Jump to content


Regular Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

51 Good

About Karna

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Religions and its effects on people!
  • More About Me
    Learning more about Christianity and hoping organized religions die soon.

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?

Recent Profile Visitors

379 profile views
  1. I haven't seen the video posted by OP, but I am drawn to write here anyways. I will try to be concise but I may go all over the place! I don't consider myself a believer or a non-believer; in fact this business of belief or non-belief is inconsequential to me. In other words I am at a stage now where I don't think the way I think or live my life is fashioned by belief or lack thereof. If I was to ask myself this question a few months ago I might have had a different answer - I might have called myself agnostic ie. I don't know if God exists or doesn't exist. But I did something in the past few months and that has changed my perspective and thoughts on this entire thing. Firstly I disagree with the term OP uses - DMT believer. I feel it is inappropriate to believe in something without experience. And when one gets experience then there is no question of believing. After reading and listening to a lot of DMT related material out there, I decided to try it for myself. I have had minimal experience with marijuana, but that's about it I have never tried anything else before - so deciding to try DMT was a big leap of faith. It needed a lot of dietary and lifestyle changes before and after I tried it. And when I finally tried it (I had it 4 times over a week) it blew my mind - in a good way. It was a total mind-fxxk. It wasn't entertaining at all. It was rough on me physically. But the physical experience was just one part. The mental/psychological aspect was the big part. Out of those 4 times I would say only one is worth talking about. But it was so powerful that it will stay with me my whole life. I can guarantee that I was not hallucinating, neither did I see any visions. I was not out of my mind. I was well aware of all my surroundings, the people besides me, the music that was playing, and I was able to think very lucidly. I was definitely in my senses totally except I was feeling lethargic. It was like being stoned but not in the usual sense of being stoned. And this was the time I was in a different reality (but mind you I was also in our usual reality). So it probably could be termed as my awareness/conscious had increased manifold. And this was the moment when I experienced the Godhead (I don't know what else I can term it as), (or also as me being the Godhead). For people who do not believe in God (and again 'believe' is an incorrect term here) this word - Godhead - will be off-putting. But there is no other word that I can think of. This 'conflict' arises, in my opinion, due to the definition that people use for god. After that experience I for sure don't agree with the definition that people use for God in general, the definition that religion teaches people. Prior to having this experience I had studied quite a bit about Advaita Vedanta (non-duality) and I kind of understood what it was trying to tell me but I did not really understand it. It was like trying to explain color to a blind person! But the experience I had was an actual experience of non-duality which says that everything is one; and that is why I italicized a statement above implying that I and the Godhead were one. Quite literally, Advaita is Sanskrit for Non-Dual (Singular) and Vedanta is Sanskrit for End of Knowledge. So it could be said as the pinnacle of knowledge. I am not implying that I have that knowledge I am saying I just got a glimpse of it. Maybe the writers of Advaita Vedanta were in that raised awareness perpetually or the state of non-duality perpetually. The Bible, as taught by Yogananda, makes sense in the light of Advaita. If taken literally it is, I think, plain dogma and ridiculous. All in all, I got a lot of insights from the experience and my perspectives have changed for the better. I am glad I made the leap of faith!
  2. I think it makes perfect sense. They clearly care for their students. They do not want students to miss out on education for lack of teachers once in heaven.
  3. 'I found out that I wasn't. I was reclaiming my humanity. With the help of Antlerman in the spirituality forum, I sorted through these fears and came out the other side with a healthy spirituality that involves meditation. I learned that religion doesn't own the very real spiritual feelings humans have, which are just as natural as any other emotion. I learned to separate religion from spirituality, and that has made all the difference. I'm past railing at Christianity now, and have found my way forward. I hope that my story helps others, especially lurkers, who think there is something wrong with them because their story isn't typical. There is no one way to peace' This is from your extimony. If being 'spiritual but not religious' leads people to align with the above thinking, I think it is a good thing.
  4. I am glad the societies are advancing beyond stage blue of the spiral (reference: Spiral Dynamics). Organized religion, although, is gaining ground in the third world countries. I have read about missionaries coming in to Europe/US from the third world countries now But my theory is that this won't last long. The third world countries have always looked up to Europe/US and once they realize that religion is dying/died in the first world, it won't be too long before they come to a realization that organized religion is what keeps people's progress stunted. Question - What is the deal with burying a body after death? This is an Abrahamic religion practice...I read somewhere that the bodies are buried so that they can be 'resurrected' during the 'second coming'. Is this the basic reason? If so, another nail in the 'coffin' is the fact that Americans are progressively moving towards cremation given the fact that burying is way more expensive; both environmentally and pocket-wise.
  5. I am curious...what made you go for the Aya trip? Moreso as a practicing christian (I get that you were a practicing christian when you went for the trip). I don't think it would be easy for a practicing christian to go in for something as radical (and heretic).as an Aya trip.
  6. That is awesome, Phoenix! I will be going for a similar trip soon. Pretty nervous about it all! But I think it will be alright! I will post my comment if I come back sane and alive
  7. I too cannot respond to any posts that are already in that section!
  8. I am interested in hearing about your ayahuasca journey.
  9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kisa_Gotami
  10. Karna


    Indians or no Indians...I don't think these religions subscribe to the concept of Vasudhaiva Kutumb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasudhaiva_Kutumbakam
  11. Karna


    I understand that the basic message portrayed by this picture is that you get to meet your loved ones and family in heaven. But isn't this akin to playing the emotion-card that if you follow the religion you will get to meet your family and loved ones again in after-life? It has nothing do with 'god'. It is basically hitting at the spot that will hurt the most. Isn't this akin to holding supreme your 'material' connections in this life?
  12. Good question by OP. Moving out of organized religion, in my opinion, is a sign of evolution. I would like to attribute this claim to Spiral Dynamics. If you are not aware of it, please study Spiral Dynamics. It is not only applicable in the context of religion, but also in other aspects of life - both personal and social. In particular, study the Blue Spiral, then Orange, then Green and then Yellow. And you might find out how relatable all these are to the question posed.
  13. Karna


    In heaven they maintain the 'blacks with blacks', 'whites with whites'....
  14. Found a small video on Truth and Belief: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwUd9gHusc0 What do you all think of it?
  15. Hello Disillusioned, Thanks for engaging me. Let me try to elaborate and answer your questions. I gave it some thought and that is why I came up with the sequence that I mentioned in my previous answer. Maybe we are talking about 'knowledge' in different contexts. When I started thinking about the question, I kind of agreed about the sequence: Belief --> Knowledge --> Truth. The problem with this approach was that it implies one forms a Belief first, then works towards gaining Knowledge on it, and then attaining the Truth about it. In a way, that is correct. But thinking about it in subjective terms, I realized it could help changing the sequence like I proposed earlier. Let us take another example from chemistry. I have read that a water molecule is made of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. When I started chemistry in high school, I was introduced to this. So this was my knowledge then. I 'knew' that H2+O = H2O. After repeated reading about it and writing exams, I feel I have knowledge about this. And scientists affirm this too. But from my perspective, this Knowledge is still a Belief for me. Wouldn't you agree? I have never taken 2 atoms of Hydrogen and attached them to one atom of Oxygen; or have not broken a water molecule into its constituent atoms. So I haven't really done the Work/Practice to Experience this phenomenon. So I have been blindly accepting my Knowledge, then Belief, as the Truth. The other problem with Belief-->Knowledge-->Truth is that once someone Believes something to be True, they will never make an attempt to 'Know' about it. Why would someone try to learn something they think they already know? This is exactly what I am saying. Knowledge can be transformed into Belief. And sometimes Knowledge is better than Belief like you say. But again, I am trusting somebody's work in Chemistry and taking hearsay as the Truth. What if the scientists were wrong about this? And there was some unhiterto unidentified element that also went into forming those atomic bonds? (This is just a silly example...but I want to explain my line of thought). Then it would mean, that after reading all chemistry books, I have strong Knowledge (that trumps Belief) but I am still in the Falsehood. So now I have knowledge of chemistry and atoms and bonds. Given the resources and time (and provided the study of water molecules is extremely important in my life), I can use all this Knowledge to test if my so-far held Belief is correct. If I find that there is this new element that goes into it, I will change my Belief (meaning I will transcend my Belief) and arrive at the Truth after hundreds of repeated experiments that prove the existence and utility of this new element in the water molecule. If some of my experiments say otherwise, then it means I haven't been consistent enough. And Truth cannot be inconsistent. So I would know that my Belief is false; and my knowledge is incomplete and that I don't know the Truth (or if my experiments conclude that water molecule is indeed made of only 2 Hydrogen and 1 Oxygen atoms) then I will accept the scientist's and book's proclamations as the Truth. The confusion about Knowledge and Belief is legitimate. From a subjective perspective, people have a 'Belief about something; something they 'think' they 'know'. What you think you 'Know' may not be True in the first place. What do you think?
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.