All posts must follow the code of conduct.
Forum
Welcome! If you would like to post, please sign up in the members section.
Events (Organised by KC)
Upcoming events organised by the Kundalini Collective
121Events (Non KC)
These events are organised outside the Kundalini Collective. Please only post if you feel that the event is a safe space
28Your Awakening Story
Tell us about your awkening process so far. Please share your journey.
31Kundalini Discussion
Questions and discussions about the Kundalini Awakening process.
52Spiritual Awakening
Questions and discussions about the spiritual awakening process including NDE's, OBE's, Entheogens etc.
11General Discussions
Discussions about anything else not specifically related to Kundalini or spiritual awakenings.
31Recommendations
This can be books, videos, counsellors or other. If enough people recomend we will add to the help section.
25Creative Work
This is a place where you can post and share your work. Music, art, photography, video etc.
26
- General DiscussionsJust throwing this out there again, that this site would be more active and you would see more interaction between members, if there was functionality to allow members to have their own page with a blog and converse directly with one another. The Members Chat functionality is way too limited. The existing blog that is monitored and/or approved first by the admins isn't enough. Essentially having to ask permission to post something isn't necessarily what people want to have to do. And, sometimes, if not more often than that, folks may not want to share their inner thoughts with everyone, just maybe a select few "friends" they have made here. These are my thoughts on how to improve the site.Like
- General DiscussionsIn system of Plato and Aristotle, 4 elements are Earth, Water, Air and Fire. Later, the Aether was added. In system of Buddhism, Buddha was told to invent 4 elements, which are equal. Later, as well, the Space element, also called Cosmos or Aether, was added. The descriptions of the properties of elements are also very similar - Plato's view is little bit more intellectual, Buddhist view is a little bit more ..well, Buddhist. But the overall story is the same, by those two systems, you can think about the same 5 conceptions in two different ways or states of mind, but the elements themselves are the same. In the Witch traditions, like Wikka, pentagon is used to point to the exactly same 5 elements - did they learn from Plato? I searched a little and asked from MS Copilot AI in different ways, what are the historic relations between east and west in these matters. It mentioned some possible connections, but sticks with the general understanding that the elements were naturally invented, independently, just by observing the nature, and that the connections between those inventors are speculative. It forms two possible explanations - whether there was some mystical connection between the inventors of the two cultures, for example by students of Hermes Trismegisto, who seemed to build the same kind of roots with mystics of different parts of the world. The second explanation is that there is something deep underlying these elements, and that the "experiment" of inventing them, exactly the same elements, was repeated two times. For me it's not so important, whether one or the other is true - the conclusions about the history and meaning of those mystical systems, they are very similar. In mysticism, I can see more of those correspondences, in fact enough to think that mystics of the world have been connected either physically, by having met and discussed things before we can trace them meeting, in ancient times - or, that there is something deep and underlying in reality, which has been observed several cases and given the same conclusions; the latter is almost like scientific reproducibility. I do not want to decide, which version I believe, but both are stories of deep and underlying connections, where the spiritual schools of the world shared the same views and philosophies long before we can observe their direct connections and meetings - I see more correspondences, for example the principles found in Kybalión very naturally fit some principles found in Buddhist traditions. So, if we do not speak about the travels and secret meetings of mystery schools some 3-4 thousand years ago, when they did not have many connections we know about, we need to talk about scientific repeatability of the same mind experiments between the cultures. Those two are very interesting theories, and they both talk about deeper, more meaningful connection between the mystery schools, than just becoming friends these days. I think they both contain some elements of truth - maybe some mystician of Egipt managed to travel to India, and back, many years ago, and they had more connections than we know about, maybe even telepathically; but also, from all the possible theories, very similar principles were found the most interesting and fundamental, and settled in different schools. To decide exactly, which history you believe, is speculative, but the case that the 5 elements have the same names and attributes in two cultures, and differ only by some innate difference of thinking, where western mind forms conceptions differently from eastern - this is the fact. Copilot AI said that they both simply observed the nature and concluded in the same results - but this makes up the case where only a scientific experiment is probable to do that, you find the same numbers two times. For 5 elements out of hundreds of possibilities, it's otherwise as improbable as winning a lottery, that they would have made the same systems out of nothing.Like
- General DiscussionsThe scientific discussions are seen extremely ethical - in the process, nobody is said to be hurt, and after the discussion, the open and shared, absolutely ethical framework of science of humankind is a little bit stronger. Scientists are said to not do any wars at all, and nobody is never hurt in scientific process. What to say if such conception as "debunking" has been grown out from scientific discussions? Debunking is a very direct attack, which destroys someone socially, financially and politically with something, which is seen to be same kind of neutral scientific argumentation. The ethical society of sciences is seen to be grown in similar ways. But the people are in state, which is comparable to death in modern society - their constitutional rights are not so easily met any more. What is the evolution from scientific discussions to debunking? I think debunking, when it also supports psychiatry - who lost the battle of debunking, can be seen as mad -, is equal to war; there are some public cases, but then more and more cases are added silently. The arguments used by "skeptics" in "scientific debates", and the overall feeling that only their science is science, where everybody involved has some sciences ..they often do not understand and ignore even very primitive arguments, which can be seen simply by thinking deeply about religious topics. They see dangers, which are avoided by modern approach to religiosity or spiritualism. Such scientific debates do not end in the point, where both sides are listened, arguments have testified and as a result of debate, both sides understand their arguments better and leave each others as better friends. Rather, the scientific arguments of such kind resemble the war, where people lose their important life qualities and opportunities. I think here, the ethics appears in scientific debate - you can see people fighting, and you see some of them winning and other losing; we need to use ethics to understand, how strongly the science has beaten the people, and is this even legal. In the theory of paradigms, we can find out that different competing viewpoints can exist to the same topic, and where they have contradictions in between, both are reasonably strong models. Two "correct" theories can have contradictions, this is my belief - and they grow stronger by resolving those, but they do not grow, when there is a battle for victory and defeat. This is a violent kind of a science. Later, when the arguments have been passed, where the winner "might" not even understand the argument of the "loser" properly, some viewpoints are established as social and psychiatric norm, where you are almost permitted to even argue your points - you can see that if the argumenter on your side would have been stronger, they would have reached further. Often, the "science", which has won the argument, has nothing to do with more decent science, which takes spiritual arguments more seriously, but the "science" consists simply on what some people can see with their plain senses, empirically, without using any advanced theory - they can verify the theories of Newton, some of the Galilei, etc., but they have not much to do with more decent philosophical and empirical sciences as well; and they are making bold statements about the mind and how the people, who are not out of their senses, would experience the world and make statements about it. The statements cannot be very deeply philosophical - I do not understand, how, when and where these people so silently and secretly won their scientific argument ..there used to be open discussions between those branches of world-views, and nobody has won those arguments so completely to simply state that the other side has to be mad or a liar? I think the modern science has rather became more open about the topics, and the science, which is being attributed, has somehow silently "borrowed" from some older, more straightforwardly material sciences. We used to have many religious, thinking, philosophical freedoms - it's hard to say, what these new "scientific methods" do with those freedoms, and they have never openly discussed that they want to threaten those. Those freedoms should be the very strength of civilization itself, providing us with neutral sciences, where all the different viewpoints have been considered. So, when there are multiple paradigms, those can be good models of world, but contradict - you can live based on different models, but when you look at their results directly, they do not fit. Such kind of paradigms can learn from each others, and they can have wars. There, you need ethics instead of science - some paradigms never die, there seem to always be materialists and spiritualists, for example, and they can provide each others with new discoveries, but they can also fight the wars. We should look these debates with sense of ethics, and we have to see, where people have been hurt; not only, whether the specific argument is true or more true, than another. When people have been hurt, we can see that something important about the science - it's violenceless nature - is not there, and we should consider the situation from viewpoint of living in the same world, not from the viewpoint of who wins and who loses the war. The loser, more often than not, has their good models and can sometimes reach information, which is important to someone, and when the two models are better integrated, the resulting model is stronger - no matter, which one of the integrated models used to be better. When there is a conflict and someone has been hurt, we should use ethics and not only the science, to reason about the situation, the ethics that all the different people should fit into this society. This is the ethics of equal rights.Like