneous baggage. 

Edited May 9, 2020 by Skeptic7

[Skeptic7]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Unbelievers are just people that have not had something happen to enlighten them.

Enlightenment came on me without warning or expectation.

Thanks for enlightening us. 

[Elad]

15 hours ago, fredwiggy said:

There is no evidence of a big bang. Scientists guesses so they can get funding,using words that many can't understand, has been a ploy for a long time.

As I said before, 100 years ago most scientists hated the 'Big Bang Theory', they much preferred the 'static eternal universe'. But then, for the last century or so evidence started to accumulate to support it, and some of that evidence was unexpected like the expanding universe and the CMB which was actually predicted by theoretical physicists many years before. It's now become their best current model for how the universe began.

 

By observing light from distant galaxies and using spectroscopy, scientists can determine the abundancies of heavy elements within those galaxies. Turns out that the farther the galaxy (the further back in time) the fewer heavier elements are observed. In fact, if you had a graph showing heavy elements against time (with the time axis going into the past) then there would be a continuous slope on the graph going towards zero. There was definitely a time in the universe where no heavy elements and thus no life could exist back then. All this suggests the universe had a beginning.        

 

  

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, Elad said:

As I said before, 100 years ago most scientists hated the 'Big Bang Theory', they much preferred the 'static eternal universe'. But then, for the last century or so evidence started to accumulate to support it, and some of that evidence was unexpected like the expanding universe and the CMB which was actually predicted by theoretical physicists many years before. It's now become their best current model for how the universe began.

 

By observing light from distant galaxies and using spectroscopy, scientists can determine the abundancies of heavy elements within those galaxies. Turns out that the farther the galaxy (the further back in time) the fewer heavier elements are observed. In fact, if you had a graph showing heavy elements against time (with the time axis going into the past) then there would be a continuous slope on the graph going towards zero. There was definitely a time in the universe where no heavy elements and thus no life could exist back then. All this suggests the universe had a beginning.        

 

  

I don't understand how any thinking person could think the universe was "static". It's obvious to a blind duck that the suns burn fuel. Eventually they will use up the fuel and die. Unless they discover that suns magically generate new fuel, the universe dies, eventually. If it dies, it has to have had a beginning.

 

It's like people believed the earth was flat. Any fool can see the horizon of the ocean is curved ergo the world is not flat. Either they never saw the sea, or they were pretty stupid.

[Peter Denis]

14 hours ago, teatime101 said:

That may be what some neuroscientists believe. I'm not sure there is any evidence to show consciousness exists at all. It is one of life's 'subjective realities', along with sound and colour, and I guess all our sensory experience.

...

The multiple experiments conducted by Rupert Sheldrake definitely prove there is consciousness outside the brain.  As a scientist he postulated the theory of morphogenetic fields to account for such outer-brain consciousness.

[Skeptic7]

1 hour ago, Peter Denis said:

The multiple experiments conducted by Rupert Sheldrake definitely prove there is consciousness outside the brain.  As a scientist he postulated the theory of morphogenetic fields to account for such outer-brain consciousness.

Proof? Sources please. I found nothing other than it either being flatly dismissed or, at very best, called an idea. Seems that majority of scientists don't even agree with his definitions. No proof, but rather an idea.

 

Here's an interesting quote about Sheldrake in The Guardian...

Sheldrake persists in his claims, despite the fact that there's no evidence for them. This is bad science.

 

And another from Wikipedia...

Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is an English author, and researcher in the field of parapsychology, who proposed the concept of morphic resonance, a conjecture which lacks mainstream acceptance and has been characterised as pseudoscience.

 

Edited May 10, 2020 by Skeptic7

[OneMoreFarang]

11 hours ago, sirineou said:

That's why there are mechanisms to get them early before they could think for themselves.

  I was brought up in the christian religion,of my many relatives I don't really know anyone who believes in these nonsenses, when we have conversations concerning that they all agree it is nonsense,  but by now they are cultural christians, to not participate it is to be ostracised to  a certain degree, to not be included. So they go along. I am an Atheist, but when I find myself in Greece for Easter, I go to Church for the Epitafios, and Saturday night we all light the candles and wait outside the church for the priest to proclaim "Christos Anesti" (Χριστός Ανέστη ) , Christ is Risen, and we light up the fireworks and bump the red colored eggs, and next day cook the lamb on a spit over the coals. 

It is not religion,as much as  it is Religious entertainment. 

Thanks for your honest  post. I wish more people would admit that this is why they are "religious".

[OneMoreFarang]

11 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Well, from what I see, the ones living in delusion are those who can't see that we're all connected in a way that for the most part is a big mystery, and that everything and everybody is imbibed with divine energy

Thanks for your answer.

I agree that we might all be connected to other people in ways which we currently don't understand. Maybe (some) people are influenced by what other people think or do. But for me that has nothing to do with religion.

[OneMoreFarang]

10 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

God created billions and billions of stars and worlds and life of every sort

WOW! What a powerful god. How did he do that and how long did it take?

Let's say one star a day and it would take billions and billions of days. Or did he do it all within a week?

[OneMoreFarang]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I don't understand how any thinking person could think the universe was "static". It's obvious to a blind duck that the suns burn fuel. Eventually they will use up the fuel and die. Unless they discover that suns magically generate new fuel, the universe dies, eventually. If it dies, it has to have had a beginning.

 

It's like people believed the earth was flat. Any fool can see the horizon of the ocean is curved ergo the world is not flat. Either they never saw the sea, or they were pretty stupid.

And still there are even now flat-earther around. Amazing.

[ravip]

Well, from what I see, the ones living in delusion are those who can't see that we're all connected in a way that for the most part is a big mystery, and that everything and everybody is imbibed with divine energy

 

So the 'enlightened folks' are the people who see that we're all connected in a way that for the most part is a big mystery, and that everything and everybody is imbibed with divine energy?

 

Is that why humans are so racist? They condemn fellow beings in the most disgusting manner? Look at how China is been bashed today. How foreigners living in Thailand bash the Thai people and every thing Thai. How some countries calling themselves developed, destroy other countries that don't agree with their dirty political games.

 

Now, that's one hell of a 'connection' I must say!

 

 

[ravip]

There are two types of scientists on this planet.

1. The first, they really do.
2. The rest, sits in a corner and theorises everything and opposes what the type 1 do.

Sadly, the majority is the type 2

[Peter Denis]

20 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

Proof? Sources please. I found nothing other than it either being flatly dismissed or, at very best, called an idea. Seems that majority of scientists don't even agree with his definitions. No proof, but rather an idea.

 

Here's an interesting quote about Sheldrake in The Guardian...

Sheldrake persists in his claims, despite the fact that there's no evidence for them. This is bad science.

 

And another from Wikipedia...

Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is an English author, and researcher in the field of parapsychology, who proposed the concept of morphic resonance, a conjecture which lacks mainstream acceptance and has been characterised as pseudoscience.

Cherry-picking sceptic comments on Sheldrake's work is easy, especially as his aim is to expand science beyond its conventional boundaries in the hope that a new path to discovery can be opened up.  But having the temerity to do so is of course the proverbial red flag on the sceptic science-bull.

You ask for sources > Just read a chapter of one of his many books.  They are written in clear language and not trying to impress with formula-babble, but instead he describes the experiments he conducts to check the validity of some scientific dogma's, and on the basis of those cases he then postulates a theory.  The theory being formed by what was observed. 

As a scientist he never claims that this theories are the One and Only Truth, but are indeed an 'idea' that could explain some phenomena that are unexplainable with the present scientific thinking.  And for that he researches and experiments with some odd but fairly common phenomena like animals sensing that their master is coming, the connection between a carrier-pigeon and his till, the feeling of 'being watched', phantom-pains in amputated body parts, telepathic communication, etc...

 

[yodsak]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I don't understand how any thinking person could think the universe was "static".

Until 1931, physicist Albert Einstein believed that the universe was static.. An urban legend attributes this change of perspective to when American astronomer Edwin Hubble showed Einstein his observations of redshift in the light emitted by far away nebulae—today known as galaxies. 

[Logosone]

12 hours ago, WhereIsMyRyeBread said:

There's a youtube channel by a fella called Benjamin Bennett. 
He's using the technique sitting and smiling, each time he live streams it for 4 hrs. The live stream probably helps with the self-discipline to not quit the meditation session prematurely. 

Some 300+ sessions, each 4 hrs. (seems kinda crazy ha!)  impressive discipline. He rarely comments. From my limited knowledge of meditation is that you're unlikely to make progress without a mentor.
So you did reach some altered states then? 
 
 

 

That is indeed impressive, to sit for 4 hours is extremely difficut.

 

My own "sitting" experience went on for many years. I started to be interested in Zen Buddhism when I was 12 after reading a book by Daisetz Suzuki which had the words about Zen that intrigued me.

 

I did not properly start to meditate until I was about 20. I took it very seriously, and folllowed to the letter the instructions in Philip Kapleau's Three Pillars of Zen. I even got the two Japanese cushions custom made at a milliner, which were such quality work I still have them intact today, I set aside a room in my house just for meditation.

 

Now, the beginnings of meditation were very hard for me. I was young and did not keep to it as regularly as I should have. Then after I had a minor operation I started in 2008 to do it again. I would sit every day, at least for 20 minutes in the morning, and evening usually, sometimes for 40 minutes as well. Now for years I did not have any altered state of mine. That is why I stopped as a young man, apart from many distractions, I did not see any obvious results. I mean yes, the feeling of dulled pleasure in mental relaxation, yes of course, but you know none of those major altered state experiences.

 

However, after some time of doing it every day, in around 2009 I had this very obvious and unique experience. I was sitting in meditation, as usual nothing special, and literally like a bolt out of the blue, this feeling of bright, intense happiness overcame me, I actually had to laugh out loud. It was an event that passed after a few minutes. I thought for a minute maybe that was enlightenment. Of course without a qualified assessment I was unable to say for sure. So that is why I then drove to a Japanese Zen monastery in Germany with a Japanese Soto Master. I told him what happened.

 

To my great disappointment he did not seem very impressed. He merely said "You have had a breakthrough. This will happen more often. Keep doing it and just ignore it". So clearly this was not enlightenment. It was an altered state. But that was all it was.

 

I think with more effort and a constant teacher I would have made more progress. However, after my time in the monastery I realised it was definitely not for me to sign up with a Sangha and teacher. It goes against my nature and I find it ridiculous. Meditation however, I strongly reccomend as worthwhile. Not because of the experience of altered states, MDMA would be much better for that, but because you are able to think things through much better, it does give you, after some practice, an unfailing experience of joyful calm, and it collects your mental monkey mind.

 

[Sunmaster]

9 hours ago, Skeptic7 said:

"Downsplaining"...is that meant to be insulting or offensive?  But anyway...

 

It's all just your interpretation, nothing more. You've made another claim about some vast consensus of your special club that most couldn't give a <deleted> about. You can label it "god" or whatever you want. Someone claims their dreams are "god" or the Universe is "god" or their coffee mug is "god" or a cosmic Jewish zombie is "god"...doesn't make any of the claims correct or true. Just claims with your/their interpretations. No demonstrable evidence...which equals unconvincing and uncompelling. 

 

I'm happy you're content, but so am I. Exceedingly. I disagree with your depth and quality claims about love, contentment and happiness. How and why would you assume just because you spend your time sitting around...not thinking and doing nothing...that you are happier than anyone else? You may be, but you may not be. How can you ever make that claim? It's an impossible claim to make as you can't possibly have the slightest clue about most others true feelings and level of happiness. 

 

I want to know as many true...meaningful...things as possible and disregard the untrue and/or useless. I assume you do also, but we have vastly different ideas about reality and what is acceptable to be labeled "god". Thus far in my life I've heard a grand total of zero acceptable explanations of any "god".

 

I accept that meditation is pleasant and beneficial to the individual. I accept it can have positive influences on one's self. I disagree that their is any "god" or supernatural or "spiritual" involved. Just altered state of mind to which you're attaching all sorts of unnecessary and extraneous baggage. 

No, "downsplaining" wasn't meant to be insulting nor offensive. It's just pointing out something that happens far too often when you have a complicated topic being "explained" by non-experts.

When I talk about the quality or degree of happiness, I base my opinion on what A. Maslow calls the "Hierarchy of Needs". 

Some people are perfectly happy at the "esteem" level, but just like this level is qualitatively deeper than the one before, the self-actualization level is deeper still. At this level, people have a need to answer important questions regarding their true Self and their place in the universe. Once you have those kind of questions/needs, you will never be content staying at the previous level. Just like you wouldn't be happy or fulfilled by just satisfying the safety needs or esteem needs, would you?

Higher levels of needs provide higher levels of fulfillment. 

 

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, Peter Denis said:

Cherry-picking sceptic comments on Sheldrake's work is easy, especially as his aim is to expand science beyond its conventional boundaries in the hope that a new path to discovery can be opened up.  But having the temerity to do so is of course the proverbial red flag on the sceptic science-bull.

You ask for sources > Just read a chapter of one of his many books.  They are written in clear language and not trying to impress with formula-babble, but instead he describes the experiments he conducts to check the validity of some scientific dogma's, and on the basis of those cases he then postulates a theory.  The theory being formed by what was observed. 

As a scientist he never claims that this theories are the One and Only Truth, but are indeed an 'idea' that could explain some phenomena that are unexplainable with the present scientific thinking.  And for that he researches and experiments with some odd but fairly common phenomena like animals sensing that their master is coming, the connection between a carrier-pigeon and his till, the feeling of 'being watched', phantom-pains in amputated body parts, telepathic communication, etc...

 

When I lived in London, I took some overtone singing classes with his wife Jill and then met Sheldrake at one of his public talks. I mentioned his theory of morphic fields a few months ago when talking about the flight ability of flocks of birds....fascinating.
I agree with all you said about expanding the boundaries of the current paradigm. We all know how scientific innovators/thinkers were treated in the past and things are not much different today. 

[mauGR1]

12 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

No, "downsplaining" wasn't meant to be insulting nor offensive. It's just pointing out something that happens far too often when you have a complicated topic being "explained" by non-experts.

When I talk about the quality or degree of happiness, I base my opinion on what A. Maslow calls the "Hierarchy of Needs". 

Some people are perfectly happy at the "esteem" level, but just like this level is qualitatively deeper than the one before, the self-actualization level is deeper still. At this level, people have a need to answer important questions regarding their true Self and their place in the universe. Once you have those kind of questions/needs, you will never be content staying at the previous level. Just like you wouldn't be happy or fulfilled by just satisfying the safety needs or esteem needs, would you?

Higher levels of needs provide higher levels of fulfillment. 

 

"However, today scholars prefer to think of these levels as continuously overlapping each other.^[3] This means that the lower levels may take precedence back over the other levels at any point in time."

 

 

i went to have a look on wiki, because i was not convinced, so after 1 minute my attention was caught by this quote, which describes my thoughts exactly.

No offense, but i think that graphic, while being undeniably food for thought, is debatable.

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, ravip said:

Well, from what I see, the ones living in delusion are those who can't see that we're all connected in a way that for the most part is a big mystery, and that everything and everybody is imbibed with divine energy

 

So the 'enlightened folks' are the people who see that we're all connected in a way that for the most part is a big mystery, and that everything and everybody is imbibed with divine energy?

 

Is that why humans are so racist? They condemn fellow beings in the most disgusting manner? Look at how China is been bashed today. How foreigners living in Thailand bash the Thai people and every thing Thai. How some countries calling themselves developed, destroy other countries that don't agree with their dirty political games.

 

Now, that's one hell of a 'connection' I must say!

 

 

Your reply seems a bit confused tbh.

You don't have to be enlightened to see that we're all connected etc....but you'll 100% know it if you're enlightened. 

Then you ask "Is that why humans are so racist?". Well, if they are racist, they obviously haven't realized that we're all the same and connected. So, why blame the more evolved group for the failings of the racist group?

Does that make sense to you?

 

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, Sunmaster said:

Your reply seems a bit confused tbh.

You don't have to be enlightened to see that we're all connected etc....but you'll 100% know it if you're enlightened. 

Then you ask "Is that why humans are so racist?". Well, if they are racist, they obviously haven't realized that we're all the same and connected. So, why blame the more evolved group for the failings of the racist group?

Does that make sense to you?

 

Lol, you were faster than me, amazing really amazing.

Talking about racists and blaming the divine light...

[Sunmaster]

3 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

"However, today scholars prefer to think of these levels as continuously overlapping each other.^[3] This means that the lower levels may take precedence back over the other levels at any point in time."

 

 

i went to have a look on wiki, because i was not convinced, so after 1 minute my attention was caught by this quote, which describes my thoughts exactly.

No offense, but i think that graphic, while being undeniably food for thought, is debatable.

Oh yes, I agree with you and that quote. We, like everything else in the universe, are in a constant state of flux. 
For example....if you lose your job, you go from the self-actualization level (spending your free time meditating or painting) to the safety level (worrying about your next paycheck) in a heartbeat! 

It's certainly not as clear-cut as the graph might suggest.

[Logosone]

38 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

When I lived in London, I took some overtone singing classes with his wife Jill and then met Sheldrake at one of his public talks. I mentioned his theory of morphic fields a few months ago when talking about the flight ability of flocks of birds....fascinating.
I agree with all you said about expanding the boundaries of the current paradigm. We all know how scientific innovators/thinkers were treated in the past and things are not much different today. 

Also of course the documented and verified "near death experiences" that have spawned a lot of study. However many serious academics will shy away of it as it means of a life of ridicule, obscurity and financial hardship, as that kind of research is not taken very seriously by their peers. Nonetheless, what research there was done shows that near death experiences pose issues that modern science can not explain.

[mauGR1]

6 minutes ago, Logosone said:

However many serious academics will shy away of it as it means of a life of ridicule,

That's a very good point that you made, science is not free, it is tied to the laws of the market.

[Logosone]

The curious thing about near death experiences (NDE) is that they have many common elements that crop up again and again. However, as we saw above with the explanation of altered states in meditation, how those common elements of NDEs are interpreted depends on the cultural background of the person:

 

"For example, in the US, where 46% of the population believes in guardian angels, they will often be identified as angels or deceased loved ones (or will be unidentified), while Hindus will often identify them as messengers of the god of death."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience

 

So it would seem that cultural conditioning heavily influences the perception of what we see, how we explain it and what we believe it means.

 

Fascinatingly: "A three-year longitudinal study has revealed that some Buddhist meditation practitioners are able to willfully induce near-death experiences at a pre-planned point in time. Unlike traditional NDEs, participants were consciously aware of experiencing the meditation-induced NDE and retained control over its content and duration. The Dalai Lama has also asserted that experienced meditators can deliberately induce the NDE state during meditation, being able to recognize and sustain it."

Edited May 10, 2020 by Logosone

[Logosone]

Coming back onto meditation, I did develop some small superpowers.

 

I developed such power of concentration that whenever I get hiccups I can stop them at will. This involves intense concentration and focusing my mind on the muscles I believe are having spasms and simply telling them to resume normal function. After a very short time, much shorter than hiccups normally lasted, my hiccup is gone. Purely by the power of concentration willing my muscles to stop its spasms. It never ceases to amaze me when I do it.

 

Another event I had, was that I could focus mental energy through gazing at a cat in such an intense way that the cat would do that raising of the hairs and do a loud panic miaow and run away. 

 

I am sure that more serious and more experienced meditation practitioners have much more serious abilities.