Ah, Looks Like It Was All In Our Heads After All :)

[Denyoz]

I went around for many years and always had the ability to see 'colors' around people. I never told anyone about it. It was my secret. I used to watch people in bank line-ups and 'stare' at all the different colors around them. It was only in my 30's that someone told me I had the ability to see aura's. I didn't even know what that was.

 

Interesting... Do you remember the first time you saw "colors around people"? Did it have an impact on you or was it just normal day-to-day stuff for you? Did you freak out? Would you say it was a Love Light? Did it envelop everything including yourself? Was there light coming out of rocks, flowers, clouds, walls, cars, or just people? Sorry for being so specific, but I really want to know.

[Margee]

I went around for many years and always had the ability to see 'colors' around people. I never told anyone about it. It was my secret. I used to watch people in bank line-ups and 'stare' at all the different colors around them. It was only in my 30's that someone told me I had the ability to see aura's. I didn't even know what that was.

 

Interesting... Do you remember the first time you saw "colors around people"? Did it have an impact on you or was it just normal day-to-day stuff for you? Did you freak out? Would you say it was a Love Light? Did it envelop everything including yourself? Was there light coming out of rocks, flowers, clouds, walls, cars, or just people? Sorry for being so specific, but I really want to know.

 

The very first time I saw all these images I was sitting at my mom's 'United' church we belonged to. I was sitting in the back row of the church . The adult choir was singing and I was bored out of my mind. I was staring at all the people and it was as if my eyes glossed over and watered and I saw smoke around everyone's head. I continued to stare and the gray smoke color changed to a white smoky color. I continued to stare and all of a sudden I could see different colors around everybody. I was fascinated with it. It was if my eyes were in a trance, I could feel them continuing to water.. The people in the choir looked like angels.The colors' danced all around everyone's body.

 

I began to try and play this game many times....sometimes I would succeed seeing the colors and sometimes I didn't. When anybody wasn't looking, I would try again. It seemed that my eyes had to be in a certain stare. It took a lot of practice and game playing all by myself to be able to start to see distinct colors' around people.

 

The 'experts' would say that I am seeing energy around people. I also have the ability to see this smoky shadow around anything that I concentrate on when I stare.... rocks, trees, flowers, animals...... I don't do it very often, but when I do, right to this day, I can see this 'energy'.

 

The girlfriend who I admitted this to in my 30;s, is the one who told me I had the ability to see 'auras' and she let me experiment on her. I saw distinct 'dark grey' below her waistline area and told her. Many years later, this woman had to have 2 hip replacements. She would tell you today that this is a true story!!

 

I really don't know what it is, but I know I can do it. It still takes great concentration and I can do it much better if nobody knows I am doing it.

 

I have dabbled in learning what the different colors mean. When I see a certain shade of red - I know someone is in a bad mood!! It's still a great 'game' when I am standing in a bank or grocery line up!!

 

It's so funny because as inquisitive as I am, I have never really investigated this. I just thought if anyone holds their eyes in a certain 'stance'....anyone can do it? i didn't think it was anything special.

 

It is one of the reason's I am open now, to a new spiritual path of some kind. I do believe we are made of some kind of 'energy', but I don't know much about it.

 

More information on this for anyone interested: http://en.wikipedia....ura_(paranormal)

[Deva]

I am going to at least dabble in this. I think I am ready. My posts in the past 16 months have mostly been to encourage the new members about the fear of giving up the christian god. I totally closed my mind to ANY other type of anything that had to do with god or spirituality. I have been demanding evidence and if I don't get it - then I didn't want it. I have become very pessimistic and I don't like myself. I have been feeling very bitter about life in the last months and haven't been able to admit this.

 

some may be completely happy being an atheist and I am so thrilled for them to have that peace. I have been classifying myself as an atheist... but I'm not a happy one. I think I need a path.............

 

I like this concept of matter, energy and light. It seems to resonate in my heart somehow. I know a bit about it from trying to understands physics.The silly girl with grade 9!!

 

I will be taking your advise..... and I thank you for the wonderful input you are putting into this thread.

 

Wow, Margee, I just had to congratulate you for this post. You are really brave and good.

[Margee]

 

Wow, Margee, I just had to congratulate you for this post. You are really brave and good.

 

thank you Deva!

 

This morning, I dragged out my Eckhart Tolle collection and started looking them over. I really, really, like what he has to say. Maybe, if i have a little path to follow, I won't get as down in the dumps as I have been lately.........I am moving in my 91 year old MIL and I need to stay as positive as I can!!!

[Guest end3]

All I am trying to express is that I find no other explanation so complete with understanding......so I hold it as truth until I don't. And here lately, this just strengthens the faith.

And that's fine. If you can relate to it and go further with it than your average fare, then this is good. I think the thing is where you see me push back is when I get the feeling you're trying to say that Christianity has it all right, better than any other way to understand it. That's it Magical compared to the rest. Perhaps that's not what you've been saying, but rather, "Look, it's in Christianity too.". And to that I say, yes of course. But it is not magic. It is not authoritative, because no human talking about this stuff can possibly lay the law down about it. No human. Not the Bible. No one. If it resonates for you and draws that out in you which is Love and Life and Truth, than I fully support that for you. I'm happy to see you realizing these things in yourself and the fruits they bear. It is not about what we believe in, but in becoming this together.

 

Yes, but for the same reason, it is exclusionary, or at least comes off as exclusionary, to hear that Christianity is "less than". It's not for me. Now don't get me wrong, I can see many instances where we all may have missed the interpretation mark, but let's just hope we move on and become inclusive. I think I understand where you are coming from and I appreciate probably the extra effort you have to make with me not taking it the wrong way. I know you try and I do appreciate that.

Say, I missed this reply. I guess I do struggle at times to separate out the religion from the spiritual core of it. Just the other night I was reading some Buddhist rant about the Dali Lama and his endorsing the teaching of Tantra, and how their women in their culture are being "abused' by those who practice Trantric copulation (it is irrelevant in his mind that the women were consenting participants, since that culture is predominately patriarchal and women are inferior), and that Tibetan Buddhism is not True Buddhism, etc. Yes, even though Buddhism has the whole Enlightenment path down to an exact science, much more clear than Christianity in this regard, people are there as well following it as some external cultural code. It is not an internal realization for people like this.

 

So I apologize if in my reaction to my own experiences I step on what is true and sacred to you. I do recognize a lot of what it attributed to Jesus as genuinely spiritual. In fact I 'get it' more now in this place. I had a whole long discussion about that here, if you are interested: http://www.ex-christ...ogy-and-jargon/ My point is that as a system, those areas of true depth are not seen or upheld as what Christianity is. It's so predominantly exoteric as a system, it fails for me. But certainly I recognize your experience as genuine. In fact, I am amazed at the clarity of your thoughts unfolding in this thread! It's true wonderful to see. I didn't say that, and should have.

 

Thanks K, I get defensive on occasion, but am working on it, my apologies. I can see how it was a step backwards for you. Also, I felt like I had God prior to Christianity, but the religious understanding was somewhat positive for me because I had no "education" in my own experience. But, I can see now how we may become stuck in the external mode and am grateful for a little better understanding. Matter of fact, walking through my wife's butterfly garden that was left to it's own devices, the way it grew by itself vs. the manicured version where I normally "fix it" each spring was rather beautiful in it's own nature.

 

 

On a heretical note, lol, my mind made a mental comparison of the "empty tomb" and "nothingness" this morning. Don't tell anyone..lol.

 

Lol, but for the record, I still believe in an external Heaven.....just saying.

 

What a blessing this thread has been....real fruit. As Brother Jeff says, Glory!

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

What a blessing this thread has been....real fruit. As Brother Jeff says, Glory!

 

Yeah, where's Brother Jeff? Haven't seen him on here in a while.

[blackpudd1n]

The difference between the two (as far as I can see) is, Mother Teresa is doing good "works". The Dalai Lama is not working, he's just being.

 

I don't think I could ever consider Mother Teresa's "works" good ever again.

[Guest end3]

The difference between the two (as far as I can see) is, Mother Teresa is doing good "works". The Dalai Lama is not working, he's just being.

 

I don't think I could ever consider Mother Teresa's "works" good ever again.

 

This is a good point. For some of us, the subscription to "death" i.e. isolation, hate, bad behavior was a learned response to that life input. I never have subscribed to the notion that children were inherently evil in ANY regard. So, take my life for example, a "rebirth" into an education/subscription to life....those practices and qualities that support life, are very welcomed. And it's a lot harder BP to learn something as an adult than as a child. So things like "works", although they can be legalistic, can also be a necessary practice to becoming "just being". Who of us wishes our lives to have become "lost". It sucks really.

 

Edit: So yeah, one would thing the propensity of folks in church would be "lost", but to spew that message at children or people who are really not on a bad path, could be, IMO, more detrimental than helpful.....i.e, that humans are inherently evil. This is different than a "fallen world" IMO,.....I pretty much agree with the fallen world thing in a figurative sense in that we can easily, mind you, easily, fall in to contributing to someones figurative death even with the best of intentions. So in that, I don't feel like we are perfect and up to any "God" standard that we subscribe to.

[Denyoz]

The difference between the two (as far as I can see) is, Mother Teresa is doing good "works". The Dalai Lama is not working, he's just being.

I don't think I could ever consider Mother Teresa's "works" good ever again.

 

Why not? Do you think what she did was bad? Or that she was trying to earn some points to get a bigger reward in heaven?

[Antlerman]

I can see how it was a step backwards for you. Also, I felt like I had God prior to Christianity, but the religious understanding was somewhat positive for me because I had no "education" in my own experience.

And I do recognize in a sense I was able to glean some positive things out of it for myself, albeit the sort of fundamentalist context it was in, was really me and my own personal desire to find sustenance through digging through manure. I struggled with that for a long time, is there a value in fundamentalism because I found some? The answer to that is an emphatic no. There is a difference between Christianity teaching these external codes to children as certain object lessons that hopefully at some point might mature into an internal realization, and fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is poison. It makes people sick spirituality. I am unique in the ranks of your average church-going person. I was, and still am, thirsty like a sponge to absorb this into myself in pursuit of that Oneness, so despite the fact it was a field of pig crap in the fundamentalist version of Christianity, I could find good because of my particular insatiable desire. I am not typical in this way.

 

Would I have fared better in some church that was more 'practical'? Perhaps, but I don't think so for myself personally. For others, maybe so. I think maybe not for myself because I tried talking with various ministers who were more 'main stream', and what they had to offer didn't go into the essence of my spiritual awakening. In the fundi group, in their whole ecstasy pursuit it gave a certain authenticity feel to it, because it was 'touching God' in their way. But here's the whole key to why it failed for me. It could not be grounded in my entire person. It required an intellectual suicide, which violated my mind. I could not take an experience of 'touching God' and make it fit in the real world. They were intellectually dishonest. They were spiritually dishonest. They were exclusionary and narcissistic, not humble and compassionate. If I connected with God through their ecstasy practices, I could not integrate it into myself, and I could not grow. I already touched something far beyond their mythic views and understandings. So in that regard it was a step back.

 

The positive that I was able to find was only because I was so on a path 'home', so to speak, I figured it out despite them. Again, fundamentalism is poison. Those few within it who see God for themselves, are likely doing so in the same way I did - despite them. Good did come from it for me, but again it was despite them. I don't say Christianity doesn't have some Light in it, but it has it despite them. If anything try to understand that from me.

 

But, I can see now how we may become stuck in the external mode and am grateful for a little better understanding. Matter of fact, walking through my wife's butterfly garden that was left to it's own devices, the way it grew by itself vs. the manicured version where I normally "fix it" each spring was rather beautiful in it's own nature.

You know End, I really feel like we're walking in that garden together now.

 

On a heretical note, lol, my mind made a mental comparison of the "empty tomb" and "nothingness" this morning. Don't tell anyone..lol.

I want to share a quote I posted on my Facebook page this morning. I think it relates. Spend some time contemplating this my friend:

 

"If you look too closely at the form, you miss the essence."

 

~Rumi

[TotalWreck]

The difference between the two (as far as I can see) is, Mother Teresa is doing good "works". The Dalai Lama is not working, he's just being.

I don't think I could ever consider Mother Teresa's "works" good ever again.

 

Why not? Do you think what she did was bad? Or that she was trying to earn some points to get a bigger reward in heaven?

 

I can't speak for Pudd, but I know that I lost all respect for her after I found out for that for the last several decades of her life, she apparently said privately that she didn't feel god at all anymore and that she felt empty inside, yet publicly she kept up the "everything is great!" image and made people feel like they should keep believing in horseshit that even she secretly didn't believe was true. It's people like her that keep this mess going. If everyone who didn't believe anymore or at least admitted their doubts, it would be a HUGE relief to MANY people.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18563_162-3199062.html

[blackpudd1n]

The difference between the two (as far as I can see) is, Mother Teresa is doing good "works". The Dalai Lama is not working, he's just being.

I don't think I could ever consider Mother Teresa's "works" good ever again.

 

Why not? Do you think what she did was bad? Or that she was trying to earn some points to get a bigger reward in heaven?

 

I can't speak for Pudd, but I know that I lost all respect for her after I found out for that for the last several decades of her life, she apparently said privately that she didn't feel god at all anymore and that she felt empty inside, yet publicly she kept up the "everything is great!" image and made people feel like they should keep believing in horseshit that even she secretly didn't believe was true. It's people like her that keep this mess going. If everyone who didn't believe anymore or at least admitted their doubts, it would be a HUGE relief to MANY people.

 

http://www.cbsnews.c...62-3199062.html

 

It wasn't just that that, TW. I just finished reading The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and in Practice, by Christopher Hitchens. That woman made the poor and dying suffer, denied men dying of AIDS pain medication- one young boy even died because he was refused medical care for a condition that was treatable. All they had to do was take him to the hospital, but she would not allow it. People suffered unnecessarily because of her.

 

She took donations from conmen, and even wrote a letter to a judge when one was proseuted. The prosecutor wrote her a letter back, telling her of the people that the man had swindled, and asking her to return the donations, and even though she had millions sitting in the bank, she did not. Disgusting.

[TotalWreck]

It wasn't just that that, TW. I just finished reading The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and in Practice, by Christopher Hitchens. That woman made the poor and dying suffer, denied men dying of AIDS pain medication- one young boy even died because he was refused medical care for a condition that was treatable. All they had to do was take him to the hospital, but she would not allow it. People suffered unnecessarily because of her.

 

She took donations from conmen, and even wrote a letter to a judge when one was proseuted. The prosecutor wrote her a letter back, telling her of the people that the man had swindled, and asking her to return the donations, and even though she had millions sitting in the bank, she did not. Disgusting.

 

I had NO idea about all that! Sickening. Just goes to show how much people get away with when hiding behind "religion".

[Antlerman]

Not that I care to really make any judgment of Mother Theresa, but that CBS article about her doubt really struck me as out of context. A genuine faith, in all cases, is also fraught with great doubt. The two go hand in hand. You should read Jennifer Hecht's book Doubt(a favorite book of atheists) to get a better understanding of that very relationship of faith and doubt. A true believer doesn't doubt, a person of deep faith has deep doubts. Even in that CBS article that very thing is acknowledged by the priest who made the case for her to be sainted in the church. It says, "The letters were gathered by Rev. Kolodiejchuk, the priest who's making the case to the Vatican for Mother Teresa's proposed sainthood. He said her obvious spiritual torment actually helps her case." I agree with that, knowing the nature of faith.

 

People misconstrue belief and faith to mean the same thing all the time, and to me they really don't. There is a subtle but profound difference between the two even though they are related. As I've said before and will especially here, faith is greater than belief, and experience replaces faith. Genuine faith is unsure, yet sustains in the face of doubt and uncertainty, not sure what to believe, yet sustains ones vision nonetheless. That is true regardless whether the objects of faith are religious or not. Now, none of this is to mean that the objects of that faith for her were literally 'true', it simply means they were expressions of that faith inside her. As for her methods and means as a healer, well a lot of people are misguided by a lack of knowledge. How wonderful that day when knowledge and a compassionate heart are part of the whole person. In the meantime, people look to make symbols of inspiration to others towards that hope.

[blackpudd1n]

As for her methods and means as a healer, well a lot of people are misguided by a lack of knowledge. How wonderful that day when knowledge and a compassionate heart are part of the whole person. In the meantime, people look to make symbols of inspiration to others towards that hope.

 

It was a bit more than being misguided than a lack of knowledge, A-Man. She wanted people to suffer because she believed that suffering brought them closer to god. And it sure did- deaths that need not have happened due to her willful negligence, and in great pain. What humanitarian refuses a person dying in pain real pain medication? What human being would do that to another? Only one sick and twisted.

[Antlerman]

As I said, I don't know a lot about her and perhaps these things you say are true. Misguided beliefs are also something that needs to be brought into higher understanding with the compassion of the heart. My main point was regarding that CBS, highly editorial "news" story that equated her doubts as showing a lack of faith. I'll stand by the defense of that for the reasons I've said. Beliefs are objects of faith, and sometimes those objects become a substitute for faith and are called faith themselves. Again though, faith itself is superseded and replaced by experience. Faith intuits, doubt challenges substituting beliefs instead for finding actual experience, actual realization which replaces both beliefs and faith.

[blackpudd1n]

As I said, I don't know a lot about her and perhaps these things you say are true. Misguided beliefs are also something that needs to be brought into higher understanding with the compassion of the heart. My main point was regarding that CBS, highly editorial "news" story that equated her doubts as showing a lack of faith. I'll stand by the defense of that for the reasons I've said. Beliefs are objects of faith, and sometimes those objects become a substitute for faith and are called faith themselves. Again though, faith itself is superseded and replaced by experience. Faith intuits, doubt challenges substituting beliefs instead for finding actual experience.

 

Fair enough. I recommend getting the book I mentioned- it's a very interesting read, and isn't very long- a bit over a hundred pages.

[Denyoz]

Okay, now I'm taking some time to get back to my response to you Denyoz from your post last night. All I can say is wow, I think you're the first person I've met that has this similar of a story to mine!

 

Thanks Antlerman.

 

I've been wanting to reply to you, but haven't had much time lately. You provide lot's of material I wish I could comment on. And I will, eventually. I don't want to lose track of you, so I added you as a friend.

 

Yes I read Dark Night of the Soul when I was in my twenties. That was before my first marriage, when I had lots of time for myself. I read everything I could find to try to figure out what had happened to me, and if someone could explain the wonderful experience I had. I read sacred texts from all religions. Mysticism was something I could easily relate to.

 

I just didn't know where to go from there and I ended up deep into Christianity, like you. And then completely out when I was in my thirties.

 

I always knew there was something mysterious about reality that science could not explain, until I read an article on hormones, especially the "love hormones" the ones responsible for making you fall in love. I was shocked to read that a stupid hormone could produce such a profound mystical experience, but I accepted it as true, and became materialistic and depressed. That was about 8 years ago.

 

When I say I want to reopen this file, I don't mean going back into meditation. I don't think I could anyway, considering the amount of medication I have to take.

 

Less than two weeks ago I tried to discourage you from meditating. I thought that this is what had caused my brain's reward system to go in overdrive, heat up and eventually melt down. Then reading about the experience you had forced me to re-evaluate the experience I had. Maybe it's not meditation that caused my depression after all.

 

This simple thought brings light and hope back into my life. So thank you.

[Antlerman]

That's wonderful. One thing I wanted to share that Margee had first posted somewhere else, is this video I found very helpful in understanding the nature of spiritual experience and the brain. In no way does it diminish the quality of the experience. It's not about proving or disproving anything that we may believe about the experiences, but it does undeniably validate the experiences themselves are real, and common.

 

When I hear someone say, "once I learned the brain does this, then I realized it wasn't real," is an invalid conclusion, IMHO. I see it as invalid of a conclusion because the experience itself actually, really, happens, and its effects are profound and life-changing, for the positive. The only thing it invalidates is a mythological understanding of it as something supernatural. It doesn't mean the experience isn't real. There is a big difference between our beliefs being errant, and our experiences not being valid. The former does not negate the latter. Anyway, this is quite good and I believe well worth your while to watch:

 

[Denyoz]

God and the Brain - The Persinger "God Helmet", The Brain, and visions of God. (video)

 

Wow! This guy covers EVERYTHING! I feel like my whole life has finally been explained. I don't know what to say...

It's late, I'm going to bed. Thanks Antlerman, I really really really appreciated this video.

[midniterider]

That's wonderful. One thing I wanted to share that Margee had first posted somewhere else, is this video I found very helpful in understanding the nature of spiritual experience and the brain. In no way does it diminish the quality of the experience. It's not about proving or disproving anything that we may believe about the experiences, but it does undeniably validate the experiences themselves are real, and common.

 

When I hear someone say, "once I learned the brain does this, then I realized it wasn't real," is an invalid conclusion, IMHO. I see it as invalid of a conclusion because the experience itself actually, really, happens, and its effects are profound and life-changing, for the positive. The only thing it invalidates is a mythological understanding of it as something supernatural. It doesn't mean the experience isn't real. There is a big difference between our beliefs being errant, and our experiences not being valid. The former does not negate the latter. Anyway, this is quite good and I believe well worth your while to watch:

 

 

Once I learned the brain performed calculus then I realized it wasnt real. Hmm. :-)

[Denyoz]

The very first time I saw all these images I was sitting at my mom's 'United' church we belonged to. I was sitting in the back row of the church . The adult choir was singing and I was bored out of my mind. I was staring at all the people and it was as if my eyes glossed over and watered and I saw smoke around everyone's head. I continued to stare and the gray smoke color changed to a white smoky color. I continued to stare and all of a sudden I could see different colors around everybody. I was fascinated with it. It was if my eyes were in a trance, I could feel them continuing to water.. The people in the choir looked like angels.The colors' danced all around everyone's body.

 

The 'experts' would say that I am seeing energy around people. I also have the ability to see this smoky shadow around anything that I concentrate on when I stare.... rocks, trees, flowers, animals...... I don't do it very often, but when I do, right to this day, I can see this 'energy'.

 

The girlfriend who I admitted this to in my 30;s, is the one who told me I had the ability to see 'auras' and she let me experiment on her. I saw distinct 'dark grey' below her waistline area and told her. Many years later, this woman had to have 2 hip replacements. She would tell you today that this is a true story!!

 

I really don't know what it is, but I know I can do it. It still takes great concentration and I can do it much better if nobody knows I am doing it.

 

I have dabbled in learning what the different colors mean. When I see a certain shade of red - I know someone is in a bad mood!! It's still a great 'game' when I am standing in a bank or grocery line up!!

 

It's so funny because as inquisitive as I am, I have never really investigated this. I just thought if anyone holds their eyes in a certain 'stance'....anyone can do it? i didn't think it was anything special.

 

It is one of the reason's I am open now, to a new spiritual path of some kind. I do believe we are made of some kind of 'energy', but I don't know much about it.

 

What I'm starting to realize for myself is that it helps a lot if the path I take is something I'm familiar with. I'm not sure if you can take someone else's beliefs/experiences and apply them to yourself.

 

It's awesome that you have the ability to see auras. You should investigate this further. It's something you know, it's special and I don't know anybody else who can do this. It connects you to people and things in a non-materialistic way. This can give you a sense of belonging, purpose, wonder, love, and even a connection to the Source of All Things. You can build on that.

[blackpudd1n]

That's wonderful. One thing I wanted to share that Margee had first posted somewhere else, is this video I found very helpful in understanding the nature of spiritual experience and the brain. In no way does it diminish the quality of the experience. It's not about proving or disproving anything that we may believe about the experiences, but it does undeniably validate the experiences themselves are real, and common.

 

When I hear someone say, "once I learned the brain does this, then I realized it wasn't real," is an invalid conclusion, IMHO. I see it as invalid of a conclusion because the experience itself actually, really, happens, and its effects are profound and life-changing, for the positive. The only thing it invalidates is a mythological understanding of it as something supernatural. It doesn't mean the experience isn't real. There is a big difference between our beliefs being errant, and our experiences not being valid. The former does not negate the latter.

 

...From the perspective of someone who lives with a mental illness, I don't think what you have said here is very helpful, A-Man. Not to anyone trying to find their way out of a condition that distorts reality for them.

 

The fact is that there are many experiences that are all in your head, and are completely invalidated by that realisation. Not only that, but those experiences are harmful unless the person is able to invalidate them through realising that they were all in their head.

 

And I can also tell you, personally, that not all spiritual experiences are positive. Profound and life-changing, yes- for the negative.

 

I think this discussion really beongs in the spirituality forum; would you mind moving it over, please?

[Antlerman]

That's wonderful. One thing I wanted to share that Margee had first posted somewhere else, is this video I found very helpful in understanding the nature of spiritual experience and the brain. In no way does it diminish the quality of the experience. It's not about proving or disproving anything that we may believe about the experiences, but it does undeniably validate the experiences themselves are real, and common.

 

When I hear someone say, "once I learned the brain does this, then I realized it wasn't real," is an invalid conclusion, IMHO. I see it as invalid of a conclusion because the experience itself actually, really, happens, and its effects are profound and life-changing, for the positive. The only thing it invalidates is a mythological understanding of it as something supernatural. It doesn't mean the experience isn't real. There is a big difference between our beliefs being errant, and our experiences not being valid. The former does not negate the latter.

 

...From the perspective of someone who lives with a mental illness, I don't think what you have said here is very helpful, A-Man. Not to anyone trying to find their way out of a condition that distorts reality for them.

I don't see it that way. Again, what I said was what we think about the experience, how we interpret it, what we believe about it, is subject to better or worse understandings. So when you say what you experience leads you to a distortion of reality, then I would say if such experiences causes your mind to do that, then you shouldn't do that. I've never said otherwise. For others, it expands a perception of reality that allows their otherwise stable minds to process it beneficially. The point remains, the experience is real, but how it is translated to the conscious mind is a different matter. What does it mean?, is a different question than what was that?.

 

What I hear in someone's statement 'it wasn't real', is how they understood it was in error. I don't dispute that at all. Again, the experience is real, the understanding is simply the understanding, and that can be good or bad, depending.

 

The fact is that there are many experiences that are all in your head, and are completely invalidated by that realisation. Not only that, but those experiences are harmful unless the person is able to invalidate them through realising that they were all in their head.

Invalid? No. My experiences, from Oneness to typing on this computer are all processed and interpreted through parts of my brain. Those are all valid expeirences. How I understand them may in fact be more or less valid. I do not believe that what I'm looking at on the screen as a type are actually candy gumdrops splattering as I type, and that would be a valid conclusion. If I believed they were, and that I'm actually Willy Wonka, that is invalid. Same experience, different understandings of reality. One is closer to reality than the other.

 

In all honesty though, if you wish to talk about those letters appearing on the screen before me, what I assume them to be with the mind, what I call "reality" is actually an illusion. They are in reality entirely "all in my head". Factually, they do not exist. I create the meaning of them using the symbolic centers of my mind. There is no such thing as a T outside of "just in my head". That is a fact. Yet, we call it reality, and that's fine. It's stable enough to walk upon, even though it's entirely an illusion. We figuratively walk on water every day.

 

And I can also tell you, personally, that not all spiritual experiences are positive. Profound and life-changing, yes- for the negative.

Again, if you have a mental illness, than I agree. I've always said this. So is running when you have a sprained ankle. Not an appropriate activity if you have a disability.

 

I think this discussion really beongs in the spirituality forum; would you mind moving it over, please?

Actually, I can, however I do think it is entirely appropriate here in the Science vs. Religion forum, for the very reason that we are looking at the scientific understanding of spiritual experience. This very much looks at that relationship, and in quite an important, and I believe helpful way. Religion, or spirituality is not just "woo-woo". It has direct evidential support through brain studies. That this somehow means spirituality is 'invalid' is of course a matter of discussion, which is important and good to have. This isn't just a discussion of spirituality, but the relationship between Science and Spirituality.

 

I can move this later if you still feel this isn't a valid discussion to be had in the Science vs. Religion forum. I do believe it is however.

[florduh]

Again, really trying to understand...

 

Again, what I said was what we think about the experience, how we interpret it, what we believe about it, is subject to better or worse understandings.

I see a distinction between experiences. We experience (and interpret) things in the external environment (music, art, car crash, food, sex) but we also internally generate experience (dreams, hallucinations, psychotic episodes, spiritual awakenings). How does one filter and tag the experiences generated solely by mind manipulation (altered states achieved by ritual, chanting, drugs, magnetic/electrical stimulation, disease)? It seems you're saying that if an internally generated experience feels spiritual, it's the real thing. Obviously, if God tells you to murder your family, it is a psychotic episode. But how about less obvious instances? Is it just that if you feel you benefit from the experience it must be a genuine spiritual thing rather than imagination or other brain process? There must be a definitive reason that God telling you to kill is just the brain making up stuff, but God telling you that you are an eternal soul is a valid truth.