Autosuggestion plays a role in mystical experiences

There's a well-known Carl Sagan saying, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

So if someone makes a claim about having experienced a supernatural realm of reality, that extraordinary claim obviously requires extraordinary evidence in order for it to be believable.

And a related requirement is that other explanations for the supposed mystical experience should be seriously considered, since most likely an extraordinary claim actually is the result of something quite ordinary. 

To give a mundane example, when I was a young child I recall waking up in the middle of the night and seeing an intruder standing at the foot of my bed. I was terrified. Eventually I got up the courage to turn on a light. What I'd seen was my cowboy hat that I'd put on a bedpost. I was nearsighted, so I couldn't see what it was very clearly without my glasses.

Below you can read an email response I sent today to a Church of the Churchless visitor who had some questions about how I view people who claim to have had profound supernatural experiences. As you'll see, the visitor suggested two possibilities, that these people either are liars or nuts (meaning, in English slang, mentally off).

I suggested an additional possibility, autosuggestion. I didn't use that term in my response (though a commenter I quoted did), but it is basically is what I was getting at. Googling this term, I found an American Psychological Association abstract called "Hypnotic suggestion produces mystical-like experiences in the laboratory: A demonstration proof."

Here's an excerpt:

Our findings represent a demonstration proof that hypnotic suggestion can play a viable role in inducing mystical-type experiences of varying degrees among about a third of participants in a laboratory context and support the hypothesis that the ability to experience hypnotically induced mystical-type experiences varies as a function of hypnotic suggestibility.

Part of what the blog visitor was interested in was whether my decision to leave Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB), an India-based spiritual organization, was affected by the lack of mystical experiences reported by RSSB devotees. I mention this because the first part of my response addresses this question. 

This is how I responded to the person. Earlier I'd pointed out to the person that this was a decidedly secondary reason for my RSSB disilusionment. I cleaned up some language in my reply that wasn't as clear as I wanted it to be upon second reading. 

Your thought experiment, “what if they’d come forward with detailed accounts of inner visions…,” is one of those counterfactual cases that (usually) strikes me as rather unproductive.

 

It assumes that life, or reality, hinges on a single happening, a single fact, and if that happening or fact had happened, rather than something else happening, then such and such would have occurred rather than this and that.

 

Obviously there is no way to test this, since reality moves only in one direction, forward in time. It’s like people saying, “What if Hillary Clinton hadn’t decided to have her own email server?” Yes, it does seem like this would have removed obstacles to her becoming president. 

 

But then we have to think about what would have made Clinton decide not to do this. Seemingly some changes would have had to occur in her consciousness, in her personality, in the advice of those around her, likely in other things also. How would those changes have affected her candidacy? 

 

Likewise, lots of satsangis having reports of profound mystical experiences wouldn’t occur in a vacuum. This would entail widespread changes in their psyches, which likely would alter the culture of RSSB/Sant Mat, and so on.

 

I understand the allure of “if only…then…” Our minds are made to think of alternative futures. That’s a strength of being human. But there are limits to retrospective ponderings of how life would have been altered if only something different had happened.

 

Regarding the choices of liars or nuts, there are other possibilities. Jesse just addressed this in a comment:

One Initiated, You are literally reading me quotes from your cult's handbook on a website written by an ex cult member. You ask about first hand experiences- "What's your take on those ? All illusions ?" And my answer is "Yes." Absolutely I think that as far as people seeing things in their head when they sit still for a few hours it is all illusions. As I said earlier- auto suggestion. When you can find a way to prove otherwise, let me know. Otherwise, keep rambling about your cult while your Greedy Guru gets richer and richer and your country gets poorer and more corrupt. Doesn't matter to me. Jesse

Sitting for hours every day for years with eyes closed, focused on visualizing the form of one’s guru, repeating words associated with the names of rulers of supernatural regions — that has to have a big influence on one’s mind. I’m reading several books about how the mind uses prior knowledge to make predictions about what will happen next in the world.

 

Meaning, we don’t simply see the world as it is. We see the world as we expect it will be. The mind is continually making predictions, then comparing those predictions with what is actually occurring.

 

When it comes to inner experiences, there is no “actually” to compare to. Everything is happening in the mind. So it is easy to see how ardent devotees of Sant Mat whose most fervent desire is to see the guru within and experience supernatural realms have their minds generate those experiences, largely or entirely through unconscious means.

 

Something similar could also happen with people who aren’t connected to an organized religion or spiritual path, since their unconscious could produce visions without the person’s conscious awareness of the source of those visions.

 

In a dream, there is no way to know that you are dreaming until you wake up.

 

I suspect the same is the case with mystical visions generated by the brain as a response to long-held desires. I could be wrong, and the experiences could be genuine. But I’m not aware of any instance of someone having a mystical experience that resulted in valid knowledge of some aspect of the physical world that wasn’t already known to them.

 

No mystic has ever revealed a new law of nature, or even anything else about the world that wasn’t common knowledge.

 

This indicates that if mystical visions occur, they have no bearing on knowledge of this world — which seems strange, because this world commonly is considered to be a lower version, or reflection, of higher realms of reality. So one would think that knowledge of those higher realms would bring along with it increased knowledge of this lower realm. 

 

But it doesn’t. 

Comments

[Spencer Tepper]

Conjecture.
Trying to mind read.

Brian, reproduce those experiences, prove you have generated what the Saints write about.

Then inspect it carefully.

If you find it to be hallucination or auto suggestion or pure imagination, then you have the evidence to make such a claim.

Until then, your post is pure, conjecture.

It isn't objective reality, just your guesswork.

You shouldn't believe anyone's report of experience. Neither should anyone believe your conjectures in the absence of any reliable and reportable experience.

Sorry, Brian. Your comments fail the truth test.

[Jesse]

Spencer, the burden of proof is on you.

Brian has said many times that he dutifully followed the "masta'z" instructions for decades and was not even convinced subjectively, let alone given any reason to think that his experiences were objective proof of anything supernatural.

I know satsangis who now think that the meditation is verifiably satanic and that Gurinder is evil. You say he's a saint. Aren't both "conjecture?"

You are the one claiming that these people are "saints." Prove it.
You're the one saying that it's even possible to have any inner experience at all. Prove it.

We can't prove a negative. It's your duty to prove the positive.

I'd pay you a substantial amount of money if you could even prove, or provide evidence beyond a personal claim, that Gurinder doesn't directly steal money from the RSSB coffers.

Also, please stop saying "conjecture" in every one of your posts and 3 times in this post. It's extremely annoying that this is your only defense.

[Jen]

How your brain constructs reality

Right now, billions of neurons in your brain are working together to generate a conscious experience -- and not just any conscious experience, your experience of the world around you and of yourself within it. How does this happen? According to neuroscientist Anil Seth, we're all hallucinating all the time; when we agree about our hallucinations, we call it "reality." Join Seth for a delightfully disorienting talk that may leave you questioning the very nature of your existence.

TED talk: Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality (17:00) 5,323,083 views

https://www.ted.com/talks/anil_seth_how_your_brain_hallucinates_your_conscious_reality?referrer=playlist-how_your_brain_constructs_real

[Jesse]

"So one would think that knowledge of those higher realms would bring along with it increased knowledge of this lower realm."

Unfortunately I don't have any of my RSSB books anymore to dig up quotes from, so my kind detractors will have to read RSSB literature themselves, but this isn't just your reasoning, Brian. It's also a direct claim in some of the old RSSB books. Something approaching omniscience is one of the promised powers one gains by constant bhajan,simran, dhyan etc.

They played the great trick of saying that those who have a PERFECT master would never misuse their omniscience so nobody would know they have it anyway. lel yeah right. In retrospect it was likely just another one of their clever ways of hiding the fact that nobody has any magic powers.

Jesse

[Jesse]

I should explain here that my comment which said his country will "get poorer" isn't just some random insult, but rather something I've been told by many residents of India (which is where I think One Initiated is from) is a huge problem i.e. that these godmen make insane amounts of money which in no way benefits society.

Unlike businesses or governments (or even traditional religions which at least do marriages and funerals etc) which, as imperfect as they are, at least are held to some standards and expected to provide services or goods, most of the godmen today do nothing to help anyone.

Another thing this cult and others should do is to show legal, notarized income statements coming from 3rd party accountants and overseers, and explain their expenses. As they benefit from non-profit tax exemptions there is no reason why their sangats aren't shown at least annually how their donations benefit themselves or society at large.

My guess is that they don't make their financial statements public because they do absolutely nothing good with their money, at least not good deeds in amounts equivalent to their vast holdings, and they don't want people to know this.

After you realize that RSSB helped a handful of flood victims and built a couple big steel and cement "tents" with their tens of billions of dollars, it's hard not to wonder where the rest of the money goes.

And yes, Spencer, I'm speculating about the bad instead of simply believing in the good. Sue me.

[Brian Hines]

Spencer, Jesse and I are correct. You don't appear to understand the scientific method. The burden of proof is on those who assert a positive statement about reality. You claim to have experienced supernatural realms. OK. Prove it. If you can't, there's no reason to believe that you have experienced anything objectively real, other than your word for it.

I climbed Mt. Everest yesterday, in-between writing blog posts. Can you prove that I didn't? No, you can't. So just believe me. If you say I didn't climb Mt. Everest, that's just conjecture.

Do you see how bizarre your way of thinking is? It usually is impossible to prove a negative. Again, the burden of proof is on those who assert a positive. You need to read more science books, which i do frequently, and less religion books.

[Spencer Tepper]

Hi Brian

No I'm sorry to say it is you who misunderstand the scientific method.

You made a claim in your post that mystic experience is influenced by auto suggestion.

You have failed to both produce mystic experience and to demonstrate that it was influenced by auto suggestion.

I gave you criteria for scientific truth and you have failed to provide it.

Your claim that mystic experience is caused by autosuggestion, or any other cause would require that you generate it under controlled conditions.

When you make conjectures about events you cannot produce and have no independent control over you have nothing to make any scientific or objective claim upon.

Brian, try conducting science. It's a great teacher.

But conjecture isn't science. It's just conjecture.

[tucson]

Brian said: "So if someone makes a claim about having experienced a supernatural realm of reality, that extraordinary claim obviously requires extraordinary evidence in order for it to be believable."

--Well, in order to believe it you would have to see it for yourself. So it is impossible resolve whether the experience is "real" or not on the basis of someone's say so... of course. So what is such a mystic supposed to do, bring a piece of the supernatural experience into this realm like a rock from the moon by an astronaut? Still, no one is going to know what the moon is like on the basis of that little piece of moon rock.

A mystic may be able to express something revelatory about the laws of physics or reality, but it is only a moon rock, a bit of the whole moon vision that the mystic experienced. If you want to know what the moon really looks like you'll have to go there yourself. An honest mystic will know this and not expect people to believe them solely on their say so. And the people certainly shouldn't.

That's what Sant Mat teaches. It's supposed to be a science, a step by step way to go and see for yourself. And that is its original appeal, "If I do this I will experience these higher realms of reality." The problem is time. Life is short. If after 20-30 years of practicing the science and there are no results, then one might reasonably wonder if there are any to be had. 27,375 hours is a lot of time spent on a science project and not getting what was promised. (That's 30 years times 2.5 hours of daily meditation not to mention repeating the names, going to satsang, doing seva, avoiding rennet, egg whites, loose women or men, and so on.)

In my case, prior revelatory vision is what led me to accept the possibility what Sant Mat promised.. the ability to access these visions through a process that was predictable like training for and practicing a skill. Ironically, such visions became much more infrequent while practicing Sant Mat and when they did they did not fit any description in Sant Mat teachings or books.

I think the meditation (simran) practice of Sant Mat is mind-numbing rather than mind stilling. A subtle difference in semantics but a profound difference in effect. There are better methods, imo, if you want action in the enhanced consciousness realm.

But failure to reach God by Sant Mat discipline is not why I quit. It just no longer fit my view of how things are. I just grew out of it... God is not an objective thing and can't be known as such. Where does worshiping a master fit into that?

And why is there all this adoration of the Master? What it comes down to is selfishness.. what he supposedly can do for you. What he represents. Who he is supposed to be. But you don't really know if he is that. If you did, you wouldn't need him or think you did. The love you feel from him is the love you have innately within yourself. He is just a reflection of what you already are. He could just as well be any sentient being.. another human, a frog, a dog, a tree. Focused on properly they all elicit the same response because in fact they are not eliciting the response. You are. You're it.

[Jesse]

"You have failed to both produce mystic experience and to demonstrate that it was influenced by auto suggestion."

The results of auto suggestion have been tested and at least to some degree "proven." This isn't what's being debated, contrary to what you're implying with your poor deflection.

It is RS adherents and everyone other believer who have failed to produce solid evidence of mystic experiences or even give consent to be tested in any way whatsoever. I'd be happy for a while just to see polygraph test results to see how badly most of you lie, which I suspect is above average.

You've claimed that something exists but that someone else has to provide the proof of its existence? It doesn't work that way.

It is YOU who has to prove this stuff is the result of something other than your imagination. Not the non-believers and skeptics. There is evidence against your hypothesis in the form of autosuggestions studies. Show us evidence for your mystic hypothesis or stop calling everything "conjecture" because almost every single thing you say yourself is conjecture

If this were my blog, you'd have been banned long, long ago, Spencer. Luckily the blog owner is far more patient than I.

[Brian Hines]

tucson, naturally I agree with you that mystical experience is subjective. Or, to be more generous toward mysticism, it is an ineffable experience of an objective supernatural reality. Heck, I wrote an entire book, "God's Whisper, Creation's Thunder," that argued for the existence of a non-symbolic objective aspect of reality. So I used to be sympathetic to that perspective, though today it seems unlikely to me.

Plug alert: the revised version is for sale on Amazon!
https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Whisper-Creations-Thunder-Spiritual/dp/0977735230

In my current churchless frame of mind, my problem is this: I have no problem with people either saying (1) I've experienced a supernatural reality, but I can't prove this, so I don't expect anyone to believe me; or (2) I've experienced a supernatural reality, and here are some really good reasons why you should believe me.

But I DO have a problem with people who say that they've experienced a supernatural reality, and want others to believe them, but can't provide any good reasons why that belief is justified. As I quoted Sagan in this post, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." So either provide the evidence, or don't make a claim.

What I don't understand is why someone who supposedly has experienced God, heaven, divine realms, or such would be concerned with trying to convince other people that their experience was real. During the three years that I rode a Suzuki Burgman 650 maxi-scooter, I had a wonderful feeling every time I went somewhere on it.

And I spent exactly zero time trying to convince other people how much fun it was for me to ride the scooter. I simply enjoyed my experience. I did tell people it was a lot of fun, but if they responded with a comment like, "It's so dangerous, I don't see how it could be fun," I'd just smile and leave it at that. Someone who is really confident about the reality of their personal experience doesn't worry if other people doubt them.

Of course, people could see me riding the scooter, and it isn't possible to see someone's supposed mystical experience. Still, I wonder why some people are adamant about describing their mystical experience to others, and want others to believe them, while other people are content with keeping their mystical experience to themselves.

I've read a lot of mystical writings. My impression is that religious devotees typically seek converts, while mystics typically don't. So when I see someone desperately trying to convince others that their supernatural experience was real, I usually think "there's a religious dogmatist, not a mystic."

[Spencer Tepper]

Hi Jesse

You wrote

"The results of auto suggestion have been tested and at least to some degree "proven." "

Not as the cause of mystic experience.

That is the claim of this post.

For that you need to duplicate mystic experience that meets the requirements for mystic experience.

In an ideal experiment long term meditators who have acknowledged mystic experience along with those with no such experience would be subjects in a double blind experiment where a few control groups would be created. In each group a different independent variable. At least two of the groups would have two different forms of auto suggestion.

And they would be tested over a time series, and at each point their reports of any internal experience would be documented along with their rating of the experience.

The question of whether suggested hallucination was rated as mystical experience by the long term meditation group would be the actual test to confirm Brian's and your claim.

Science isn't cheap and not everyone is actually a scientist.

[Jesse]

"rated as mystical experience"

Give me a rating 1-10. 1 means you're hallucinating, 10 means God is real.

Sounds legit.

[Brian Hines]

Jesse, I am a deeply patient person. Or, as I used to say in satsang talks, which I was a speaker at them, "There are two routes to becoming an egoless person who is suffused with a sense of their own imperfections and failings. Either meditate for a lifetime, or marry a woman."

(This was before same-sex marriage became legal.)

I'd add, "If Buddha had just gotten married, his path to realizing no-self would have been much more direct." I've been married for 46 years, albeit to two different women. I don't believe a day has passed without some reminder of my frailties, like my inability to load the dishwasher correctly, or replace a towel on a rack neatly.

So dealing with commenters on this blog isn't difficult for me, especially since I don't have to physically interact with them on a daily basis. I should stress that I'm happily married, in large part because I've learned to accept wifely criticism with a certain equanimity. Not always, but usually.

[Spencer Tepper]

Jesse
You ask about rating something as mystical experience...

Rating any experience on several dimensions using likert and other scales, combined with narrative reports is common in psychological testing.

As I mentioned control groups would exist so that any other mystic experience reports by the long term mediator group could be compared to the unexperienced group.

One Hypothesis I would test is whether there was a difference between long term meditators and inexperienced subjects when both are given a method of internal practice.

I Hypothesis that the long term meditators would not have any difference between those exposed to auto suggestion and those who had no such exposure, while the non - experienced subjects would report more experiences in the auto suggestion group compared to the non - experienced subjects in the control group.

The theory is that long term meditators who report mystic experience are actually much more discriminating about their internal experiences, having engaged in disciplined practice of thought control for years, and less subject to suggestion.

[Jesse]

Ok Spencer.

You've outlined a methodology you can use to at least begin to substantiate some part of your claims with. Get to work.

RSSB has billions of dollars and direct ties to the medical industry. Being the honest, scientific organization that it is, they will surely be interested in proving their form of meditation to be the most valid.

Jesse

[Spencer Tepper]

Hi Jesse

I don't think you understand.
I outlined what would need to be done to make claims that mystic experience is caused by autosuggestion.

That was Brian's claim. But it is at this stage only conjecture.

[Jesse]

Spencer,

Your whole theory is really bad anyway. If anything, more experienced and devout people would be subject to more of the effects of autosuggestion being that they're telling themselves for a longer time what to see and hear, at least in the case of RSSB meditation. From what I've read, most people have their experiences after years.

Either way, your cult is uber rich and its leader was in the medical industry not long ago. I'm sure you guys can arrange something other than repeating the word "conjecture" on an atheist blog incessantly. Let's see what you can come up with other than telling us to trust the (dishonestly translated) words of the (alleged) saints .

Jesse

[Spencer Tepper]

Hi Jesse
Your theory
"more experienced and devout people would be subject to more of the effects of autosuggestion being that they're telling themselves for a longer time what to see and hear"

This is what science is about. If the experiment demonstrated that the long term meditators reacted more to auto suggestion than the inexperienced subjects, you would have evidence that either long term meditation or the people who chose to engage in it are more subject to suggestion and their experiences illusory.

However, if the results went the other way you would have evidence that long term meditators were actually less suggestive, and therefore their reports of internal experience unrelated to suggestion.

In fact several experiments on meditation supports the latter, though indirectly. Inexperienced subjects taught a variety of simple forms of meditation, including visualization (autogenic training) and repetition (the Harvard meditation) showed better cognitive performance on a variety of tasks requiring perception, cognition and discrimination.

Sant Mat contains both types of practice.

[Spencer Tepper]

And Jesse,
Of course you are most welcome to do the experiment yourself.

Let us suppose that the only real effects of meditation are those which scientific research has proven.

Your health, in particular your brain health and functioning would improve measurably.

The outer cortex of long term meditators is about ten years younger than the long term mediator's chronological age.

[Jesse]

Spencer, I think you're just making stuff up and it's ridiculous. There is no reason to make claims about meditation test results and their implications.Show me these studies you claim exist or I'm gonna assume you're just playing games like you did with your completely unfounded "Singh bros are curing African AIDS" claims.

I might get tempted to continue talking with you cultists, but I'll try not to. Your dishonesty just makes everything so tedious.

[Dungeness]

And why is there all this adoration of the Master? What it comes down to is selfishness.. what he supposedly can do for you. What he represents. Who he is supposed to be. But you don't really know if he is that. If you did, you wouldn't need him or think you did. The love you feel from him is the love you have innately within yourself. He is just a reflection of what you already are. He could just as well be any sentient being.. another human, a frog, a dog, a tree. Focused on properly they all elicit the same response because in fact they are not eliciting the response. You are. You're it.

Tucson,

Beautifully stated.

Ishwar Puri answers that the external Master is just a projection of ourself. God or the "Totality of Consciousnes" as he calls it is inside each of us and just projects an image outside because we've created duality. We've created the phenomenal world because we're playing a game with that same duality.

This is the only level of consciousness most of us know. In essence, God, individuated in each of us, is playing many different roles on this physical stage including himself as Master. Don't think too hard about it. It will boggle the mind so we need "Deus ex machina" to get beyond it.

Most, even those on an inner Path, are immersed in this charade, and buy into the external Master as an entirely separate entity, engage in all kinds of transactional games with their projection, wonder why progress is slow, even leave the Path and rant about what a fraud the Master is at times.

We only worship our own mind at this level. We filter every input every impression through the mind. Demand objective, physical proof, a "moon rock from the supernatural realm". We want good things to happen to us because we're "special". No exceptions. We wallow in our ego, get angry, pontificate, lecture others, scoff at the validity of others' ideas or their "unprovable" experiences.

Unfortunately, without our own experience, we're in the same fix. We'll have continuing doubts about the Master and the validity of the transcedent realm. That is until we're pulled by the God within (even if you've projected it outside in the form of a Master).

You're right: "You are, You're it." We're not soul drops in an
ocean. We're God consciousness pretending to be drops. We're already the ocean. We're not going on a journey to "special regions" somewhere. We're awakening to who we are. We're just bootstrapping ourselves with a game of love.

P.s. Here, since I've been on a rant, I'll save "the usual suspects" a counter-rant: "Don't believe this crap. It's hypnosis, auto-suggestion, "fairy dust". Mysticism is a cult, a get-rich scheme for scoundrels.

[Dungeness]

And why is there all this adoration of the Master? What it comes down to is selfishness.. what he supposedly can do for you. What he represents. Who he is supposed to be. But you don't really know if he is that. If you did, you wouldn't need him or think you did. The love you feel from him is the love you have innately within yourself. He is just a reflection of what you already are. He could just as well be any sentient being.. another human, a frog, a dog, a tree. Focused on properly they all elicit the same response because in fact they are not eliciting the response. You are. You're it.

Tucson,

Beautifully stated.

Ishwar Puri answers that the external Master is just a projection of ourself. God or the "Totality of Consciousnes" as he calls it is inside each of us and just projects an image outside because we've created duality. We've created the phenomenal world because we're playing a game with that same duality.

This is the only level of consciousness most of us know. In essence, God, individuated in each of us, is playing many different roles on this physical stage including himself as Master. Don't think too hard about it. It will boggle the mind so we need "Deus ex machina" to get beyond it.

Most, even those on an inner Path, are immersed in this charade, and buy into the external Master as an entirely separate entity, engage in all kinds of transactional games with their projection, wonder why progress is slow, even leave the Path and rant about what a fraud the Master is at times.

We only worship our own mind at this level. We filter every input every impression through the mind. Demand objective, physical proof, a "moon rock from the supernatural realm". We want good things to happen to us because we're "special". No exceptions. We wallow in our ego, get angry, pontificate, lecture others, scoff at the validity of others' ideas or their "unprovable" experiences.

Unfortunately, without our own experience, we're in the same fix. We'll have continuing doubts about the Master and the validity of the transcedent realm. That is until we're pulled by the God within (even if you've projected it outside in the form of a Master).

You're right: "You are, You're it." We're not soul drops in an
ocean. We're God consciousness pretending to be drops. We're already the ocean. We're not going on a journey to "special regions" somewhere. We're awakening to who we are. We're just bootstrapping ourselves with a game of love.

P.s. Here, since I've been on a rant, I'll save "the usual suspects" a counter-rant: "Don't believe this crap. It's hypnosis, auto-suggestion, "fairy dust". Mysticism is a cult, a get-rich scheme for scoundrels.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Jesse:

You wrote:
"There is no reason to make claims about meditation test results and their implications."

Actually I was referring to research on meditation to point out the benefits to good thinking and health, in exact contradiction to the conjectures of the original post.

Much spiritual experience, reported down through the ages, is related to prayer and meditation...efforts at internal focus.

And meditation has been linked to higher cognitive functioning:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Shauna_Shapiro/publication/228583427_An_analysis_of_recent_meditation_research_and_suggestions_for_future_directions/links/54374e6e0cf2dc341db4d514.pdf

That Meditation is very healthy for the brain and can reverse the effects of aging, to a degree, is a more recent finding:

"In a 2012 study, researchers compared brain images from 50 adults who meditate and 50 adults who don’t meditate. Results suggested that people who practiced meditation for many years have more folds in the outer layer of the brain. This process (called gyrification) may increase the brain’s ability to process information.

A 2013 review of three studies suggests that meditation may slow, stall, or even reverse changes that take place in the brain due to normal aging."

https://nccih.nih.gov/health/meditation/overview.htm#hed4

And a more popular review of the Harvard study...

https://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/12/11/harvard-study-unveils-what-meditation-literally-does-to-the-brain/

And from Harvard directly...

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/04/harvard-researchers-study-how-mindfulness-may-change-the-brain-in-depressed-patients/

And another broader overview of several of the benefits of meditation...

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/feeling-it/201309/20-scientific-reasons-start-meditating-today

[777]

liars or nuts

AII material :

1) An expertise of book keeping on the sunny aug. beach resulting
in me saying after almost 5 years living in a beautiful house at the Méditerranean Sea
" I choose for Holland"

I had businesses in Holland but earnings diminished due to my absence.

A neighbour (man) at 10 /15 meter from us puts his Journal in the sand / goes swimming

2) No wind but the Journal goes airborn and landed in my lap (3)
and I see with big letters in the middle of the opened page the text :

4) "Nous choississons Vivaldi"
Vivaldi is the millionair, owner of the house we enjoyed

5) "Nous" is 'Pluralis Majestatis' ( Royal idiom still used ) and the sentence is in english :
" We chose Vivaldi"

So I said : "Let's stay in the house.

6) Looking on that page , I see that it's a line about the coming Horse Races
in Gagnes-sur-Mer mentioning Horse Vivaldi is N°7
but that amazingly the first horse from 12 or so
is named ' MAHARAJI '

I stayed in the giant Mansionwith giant park of Mr Vivaldi and I'm still there / here

No single autosuggestion is possible here, all is material > molecules

I still have the newspaper "Nice-Matin"

Certain members here asked a copy after my description
4 or 5 years ago and I have send it

These are 6 miracles ( serendipities ) in 2 minutes
plus that I still here :-) makes 7.

777

PS
Gurinder wrote me :
" It is no wonder that our Master takes care of ALL his disciples "

A N° 8 is that he did this for me

[Jesse]

Well, I guess we can continue moving the goal posts until the end of time to avoid talking about the fact that autosuggestion is at least one cause of "mystic experience."

[Spencer Tepper]

Jesse
If autosuggestion and mystic experience are related, please share your evidence.

The goal post is the same standard of verifiable fact Brian set.

[Jesse]

"If autosuggestion and mystic experience are related, please share your evidence."

Brian already did. Read the article. You're just trying to say that "it's not TRUE mystical experience!!!!" It's an amazing fallacy you're engaging in but I can't really name it. It's not the no true scottsman fallacy, which is more of what you guys do when a RS member gets caught in a violent crime. "He wasn't a REAL satsangi!"

Either way,you're a terribly dishonest debater and YOUR goalpost is definitely in constant motion. You change the subject every time you need to. Guru fam caught in corruption? Change to talking about AIDS medicine. Nobody has any evidence of mystic experience? Ok, then let's talk about the benefits to the brain caused by meditation.

As I said, were this my blog you'd be banned and forced to attend more cult satsangs.

Jesse

[Spencer Tepper]

Jesse
I've been on topic.

This post is Brian's claim that auto suggestion and mystical experience are related. But no factual, verifiable evidence has been provided.

Neither Brian nor you have reported anything like mystic experience nor have you generated nor referred to scientific findings working with those who report such experiences.

Therefore your and Brian's claims about a causal relationship between autosuggestion and mystical experience have no grounding in fact.

It is pure conjecture.

You did request evidence to my claims that meditation is healthy and helps improve thinking.

I did that.

Your response? To make personal accusations.

May I suggest that if you are proven wrong, don't beat up the messenger.

Just say "I disagree with the scientific evidence" or "conjecture about mystical experience is fine for conversation"...

It isn't necessary to bully those you disagree with.

Brian doesn't like that either.

[Jesse]

The only thing that is "pure conjecture" is that there is any such thing as "mystical experience."

As far as we can tell, it's all 100% normal activity of the brain.

[Spencer Tepper]

Hi Jesse

You wrote
"The only thing that is "pure conjecture" is that there is any such thing as "mystical experience."

As far as we can tell, it's all 100% normal activity of the brain."

Actually if you read what you wrote you will see both a contradiction and the basis for agreement.

If mystical experience is at least a corrollate of brain activity, then it exists as such.

It's real. But it isn't supernatural. It is entirely natural, to the extent we can understand it. Consider it part of the subconscious mind. But a very real part of the human condition, usually invisible, until awakened.

Often triggered by symbols of what we hold dear, sacred, holy. And attendant with transcendent experience. Very much a part of the human experience and vital for our own maturity and development.

Nothing supernatural about it. But only if we can admit we don't really understand or know even half of the facts of this reality or what is built into the human subconscious.

[Arjuna]

@ Spencer - hello mate. I agree with Jesse to be fair.

You need to buy Selfie by Will Storr as you will understand that nothing you have said has any concrete Valarie with regard to spirituality experiences - may be in your own mind. But that’s your problem.

Jesse is asking why Rockefeller RSSB has so much money - looking forward to your response as always. And why do they??????

That’s not a question for you to answer by the way - as you do not know.

Buy that book and think which “Spencer”. comes out in this blog.

Twilight music 🎧 playing lol.

Laters dude xx

[Arjuna]

@ Spencer correct above “concrete value”

X

[Jesse]

"If mystical experience is at least a corrollate of brain activity, then it exists as such."

Yet when being tested people claim to have mystic-like experiences that were caused by auto-suggestion, you claim they weren't mystic experiences.

"Often triggered by symbols of what we hold dear, sacred, holy. And attendant with transcendent experience. Very much a part of the human experience and vital for our own maturity and development."

Now you're leading into the auto suggestion itself. "Yo man, that thing you think is holy? You'll see it if you close your eyes and try to see it for many hours."

Spencer, please just stop. It's ridiculous.

[manjit]

Another fascinating blog & comments thread (I will spare y'all the, by now no doubt, tedium of how many hours I have spent researching the history, practice & scientific studies of hypnotism, theories of the unconsciousness etc :)!

It is, imo, undeniable there is a connection between "autosuggestion", "hypnotism" and the forms and perhaps, more fascinatingly, even STRUCTURE of "mystical" experiences.

The problem I personally notice is the apparent dismissiveness with which these labels are applied; is there a SINGLE person here who even has a REMOTELY coherent explanation for what "hypnosis" and "suggestion" even are? Please, please don't do a google search & regurgitate that here if you don't already have an answer - such pop-superficiality will not do such a complex subject, where almost every single practitioner & "expert" admits they don't have the slightest clue, justice!

It is like the glib dismissal of "paranormal phenomena" experienced by multiple people as "mass-hallucination". Oh, okay, 1,000 people see the Blessed Virgin Mary, it was "only" a "mass-hallucination", that's "scientifically explained that way" then hasn't it? (errm, clue; no, no it really hasn't. It's simply reframed the same unexplained phenomena within scientific sounding terminology!).

Anyway, I see several connections between RS phenomena and "hypnosis", for eg., having read/hear some of Kirpal's initiation, I was immediately struck at how similar his patter is to well known traditional "induction techniques". Now, I don't believe Kirpal was going this consciously or intentionally (I hope!), but he WAS doing it nonetheless....a natural "hypnotist". I recommend again the documentary, available online for free, "Holy Hell" to see what I suggest are the connections between "light and sound" experiences (and by implication shaktipat etc) and "hypnosis".

Perhaps also watch a decades old clip of the UK's Derren Browne in which he apparently creates the "experience" of the "Holy Ghost" on some Americans using suggestion; it must be on youtube I suspect.

Finally, I can't help but quote Nisargadatta, whom I adore, when he talks about Radhasoamis. The first part perhaps relates somewhat to "suggestion", the 2nd part I included because it was just there from where I copied it :) :

"Q: I read a book by a yogi on his experiences in meditation. It
is full of visions and sounds, coulours and melodies; quite a
display and a most gorgeous entertainment..........of what use is
such a book to me?
A: Of no use, probably, since it does not attract you. Others may be
impressed. People differ. But all are faced with the fact of their
own existence. 'I am' is the ultimate fact; 'Who am I'? is the
ultimate quuestion to which everybody must find an answer.
Q: The same answer?
M: The same in essence, varied in expression. Each seeker accepts,
or invents, a method which suits him, applies it to himself with
some earnestness and effort, obtains results according to his
temperamant and expectations, casts them into a mould of words,
builds them into a system, establishes a tradition and begins to
admit others into his 'school of Yoga'. It is all built on memory
and imagination. No such schoolis valueless, nor indespensible; in
each one can make progress up to the point when all desire for
progress must be abandoned to make further progress possible. Then
all schools are given up, all efforts cease; in solitude and
darkness the last step is made which ends ignorance and fear forever.
The true teacher, however, will not imprison his disciple in a
prescribed set of ideas, feelings and actions; on the contrary, he
will show him patiently the need to be free from all ideas and set
patterns of behaviour, to be vigilant and earnest and go with life
wherever it takes him, not to enjoy or suffer, but to understand and
learn.
Under the right teacher, the disciple learns to learn, not to
remember and obey. Satsang, the company of the noble, does not
mould, it liberates. Beware of all that makes you dependant. Most of
the so-called 'surrenders to the Guru' end in dissapointment, if
not in tragedy. Fortunately, an earnest seeker will disentangle
himself in time, wiser for theexperience."
page 457

"Q: ......We have a guru of the Radha-Soami faith....."

A: You have met many anchorites and ascetics, but a fully realised
man conscious of his divinity (svarupa) is hard to find. Saints and
Yogis, by immense effort and sacrifices, aquire many miraculous
powers and can do much in the way of helping people and inspiring
faith, yet it does not make them perfect. It is not a way to
reality, but merely an enrichment of the false. All effort leads to
more effort........

......

The persons who after much effort and penance, have fulfilled their
ambitions and secured higher levels of experience, are usually
acutely conscious of their standing; they grade people into
hierarchies, ranging from the lowest non-acheiver to the highest
acheiver. To me all are equal.........."
I AM THAT, Chapter 64, Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj

[Spencer Tepper]

Jesse

You wrote

"
Yet when being tested people claim to have mystic-like experiences that were caused by auto-suggestion, you claim they weren't mystic experiences"

Really?

Can you provide a link?

[Spencer Tepper]

Hi Arjuna

You wrote

"Jesse is asking why Rockefeller RSSB has so much money - looking forward to your response as always. And why do they??????"

I have no idea.

But as you wrote

"That’s not a question for you to answer by the way - as you do not know.

Buy that book and think which “Spencer”. comes out in this blog."

The disease of this obsessive culture of self is the holding sacred and above truth, beyond question, one's own personal opinion.

And the symptom of this disease is evident when, rather than discuss facts, instead someone chooses to make character assassination of the person who holds a different view, essentially engaging in bullying.

Arjuna. In light of this, which 'Arjuna' are you presenting?

[Jesse]

"The disease of this obsessive culture of self"

Sohang, sohang.

[Jesse]

Spencer, you dishonest man, read the post.

"Our findings represent a demonstration proof that hypnotic suggestion can play a viable role in inducing mystical-type experiences of varying degrees among about a third of participants in a laboratory context and support the hypothesis that the ability to experience hypnotically induced mystical-type experiences varies as a function of hypnotic suggestibility."

More or less, one third of participants made more progress than satsangis. Maybe you should find these researchers and experience all these things instead of fibbing on the internet in defense of a cult. Seems in the lab this stuff works in less time.

[Spencer Tepper]

OK Jesse
I did my homework and paid for the APA article, downloaded it and reviewed it.

There are several external and internal validity flaws.

How do the researchers define mystical experience? They use a questionnaire originally developed to record drug induced hallucinations. They modify this for their use with college students undergoing hypnosis.

Never has that questionnaire been validated with long term meditators or those reporting regular and controlled experiences of spirit.

It's a hallucination questionnaire.

And the experiment did not compare the experience of those college students with those devoted to spiritual practice, or meditation.

Just undergrad college students.

The method of induction was not to replicate meditation or spiritual practice.

It was only hypnosis.

A real experiment would compare both under controlled and blocked design conditions.

This is just bad and cheap research.

Again, my principle criticism holds.

To measure mystical experience and at least have some actual defined dependent variable, you must utilize practitioners versed in that, at just in some of the control and experimental groups.

And you need to compare hypnosis to other traditional methods of induction : prayer, meditation, etc.

And there are, these days, a plethora of sincere and long term meditators who report regular mystical experience.

Bad research. Pseudo science.

Once again, it's people calling mystical experience hallucination then running an experiential inducing hallucination and calling it mystical experience.

[Spencer Tepper]

By the way calling me dishonest is bullying, Jesse.

[Arjuna]

@ Spencer - nice sling shot back- it’s the arse home Arjun today 😀. I’m honest and you really need to buy that book buddy .

Have a great evening x

[Spencer Tepper]

Thanks Arjuna
It's on my reading list.
If I thought I didn't have an ego, now that would really be delusional!

Even for me ;)!

[Dungeness]

I've read a lot of mystical writings. My impression is that religious devotees typically seek converts, while mystics typically don't. So when I see someone desperately trying to convince others that their supernatural experience was real, I usually think "there's a religious dogmatist, not a mystic."

I agree. However, dogmatism works both ways. If a
mystic mentions a transcendent experience at all,
an impassioned skeptic will readily assert it's not real
and counterpoint with his own conjecture about it.
The mystic may follow with a challenge and suggest
an experiential way to validate his claim. Attempts
to create clarity rarely do.

What's perceived as desperation at that point could
reflect ones own bias. We tend to shut down when the
thread doesn't reinforce preconceptions or there's
impedance. Or we go passive-agressive with bullying
or put-downs like "Just stop", "I suggest you find some
other blog for this nonsense".

With mindfulness I can hear entire conversations like
this going on in the dim recesses of my brain. Inside
we start looking for converts even without being
religious. We can turn dogmatic in a heartbeat.

[Arjuna]

@ Spencer - lol. I really like you and sorry for being an ass. I have a dr j and mr h personality.

I blame the forces 😀

Chill and speak soon

[Jesse]

"By the way calling me dishonest is bullying, Jesse."

Don't be dishonest and I won't call you dishonest. I'm certainly not going to whine about you calling me a bully. It's just a word I'm reading on a screen.

When I was a kid, we beat the crap out of each other and formed hierarchies in my neighborhood. 99% of the world is still this way, but it's been lost in much of western Europe and North America. The fact that westerners cry about being called dishonest after they make a bunch of bizarre claims about corrupt billionaire gurus curing African AIDS babies is not a good sign for the western world.

We've become weak, and one of the most repetitive stories in history is weak people getting brutally conquered.

[Spencer Tepper]

Hi Jesse

You wrote
"We've become weak, and one of the most repetitive stories in history is weak people getting brutally conquered."

Blessed are the meak.

[Spencer Tepper]

... And the meek. They are also blessed. And so is autospell... :)

And the strong. When they protect the week. When they give sanctuary to the week and dispossessed, when they show patience to the confused ;)

When they learn gentleness from the child, and the old, and the fool....
Then they are also blessed..

[Dungeness]

We've become weak, and one of the most repetitive stories in history is weak people getting brutally conquered.

Most of the time, I believe we're weak because of what goes
on inside us so I believe the answer has to be found there and
not anywhere outside. We defeat ourselves, not some foe in
the 'hood.

[Arjuna]

@ Spencer - were you bullied at school? Being meek is death in today’s age!!!!

You are WRONG! As Trump would say.

Fake news !!!

[Arjuna]

@ spencer - the reason I asked . I was bullied when I was at school and grew up not being loved.

Found God and that turned out to religare and a mad cult. You can see why people get lost and angry.

I like Jesse. Brave strong mind.

Large corporations are raided by government agencies to see where the money’s comes and goes.

Beas must open up or its account Must be raided. To discover the truth! I think a lot of people would get closure and move on.

People want truth

[777]

So strange
Jesse desperately trying to score on inner experiences that NEVER can be proven
but ignores physical material happenings which can be proved

This is the culmination and accumulation of all hypocrisy making this planet so filthy !

777

[777]

However
this theory of hypnoses is valuable

Like one says to a child
That'just your imagination . . . . . neglecting the fact that all universes are the result of someone s imagination

in the same way

Hypnosis , making people eating an onion,
is the meager derivate of meditation
which from the start in all 7 chakra entities was defined / build in them

The reasonings above turn this around

Hypnosis by a Saint can open your Paradise

Other hypnosis, also Auto-hypnosis can open hell
like finding an empty extra terrestrial space ship from 2 billion years ago
and fooling around with the buttons ( maybe mental buttons )

Respect guys, . . . for our Maker

777