hot meditation

Moderators: Desolous, Reliah

hot meditation 22 Feb 2012 13:15 #51300

I'm curious if anyone else has had this issue, and if anyone can help me with it. I've recently started to be able to drift off into meditative states. However, when I get into a meditative state, I can't stay in it for very long because I begin to get too hot. Sometimes so much that it causes discomfort.

This is fine for when i'm doing Reiki, as the heat helps in the healing process, but for normal meditative state, it's just uncomfortable. Actually, it's like that in my Reiki as well but it takes longer for it to become uncomfortable.

So, is there something i'm doing wrong here? What I can do to not get so hot when meditating? I was getting into a meditative state at work today. A coworker sat down right next to me and asked if I had been outside. I said no and asked why and they said they could feel heat coming off of me.

On one hand, this is great because if I ever get stuck in a snow storm ( snows so much in Houston, TX, lol) but i'd really like to be able to meditate for more than 5 minutes without sweating and getting really hot. I thought maybe it was my I tried meditating in the buff......same thing. I get tingling sensations, then the heat starts and it just continues.

Anybody have any tips? Thanks in advance.
At first, I thought I was going crazy...but then the gummy bears and unicorn told me I was just fine.

Re: hot meditation 22 Feb 2012 13:40 #51303

First and foremost, I think learning how to focus your Force energy through the centers of your body may help. You may have blockages or too much yang Force energy. Acupuncture is a useful too but bringing your Force energy into your lower dan tien after meditation will help to stop blockages in your Force meridians (like stale pools of murky water).

Re: hot meditation 22 Feb 2012 13:52 #51304

Not something I have experienced personally in meditation.

Over-heating and sweating can be the bodies way of releasing certain toxins and when you meditate your body becomes more in tune so this might be why it occurs then.

I used to get overly hot and sweat quite easily in everyday life but this has stopped since I cut nicotine and caffeine out as both drugs stimulate the body in such a way that can cause it to overheat. I am not sure if you indulge in either of these drugs but cutting them out if you do may help.


Re: hot meditation 23 Feb 2012 10:35 #51371

I don't smoke (can't even stand around people who are smoking) and I only have one coke a day. No drugs. I am in the middle of changing my diet, which consists of mainly sugary and greasy food. But here is something I discovered.

A.) Perhaps I am trying to force energy into me. Instead of visualizing a white light flowing gently into me through my crown chakra and filling me up, I envisioned a large beam of light surging into me even after I've visualized it filling me up. So it's as if i'm constantly filling myself with energy even i'm i'm already filled up.

B.) Naturally, i'm a pyro. The slightest little spark makes me perk up. I get a natural, soothing feeling around fire, even if it's just a small flame. Perhaps this is contributing, as in the back of my subconscious mind, i'm visualizing fire as it is something that causes me to relax? If this is the case, how do I tell my subconscious to stop visualizing and associating fire with relaxation?

These are just my theories. Theory A would be pretty easy to work out, but theory B, I have no idea how to even begin to reprogram my brain... especially if it is subconscious as I believe.
At first, I thought I was going crazy...but then the gummy bears and unicorn told me I was just fine.
Latest Posts Comments Articles
    • Something terrible? (Last post by Ryder)
    • Hmm... I sometimes get those feelings too. Usually it's just something that will happen in my personal life, but today has just been very normal for me until I read this post.
    • On the Nature of Crime vs War - An Open Discussion... (Last post by Rex)
    • Quote: Kyrin, are you a Communist ?? Because I'm a Communist, and you're talking like me Pretty sure from Kyrin's posts a better bet would be Constitutional Lib-Right. Silas, I think you need to read the context of what's being said. Quote: Quote: TheDude wrote: Unfortunately the government already controls everything in this country, dictatorship or not. They decide who can open a business and what that business can do. They demand tithes from all citizens. They tell us what we can and cannot own and what actions we can and cannot commit, even when those actions are harmless or victimless crimes. America does not have true freedom yet. But I don't think the presence of a dictator necessarily means a lack of freedom. I think it's entirely possible for a person to have control over a country, and to use that control to guarantee the freedom of that country's citizens. Unfortunately no such dictator has popped up yet, so I can't point towards a specific example. But I do think it's a possibility. You've given me a lot to think about as well, thank you. Lol yes but those are all symptoms of a big bernie sanders socialist type govt not truly democratic minimalist govt. Do you think that the reason you have never seen a dictator like that is because they cant exist? Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I say leave the power in the hands of the people, not big govt. Quote: I on the other hand embrace the idea that i have to struggle and work and earn everything I have. I NEVER want anyone else, no individual or govt, to dictate to me what I am allowed to own or provide for my means in any fashion. Its so counter intuitive to me that anyone would want that. I would never be willing to put my future in the hands of another. Instead I would love to see us all work together to make a better future for all vs giving all that power over to a central authority and trust that they are going to "do the right thing". Just my 2¢
    • Milo Yianopoulos banned from Twitter-Bad precedenc... (Last post by Khaos)
    • Quote: ilo is intelligent and a comedian, he's also incredibly provocateur (no wonder you like him, Khaos, ha ha!). He stirs up trouble for the fun of it, then cries "freedom of speech" when his stirring gets him in trouble. There is a little more to it than that though. Martin Luther King also incited a lot of controversy, most anyone who speaks out provocatively does. But what does being provocative really mean in todays world? He incited much more violence too, if we want to get technical. While yes, he has fun, and is funny, he is also again, spot on on a lot of what he says, and he is fiercely intelligent. He wraps his points in some interesting ways, but it would be wrong to think he is not saying something worth hearing. Would Martin Luther King be banned from twitter? Somebody "banned" him with a gun. You see, it is about safe spaces and privilege, because of the manner of selection in there attempts to ban him and not others who also wrote poor reviews about Ghostbusters. You cannot call this the straw that broke the camels back given what goes up on Twitter everyday, and Milo is hardly the worst in any category. Also, I never claimed to like him. Thats a leap, as I disagree on a lot of what he says( of course, like anything I agree with some of it too), but not the way he says it, nor am I so immature that I cannot handle the way he says it and respond in a manner that pays more attention to the subject matter he is speaking about than the way in which he has decided to say it. I do not have to agree with someone, or like them or what they say to defend there right to say what they think is important. It is an attempt at character assassination in many ways, because if your going to ban someone, I think it should be over something more than a movie review. More than anything, with this, they have proven his point rather than making one of there own.
    • Philosophical Defenses for the Force; Common Groun... (Last post by Gisteron)
    • You are assuming that two distinct things need to be differentiable. For the sake of pragmatism I would make that assumption, too, but you do need to postulate that as an axiom if you want to use it. You are also saying that the nature of a thing equates to its identity. In your model two things cannot share a nature. That is also an unstated premise. Lastly, about step 4, and allow me to be a little nitpicky here... you say that there cannot be two substances who share the same attribute. To me that sounds like there cannot be two that have so many as one attribute in common. So ontop of the missing premises mentioned earlier, even granting them, this literal interpretation of step 4 in your argument wouldn't follow. As for step 11, I concluded that considering that we have no axiom stating that it is impossible for a substance to have impossible attributes. So for any substance we propose that is maximally real, we can easily define another one that is more real still by just saying that for every possible property the old one has, the new one has a pair of that property with a matchinig impossible one. The point here is, infinity is not a quantity, it cannot be a maximum. You are basically talking about a convergent thing that diverges. Well, I could at best agree that when we speak of something, we do have some idea of that thing and the thing then exists at least in the form of that idea. But when I describe a two-masted sailing yacht that has the attribute of being my property, that does not actually mean that there actually is a yacht I own. In fact, I might as well describe a roughly sphere-shaped space station with the firepower to blow peaceful defenseless planets to fist-sized chunks and simply by defining an object O with this set of properties S of which existence is an element, I have proven that the Death Star is actually out there. Also, the step 16 I'm reading states that it belongs to the nature of the (infinite) substance to exist, i.e. it has the attribute of existence. And considering how you defined the infinite substance as that which has all the possible attributes, you are basically saying either that existence is a possible attribute or that that which exists, exists. See, tautologies are - in my opinion - valid. Circular arguments are not formally wrong, they are just useless to conclude the non-trivial. If you define something as existent you don't need to spend another dozen lines only to restate it. Would I not know any better, I would have to think you are trying to confuse people, trick them with complicated language to accept a proposition without a proper intellectual justification. And I would also say that with all due respect to language and logic as tools of understanding the world around us, we don't get to ammend that world by just defining things into existence. If we could, we could define two things into existence that are mutually incompatible, thereby proving that logic is utterly unsuitable to understand anything in the actual world, thereby rendering pretty much any and all intellectual inquiry pointless.
    • Meditation (Last post by Soma)
    • Quote: Night times just before bed. I often listen to this with Simply Rain in the background from I literally play that same video at night while I sleep. Get suuuch good rest it seems like when this is on in the background!
    • Pokemon Go! A generation lost in 1 day.... (Last post by novaadwhite)
    • I will say this with all respect intended. ;) Normally when new things come up that attract attention there will be four groups: The Fans: Those who have been waiting for the game since it's original announce & are fans of (let's say pokemon ) in general. The Followers: Those who are only following a crowd to either fit in or are curious; but will disappear once the hype goes down. The Haters: Normally , Pokemon fan's or people that haven't tried playing but want to be the one's that don't follow a crowd and make ill comment on those who do... The Nonchalant : Those who truly do not care & have no opinion. I wanted to list these because I see alot of people paying the game both fan and people who just want to follow a crowd and honestly, I have no problem with that. I wouldn't say a generation is lost because people decided to play a video game. Such a statement is the same as saying , A generation was lost because millions waited in line to see A Force Awakened on day 1. I've actually seen a video ( cannot remember the publisher ) but it featured a woman hiding in bushes trying to catch pokemon , one standing in from of a dart bull's eye game and another walking into a conference room with her phone pointed out as if the force was pulling her around, through her phone. I shared this video with friends that also play the game and their only response was "..but why are they doing that?" The reason being is that one would play pokemon go in the same standing position as one would playing flappy birds. However, due to little information and a mixture of trying to stay out of the scene, we get those who flame something they know little about. No harm is truly coming to anyone & there is no life changing culture anyone is being forced to adapt to. Me personally, and I say this as a black male in 2016, I'm glad to see Pokemon Go putting smiles on the faces of my peers with so much innocent blood being shed. So why the hate? I believe there are people who generally feel separated from others so they intentionally push themselves away from others in order to feel mentally superior. As for my opinion about the game, I do not like it.. I like the handheld versions alot better however I play the game in hopes that there will be updates to make the Pokemon Go more like Pokemon ( trading, battling , ect. ) which is the only thing that it is lacking.
    • Knights of Awakening: Jedi Safe Spaces (Charles Mc... (Last post by Leah Starspectre)
    • Quote: Quote: In doing so, you are rejecting the notion that people are different from you. I actually find science to be a bit racist when it comes to humans. Biologists do not seem to have a problem calling marginally different animals different species, but humans? No we're all the same. Except we're not, and ignoring that fact is harmful to our health. As "race" isn't formally defined and corresponds to categorisations below sub-species, it makes absolutely no sense to avoid it or redefine it for humans. I also find the humanocentrism in science (and most philosophy, for that matter) unbecoming. But I wouldn't consider Advaita Vedanta folks over in India to be racists, and they reject the notion that anything is different from anything else, which would necessarily include people. Actually, I find the idea of substance monism to be not only in line with the Force, but also an extremely viable logical conclusion (through Spinoza’s ontological argument for the existence of substance). I don't see how rejecting the idea that there is anything to discriminate against is a discriminatory idea, I think it's the exact opposite. Is a absolutely a viable logical conclusion, but the human mind and human culture is not logical. It's messy, contradictory and full of inconsistency. Philosophy and logic often exist within a kind of intellectual vacuum, which is fine to theorize about, but entirely impractical in reality. You can rarely "logic away" emotion, which is what this "safe space" debate is based on. There are groups of people who do not feel safe in their social context, whether or not they individually are in immediate danger. The point is that they feel they are not safe. The point of "safe spaces" is to allow nonjudgemental discourse in which their concerns can be heard and hopefully resolved. So rather than argue if their concerns are justified, why not simply listen and try to help them?
    • From time to time a poem (Last post by tzb)
    • Lights Out – Edward Thomas I have come to the borders of sleep, The unfathomable deep Forest where all must lose Their way, however straight, Or winding, soon or late; They cannot choose. Many a road and track That, since the dawn’s first crack, Up to the forest brink, Deceived the travellers, Suddenly now blurs, And in they sink. Here love ends, Despair, ambition ends; All pleasure and all trouble, Although most sweet or bitter, Here ends in sleep that is sweeter Than tasks most noble. There is not any book Or face of dearest look That I would not turn from now To go into the unknown I must enter, and leave, alone, I know not how. The tall forest towers; Its cloudy foliage lowers Ahead, shelf above shelf; Its silence I hear and obey That I may lose my way And myself.
    • Dilemma (Last post by Rex)
    • Thanks guys for the responses. Yeah, this person just keeps popping back in (and there's really no way to physically stop them), so I decided the best course of action was to hand over the evidence to the official leader of our group (even though they've been powerless to stop this person). I never would want to publicly reveal what I've seen, so I talked to the person and politely asked them to leave without mentioning the material. Loudzoo, I appreciate that proverb, if I see them as a problem or opportunity, that's what they'll be. Ultimately, as I'm not the only person affected by this, I will not act upon it, but ensure those with the proper authority are able to in good faith. Thanks TOTJO!

There are 134 visitors, 9 guests and 32 members online (one in chat): Guardianofwinds, Jestor, Trisskar, Connor L., Adhara, Proteus, V-Tog, avner, Khaos, Kit, Vincente, Edan, Avalonslight, Senan, peace, Jamie Stick, Cabur Senaar, Goken, Cyan Sarden, Poggenata, Loudzoo, Atticus, Adi, Tellahane, WRRPhoto, dark scarf, MadHatter, Kyrin Wyldstar, Rex, Ryder, x57z12, Leah Starspectre, Tascha, Albekl, Rahatha, Kaccani, LukaManuka, Everett9, Soma.

Follow Us