When you told the teacher that gave you your practice about these experience what did they say to you? I mean Buddhist practice leads to the end of suffering not to an increase in suffering (like you describe) right?
I don't have a teacher and I wouldn't consider myself a Buddhist, though I think Guatama's opinions on epistemology and metaphysics are very insightful. That the world is impermanent, interdependant, and full of suffering is so self-evident that I'm surprised no other philosopher noticed (though Heraclitus came close). Also Buddha's insight that self is a phenomena was way ahead of its time. Only after the age of reason did human beings start seeing themselves and other things as phenomena, rather than psyches. Before 1500 (and for some time after), most people were implicit
Most of the meditations I have done aren't particulary Buddhist. Being mindful of your breathing or simply observing your thoughts doesn't have any religious and philosophical content, they are just practices. I've also done some Taoist inner alchemy, but seeing as how Taoism is completely different I wouldn't expect any Buddhist experiences from those.
While I like Buddha's metaphysics and epistemology, I have to say that nirvana probably isn't for me. Nirvana is the annihilation of self, the severing of all attachments, the cessation of all passions. What I seek is the radical opposite of these: a self than engulfs and swollows up all other selves, becomes a part of everything, and burns with the white hot passion of all life! Nirvana is all about being
, but I would rather become
endlessly in an infinite number of incarnations, experiencing everything
simultaneously in one super-orgasmic moment! Since I have not even come close to achieving this, this 'anti-nirvana' (or is it super-samsara?) is only a theoretical state of being unlike nirvana which was actually achieved by the Buddha. But I've recieved enough 'whiffs' of this state in deep meditation to suspect it exists.