Leo Gura

Yopo seeds contain very little 5-meo. It's largely bufotinine, so not at all the same thing, but still trippy. Between frog juice and yopo, very few people have tried 99% pure 5-meo. It's like powdered metaphysics and has this hyper-lucid quality.

In other words... exactly as I've told you guys I like this idea. I'll start it, you guys contribute.

Don't underestimate mushrooms. They can kick your ass harder than any other substance. There's nothing inherently "newbie" about mushrooms, especially at higher doses. Any psychedelic can hand you your ass. And if you do enough of them, it's pretty much gonna happen. So best to treat them with respect and go in very humble. Or they will humble you like you've never been humbled before.

I've found in my journey that lots of action was very helpful in the beginning when I didn't know every much. But as I learn more, action becomes less and less relevant to growth. The best action becomes simple introspection and genuine contemplation of the problem. And then it tends to melt away and save years of action, years of action in a circle. One of the problems with people who preach massive action is that they are acting towards things that will NEVER resolve with action. But of course, true introspection is hard work, and might be called a kind of action. And external action is still important. Especially depending on where you're at in your growth.

@RossE He shouldn't have to explicitly say it. You gotta read between the lines and connect up with a bigger picture.

I will look into creating an RSS feed. Should be easy enough. As for email notifications, that's more problematic. Don't want to spam people to dead. I'll gave to give it some thought. For now, just check back once a week.

@Donald Yes, the mind doesn't like confusion, which is why people rarely invest energy into this process. And why they end up playing for it for the rest of their lives. You're gonna get what you give.

Right, well... you're a true philosopher: a lover of wisdom. I'm the same way. Philosopher's tend to love exploring the conceptual domain of reality for its own sake. Often to the brink of madness. Nothing wrong with that per se, as long as you're careful and you don't treat it as the Absolute, but more as play or art. I tend to justify my highly conceptual work to myself these days as "just my art-form." One the greatest joys I get in life is from thinking about deep abstract stuff. Then gain, if you ever do taste the Absolute, you might slap yourself in the head for all the time you've wasted lost in thoughts and how pitiful that pleasure is compared to the Infinite love contained in the Absolute. But until you do taste it, it's just hearsay, and can have no impact on you. In the end, whatever your path turns out to be, that's how it should have been. If it takes you 40 years of philosophy to finally taste the Absolute, then that's your karma. Although it would be wise to get your priorities straight as soon as possible. Because tasting the Absolute tends to change your entire outlook on life. When you know there's a big epiphany to be had which can flip your entire paradigm upside down and inside out, it might be worth making that your first priority. But that's up to you to decide. From a strategic thinking point of view, you don't want to spend too much time arranging the pillows on the bed before you've laid down the bed sheets, because you'll just have to arrange them all over again. But if something gives you joy (that is, philosophy), you do have a right to pursue it. Love requires no justifications. Basically, follow your deepest passions, AND grow your consciousness. But also keep in mind that you could just be fooling yourself And this really could all have no more significance than a dream. Maybe your karma is to be the guy who's jerking off in his own dream to the sound of his own thoughts

@username Absolute Truth -- if it exists -- is SO beyond claims or words, that it's best to not even speak of it. My approach to epistemology is totally open. Which means one doesn't know if Absolute Truth is accessible or not. At least not until one's accessed it. At which point, you'll have to make a determination. From a position of being outside Absolute Truth, it's not possible to know how you'll feel about Absolute Truth once you're inside it. And whether it's truly Absolute or not. It's sorta like you're asking what's inside a black hole. Well, you'll never know unless you enter it. You don't even know whether it's possible to enter it. But if you ever succeed in entering it -- by means you can't presently imagine -- you'll know. But you'll never be able to tell anyone what you saw. At least that's if you believe me. The reality for you, is that you don't even know if what I'm telling you is true. So now you're left with the choice of whether you want to risk seeking out the black hole, or stay on your comfy couch. What if you spend all these years chasing down this black hole, you finally figure out a way to go inside, and all you see is nothing. Wouldn't that be a trip!

1) You need to be prudent with how you do your testing, because you have very limited time and energy. So test out the stuff evidence suggests is worth testing out. And the other stuff will remain uncertain. Over time, as you study 100s of sources and your big picture congeals, you'll be able to sort stuff out much faster and better. There is convergence that happens after years of doing this process. Your intuition will pick up on subtle clues and large-scale patterns. But even then, you still gotta always be vigilant that you could be mistaken. This is not a fool-proof process AT ALL. It's fraught with landmines. That's just the nature of the situation. 2) You are even more deluded if you take the position that some things are fundamentally impossible. Notice that's a groundless assumption. Be very careful pre-judging what is and isn't possible for reality. That would a rather arrogant position, and reality will ultimately prove you wrong. The way to minimize delusion is to devote lots of energy to test your deepest beliefs with direct experience. For example, if you suspect that enlightenment might be true, you MUST go verify it with direct experience, because if it turns out to be true, it will flip your entire web of beliefs upside down. Whereas verifying something like PizzaGate probably isn't worth your time. 3) Everything is technically relevant when you start, but you can quickly cut through lots of crap. If you prioritize your research by 1) Truth and 2) Living a good life, your inquiry will become very focused and a lot of irrelevant nonsense will be easily avoided. An inquiry needs to start with a deep question. Here are some quality questions to focus your research: What is ultimately true? How can I discover what's ultimately true? What is the biggest picture of life? How do I live the best life possible for a human being? What is the highest wisdom mankind has discovered? What is most meaningful or significant to know in life? If you stick to those questions right there, you'll eliminate 99% of the dead-ends.

Religious fanatics and atheists have much more in common than religious fanatics and mystics. This is what atheists aren't conscious of. Atheists are clearly dogmatic and stuck in their minds.

If you do the exercises every day, you'll start to see noticeable gains in awareness within just a few weeks, and definitely a month. The only way to fail is to avoid doing them.

@John Flores The number of people killed by rationalism may far outnumber the number killed by Islamic fundamentalism. Don't forget who created nukes and who is most likely to deploy them (Hint: not Islamic fundamentalists). If the entire world is destroyed, it will be because of rationalism and stage Orange consciousness, not stage Blue and much less stage Red consciousness. On the list of world problems, terrorism doesn't even make the top 20.

I've visited a float tank a while back. Felt like I could meditate better just sitting on my couch at home. Dealing with the water and salt and being naked is actually a big distraction for me. Sensory deprivation is not even a desirable thing for meditation. Just meditate on whatever the senses serve up.

@Anton Rogachevski I don't understand your question.

@Markus It's rather funny because he takes these very nuanced, rather academic philosophical positions which are very easy to misinterpret and lead to huge amounts of controversy, which then gives him an opportunity to use his hyper-rational mental abilities to navigate around all the controversy and dispel much of the misunderstanding, but this takes hours of back-and-forth, and polarizes many people -- who either love him or hate him. Controversy is certainly an effective marketing strategy. Not sure if it's efficient at raising consciousness in those people who get polarized. For example, I'm not sure he's helping rid the world of Islamic fanaticism by bashing Islam and theism all the time. But that's just my opinion. He's certainly free to philosophize away. Personally, I think the best way to rid the world of fanaticism of all stripes is by discouraging people from debate, instead having them turn inward to deeply examine their desires to debate, rationalize, and take positions. By taking strong polemical positions and engaging in constant criticism, one subconsciously communicates the values which fuel fanaticism and sectarianism all over the world. In other words, in the face of hate, apply love, not more hate. My teaching style used to be more polarizing. I've been learning my lesson though and have had to move away from that style as my own consciousness rises. I don't see polarized teachings as being sustainable at the highest levels of consciousness. Because they are fundamentally dualistc. It's sorta sad for me to give up my old polarizing style. My ego likes it. It's way more fun to bash people. Oh well... another blow to the old ego I guess. The trick with highly conscious people, is that they are SO FUCKING LOVING, you cannot believe it when you see it. From the surface it appears fake or impossible. Because of that, many ordinary folks get turned off by it because it feels too sappy and lovey-dovey. It's like high consciousness has to dumb itself down to resonate with low consciousness. But high consciousness also doesn't care to dumb itself down. Which results in nonduality remaining a niche field. The paradox of consciousness: you have to possess consciousness to want to pursue consciousness.

Watch the video I recently posted in this forum about Psychedelics vs Meditation Research. The guy literally posts a graph comparing happiness levels of people having sex vs experiencing nonduality states. Hint: nonduality is far better than any sex you've ever had. If it wasn't, why would we even be talking about it? This would be a forum about porn instead.

@AxelK Certainly he's not your typical scientist or rationalist. He's sort of an enigma to me. I don't fully understand why he defends rationalism so much if he's experienced nonduality. Of course the depth of the experience is very important. But also, I bet it's possible to be an enlightened rationalist crusader. Just strikes me as an odd situation. Then again, people can be very diverse creatures. And it's risky psycho-analyzing other people so this is all just speculation.

@AxelK The ego is more than just petty name-calling or obvious emotional biases. It's also the entire metaphysical and epistemic foundation of the mind. One's entire understanding of reality is shaped by the mere fact of holding oneself as a self, not to mention all of one's philosophical positions, which require a lot of energy to defend and justify. It's ironic that rationalists tend to be very clingy about their rationalism. Rationalists tend to have more in common with the religious fanatics they loath, than they do with nondualists. Because the core problem is the position-taking and the loathing and fighting, not the content of one's beliefs. The quality of one's consciousness is manifest at the level of being, not believing or talking.

@Hunter Arrington Oh, he's quite a master debater

The Absolute is the superset of everything relative. The Absolute and relative are not separate. They are the same. But that's an extremely advanced insight. Focus on experiencing just the Absolute for now. Later you can realize enlightenment is identical to not-enlightenment and have a Fight Club moment

@SelfPeace Sure, I always recommend being well-read and pulling from diverse sources. I got nothing against reading those guys' books if you do so in an non-ideological manner. I have Haidt's and Harris' books on my book list. And I like what I've heard from Peterson so far. If all your sources were only enlightened masters, you'd be missing out.

Once the distinction of self/other is eliminated, EVERYTHING becomes YOU! Not only are other people Nothing, so are You! If you're looking for a rationalization for why you should be good. It doesn't exist. LOVE = BEING, BEING = LOVE.

@jse Sure, you can model it. But reality is not a model. So the best you'll ever get is anything but reality as a whole. Direct consciousness becomes impossible under the realist paradigm because consciousness is thought to be a subset rather than the superset. But if consciousness is the superset, it can literally BE reality as a whole! Without modeling. Without speculation. Without inaccuracy or fudge factor. Direct consciousness turns out to be the most scientific method. Nothing quite compares to literally becoming all of reality as a whole. Give it a shot! After that, your attitude towards models will be similar to your attitude towards moldy, 30-day old bread. 30-day old bread is delicious, but only when you've got nothing else.

@SelfPeace He's describing a classic mystical experience, or altered state of consciousness. Sure, they can happen at any time. You don't have to be meditating. You could be watching TV or sitting on the toilet or eating a cheeseburger. But since he was contemplating a deep existential question about meaning and life, it's not at all surprising it happened for him then. It is possible to have an enlightenment experience just from reading a book, for example. Although that doesn't mean reading books is an effective method for enlightenment. It probably isn't. It's sorta funny that he describes music as revealing the nature of being, when in fact EVERYTHING reveals the nature of being. Not just music, EVERYTHING! There is nothing but BEING! Being is exactly itself. Of course, if one has a particular fondness for music, that can push the mind to open to higher awareness. And human minds generally love music. It's a lot harder for the human mind to see the being of rape or the being of a dirty toilet. Being also doesn't need meaning. Being's meaning is being! When the human mind loses touch with the mystical nature of being, it seeks meaning. But being is always superior to meaning, provided one is conscious of being. After all, being is all there is. Also note how he refused the call of being. Because it was too radical. What would one's life look like if you FULLY embraced being or Truth? It would be an unrecognizable life. The very core of the self is set up to resist surrender to being. Which is why surrender to being requires utmost emotional labor. Which is why self-inquiry is so god damn painful and rarely done. Which is where debate comes in! Debate is an avoidance mechanism for self-inquiry.