Carl-Richard

All I know is that the Dhyana mudra feels nice when meditating

Have you read David Hume?

50% strength boost ?

Yes it is. Other people and you as a person = egos. Consciousness is transpersonal.

Ego will be humbled either way.

Egos are not conscious. Consciousness is conscious.

Speaking.

Mystics throughout history have been both skeptical and welcoming of mystical experiences that exceed the pure non-dual experience (e.g. visions and speech from God). For example, Jan Esmann is one of the most advanced non-dual teachers out there, and his most important experience involved perceptual content ("The Blue Being"). Nevertheless, it's sad to discredit other people's experiences.

Fanatiq needs to shut the fuck up ?

Biceps is nothing. It's all about deadlifts

All I'm seeing is a reductionistic psychodynamic explanation of the mystical experience. I don't see how it's a pre-trans fallacy.

Define your terms, please

What did he say specifically that makes you think that?

How so?

Mystical experiences are neither inherently pre- nor post-rational. Pre- and post-rationality are different value systems or levels of cognition, and mystics throughout history have had different values, but the core of the pre-perceptual mystical experience (the non-dual experience) has stayed the same.

I would say so. Of course Will Smith himself isn't purely Red, and slapping as an act is not inherently Red, but slapping as a response to somebody joking about your wife and then repeatedly yelling "keep my wife's name out of your mouth!" is pretty Red.

Why do you think that?

There is this woman who's name escapes me but which Rick from BATGAP often mentions in many of his interviews. She awoke at a bus stop with zero preconceived notions of what was happening to her, and she spent years trying to figure it out. Of course a mild constructivism (that thought has some effect) is always the case, because things like self-inquiry or mantra meditation work that way, but to say that thought itself is the primary factor for causing the experience is completely inconsistent. To accept the constructivist view, you cannot have had a mystical experience yourself, because then you would know without a doubt that experience comes prior to thought. I mean, the god damn state in itself is a thought-free state. Besides, even if we fully grant the constructivist view, this doesn't detract anything from the positive aspects of the experience. It's well-known in the literature that having a mystical experience will generally lead to increased functionality (relative to a society's standard of reality), which conflicts with calling it a delusion (a pathology).

and depending on the tribe, sacrificing humans in the process

The first deliberate/focused contemplation session I ever had on a "psychedelic" (weed) was "what creates the perception of time?", and I arrived at the answer: "it's determined by how often you access your memories." This was the time right before I started meditating (I was probably 18), and I've only confirmed this insight later, but I would rephrase it like this: thoughts about self creates feelings of time.

Bro, almost all your posts are about poo-pooing "Western science". It's not all hyper-materialistic, logic boner stuff. Like I mentioned earlier, W. James and A. Maslow pretty much hit the bullseye ~100 years ago

Mystical experiences per the psychological literature can either be perceptual (visions/speech from God) or pre-perceptual in nature (the experience of being God, of no self, Oneness, samadhi etc.). Tolle had the latter. Awakening is a mystical experience.

...which is why I left out most of your post from the quote Anyways, I feel your use of words is very idiosyncratic. What do you mean by "concepts", "dropping beliefs" and "restructuring perception"?

This is called the constructivist view of mysticism, and it's completely inconsistent imo. For one thing, it doesn't explain spontaneous awakenings like Eckhart Tolle.