4 ms·

Becoming Supernatural by Joe Dispenza has promise. The meditation in that (especially the focus on pushing the cerebrospinal fluid up the spine) is probably the

Becoming Supernatural by Joe Dispenza has promise. The meditation in that (especially the focus on pushing the cerebrospinal fluid up the spine) is probably the clearest instruction you can find (and mirrors the primary meditations in Taoism and Indian yoga).

argentinian 2y ago
The cerebrospinal fluid already surrounds the spine and brain. "Pushing it up" sounds a bit like pseudo-scientific new agey talk.
- buildsjets 2y ago
  It is TOTALLY psuedo-scientific new agey talk. That doesn't necessarily negate it's validity. What determines it's it's validity is whether it is a testable and repeatable method to accomplish a result, and whether it can be learned, then communicated / taught to others. Aleister Crowley said in Magick in Theory and Practice: "In this book it is spoken of the Sephiroth and the Paths; of Spirits and Conjurations; of Gods, Spheres, Planes, and many other things which may or may not exist. It is immaterial whether these exist or not. By doing certain things certain results will follow; students are most earnestly warned against attributing objective reality or philosophic validity to any of them." So, have you studied and received training and tried your own personal practice in pushing up your cerebrospinal fluid / manipulating your kundalini energy / grounding your root chakra / whatever new-agey terms your chosen method uses? Or are you dismissing the validity of these methods without firsthand experimentation because of how other people in your society have trained you think and because you do not like the terminology that they use?
  - argentinian 2y ago
    I agree that that by itself, even when it's anatomically incorrect, that doesn't negate it's validity to produce effects and I like Crowley's quote. I don't consider Joe Dispenza a good and experienced meditation teacher, and I don't consider serious his use of pseudoscientific explanations. Still, what he says may be helpful for some people, but I believe that there are much better meditation teachers.
  - tnias23 2y ago
    Assuming that this suggestion of “pushing up” CSF is possible, if taken literally, it would increase intracranial pressure (ICP). The normal ICP range is around 7-15 mmHg, and pressures outside this range can reduce cerebral perfusion, with increases potentially causing cerebral ischemia and brain herniation. Therefore, maintaining normal ICP is crucial for brain health. Let’s assume this supposed technique alters ICP minimally enough to stay within the normal range. I am not aware of any evidence suggesting that ICP at the higher end of normal (or anywhere within normal) is associated with health benefits.
    - nprateem 2y ago
      There's a record of people reaching altered states of consciousness for millenia. However besides drugs the methods aren't widely known or recognised by the scientific community. So by definition anything that produces an effect not readily accepted by 'science' is pseudo-science. It doesn't make it wrong it just means consensus hasn't caught up with it. Maybe it's CSF that's pushed up the spine, maybe it's energy. But multiple traditions practice some form of moving awareness up the spine combined with gentle physical contraction as a primary means of creating the conditions for entering mystical states. Those same traditions describe how this method energises the endocrine system. Furthermore the effects of doing this are now documented in scientific papers (search pubmed for kundalini). None of this negates the validity of the methods. They require firsthand experience for any real benefit, and more study to understand the exact processes at work.
titanomachy 2y ago
I just downloaded this and read some of it out of curiosity. It’s probably one of the dumbest, most blatantly pseudoscientific things I’ve ever read. He freely recycles scientific vocabulary to mean… whatever the hell he wants, apparently, painting his mystical nonsense with a thin veneer of empirical legitimacy. I can’t believe tens of thousands of people actually read this stuff and see it as the work of a genius rather than the most obvious quackery. It is possible to write scientifically about meditation and altered states of consciousness without liberally reinterpreting all of physics. See Sam Harris or John Yates for example (both neuroscientists). What the hell is this guy a doctor of, anyway…? Chiropractic. Why am I not surprised.
- nprateem 2y ago
  It's whatever makes sense to you. The fact is there is strong consistency between traditions in this core meditation. Maybe you just prefer to take instructions on blind faith, but for me his claim that feelings cause the body to produce chemicals which influence the cells makes sense, removing my resistance to this meditation. His logical fallacies etc do not necessarily undermine the meditation. YMMV.

argentinian 2y ago

The cerebrospinal fluid already surrounds the spine and brain. "Pushing it up" sounds a bit like pseudo-scientific new agey talk.

buildsjets 2y ago
It is TOTALLY psuedo-scientific new agey talk. That doesn't necessarily negate it's validity. What determines it's it's validity is whether it is a testable and repeatable method to accomplish a result, and whether it can be learned, then communicated / taught to others. Aleister Crowley said in Magick in Theory and Practice: "In this book it is spoken of the Sephiroth and the Paths; of Spirits and Conjurations; of Gods, Spheres, Planes, and many other things which may or may not exist. It is immaterial whether these exist or not. By doing certain things certain results will follow; students are most earnestly warned against attributing objective reality or philosophic validity to any of them." So, have you studied and received training and tried your own personal practice in pushing up your cerebrospinal fluid / manipulating your kundalini energy / grounding your root chakra / whatever new-agey terms your chosen method uses? Or are you dismissing the validity of these methods without firsthand experimentation because of how other people in your society have trained you think and because you do not like the terminology that they use?
- argentinian 2y ago
  I agree that that by itself, even when it's anatomically incorrect, that doesn't negate it's validity to produce effects and I like Crowley's quote. I don't consider Joe Dispenza a good and experienced meditation teacher, and I don't consider serious his use of pseudoscientific explanations. Still, what he says may be helpful for some people, but I believe that there are much better meditation teachers.
- tnias23 2y ago
  Assuming that this suggestion of “pushing up” CSF is possible, if taken literally, it would increase intracranial pressure (ICP). The normal ICP range is around 7-15 mmHg, and pressures outside this range can reduce cerebral perfusion, with increases potentially causing cerebral ischemia and brain herniation. Therefore, maintaining normal ICP is crucial for brain health. Let’s assume this supposed technique alters ICP minimally enough to stay within the normal range. I am not aware of any evidence suggesting that ICP at the higher end of normal (or anywhere within normal) is associated with health benefits.
  - nprateem 2y ago
    There's a record of people reaching altered states of consciousness for millenia. However besides drugs the methods aren't widely known or recognised by the scientific community. So by definition anything that produces an effect not readily accepted by 'science' is pseudo-science. It doesn't make it wrong it just means consensus hasn't caught up with it. Maybe it's CSF that's pushed up the spine, maybe it's energy. But multiple traditions practice some form of moving awareness up the spine combined with gentle physical contraction as a primary means of creating the conditions for entering mystical states. Those same traditions describe how this method energises the endocrine system. Furthermore the effects of doing this are now documented in scientific papers (search pubmed for kundalini). None of this negates the validity of the methods. They require firsthand experience for any real benefit, and more study to understand the exact processes at work.

titanomachy 2y ago

I just downloaded this and read some of it out of curiosity. It’s probably one of the dumbest, most blatantly pseudoscientific things I’ve ever read. He freely recycles scientific vocabulary to mean… whatever the hell he wants, apparently, painting his mystical nonsense with a thin veneer of empirical legitimacy. I can’t believe tens of thousands of people actually read this stuff and see it as the work of a genius rather than the most obvious quackery. It is possible to write scientifically about meditation and altered states of consciousness without liberally reinterpreting all of physics. See Sam Harris or John Yates for example (both neuroscientists). What the hell is this guy a doctor of, anyway…? Chiropractic. Why am I not surprised.

nprateem 2y ago
It's whatever makes sense to you. The fact is there is strong consistency between traditions in this core meditation. Maybe you just prefer to take instructions on blind faith, but for me his claim that feelings cause the body to produce chemicals which influence the cells makes sense, removing my resistance to this meditation. His logical fallacies etc do not necessarily undermine the meditation. YMMV.