Virtually

@amenX was your friend on a low sugar diet?

Not just exploring more content, but becoming more conscious, on a structural level, of what consciousness itself is, regardless of the form that consciousness is. Am I getting this right? It's kind of hard to find this distinctions being made elsewhere

This

Cool, thanks!

@Leo Gura that seems to suggest why Jung became increasingly creative when he started to get schizophrenic

@Fran11 it's like the distinction between difference/being and meaning; meaning is second order but as if added on top, or a result of the "organization" of differences, so to speak. Interestingmetaphor, thanks

That's exactly how some researchers in cutting edge cognitive science are starting to frame the cultivation of wisdom, one example is John Vervaeke and his work, which deserves more attention in my opinion

https://m.soundcloud.com/epicmountain/forbidden-cave Never tried this while tripping, maybe you guys can give it a try

@Aaron p I have a hunch that it was the AL-LAD video, where he talks about going beyond the fear of madness (not sure) But he mentions going crazy many times, and a few days ago I was trying to remember which video mentions the topic of madness myself

I'm writing this trying to make sure I don't bullshit myself on the path, given that two of the most reliable teachers I've learned the most from are disagreeing on such central issues, which I was not expecting I just read Peter Ralston's response to mail Leo recently wrote to him, and I found some major disagreements on fundamental matters. You can read them yourself on page 15 https://mcusercontent.com/8a146e2bfe98efdd8c326d97a/files/08332a98-370d-44da-86ff-2c04a3ff1858/CHNL_Summer_2020.pdf?mc_cid=f12b90ff1c&mc_eid=3667cfd58d So here's my take: there is some misunderstanding going on, especially due to the language Leo uses when he communicates, to which Ralston responds: "Direct conscious is not relative and so there is no this or that. In your descriptions of awakening there are a lot of this’s and that's, here and nowhere. You may well have had some insights but I think you are also making conclusions about it and extrapolating out where things might go", pointing to 'conclusions' Leo made about the nature of Love As far as I understand it, Ralston is concerned that Leo is mistaking the exploration of relativity with direct consciousness, which is what some users on the forum also said about Leo. They stated things along the lines of "levels of consciousness is a relative matter, no matter how high your level of consciousness is" Once you get to the realization that relativity is identical to absolute, all there is left to do is to transform relative experience and raise your level of consciousness to match that. But that is different from direct realization. I don't doubt that Leo has had genuine enlightenment experiences on 5-MeO, although it seems to me that he's confusing the enlightenment itself with the state that better allows an awakening experience Also @Leo Gura, as far as you know, has Ralston ever taken 5-MeO? He seems to be making such claims about the substance without having ever tried it, or only after having tried psychedelics for recreational use in the '60s

If you get good with dreamwork you'll have trained yourself to do lots of telepathy already. Granted, in dreams it is easier, there is a lot more interconnectedness and fluidity

Sounds life-changing. Were you still able to function when you said you lost your mind? Given that you didn't fall back to your old ways I think he'd dismiss that as a subjective state ahah

@Meta-Man It's like Kant is wrong and right at the same time

God... I can only imagine Yep

Infinity to the infinity times infinity. Sure, that's the scope of reality, that's the scope of relativity. You can go on for and ever and that still would not be enough. But I didn't go that far Noo, I thought I found the final formula, but here you come...

I like to say "Nothing changes". Get it?

Exactly. It's an on and off thing. That's what makes understanding possible: there is understanding you're god, and not understanding you're god. I'm not claiming you can achieve awake without actually awakening. Infinity includes the possibility in which you become infinity. But you were the whole time You can lose it precisely because it's a relative state. Infinity must include both possibilities. You can understand infinity, but Infinity itself can't be a distinction. It is all distinctions. God can understand he is God, precisely because he can also NOT understand that, as you say. But it is infinity/god/nothing at all times, God loves himself infinitely whether you experience that or not. So in that sense satori IS a state, and it's not infinity, to the extent that every-distinction is and is not infinity itself. I would be cautious with Ralston's claim and clarify what "knowing" you're everything all the time means. As he sais chapter 9 of genius of being you can't survive within "no context". So he goes on to say that you can create a new context for experience that is inclusive of the understanding retained from the awakening. Sounds like what embodiment is about to me, and not "direct experience all the time".

I think the entire point that Ralston's making is simply: do not confuse this state or that state with the "fact" that reality is states. One particular state is not enlightenment. Enlightenment is realizing reality is states, or you could say getting stuck in relativity vs realizing the absoluteness of relativity. I'm sure you're already aware of this, and also my formulation makes it look binary and simple. But it's to underline what I think the disagreement is Satori is not a state. You can't "experience" satori since satori is everything already and has always been everything, even "before" enlightenment. The fact that you understand satori is a state: the understanding of satori that you retain is formed, and so it must itself be a state. That's what makes it possible to understand it at deeper and deeper levels.

@Consept gotcha

opic the answer in my opinion is that Leo is not yet enlightened For all we know that's still a possiblity. But I can safely conclude from it's content that he is, so I guess I can trust him most of the time I'm still open to this possiblity. Experience will tell. I'd have to go deeper in the psychedelic path I have no idea what it is about once you "get to" the point that he is at I agree

True. I want to reiterate that I created this topic for clarifying the matter for myself and hopefully for you guys as well, and not for criticizing Leo

Lol, it's the letter that gave birth to this whole conversation

@Nak Khid About the video: I don't think the guy is on point. That's not something I am concerned about. You realized you're god? fine. Is that true? Because that's what matters. You can make an as outrageous claim as you want, as long as you're not fooling yourself. How can I know you're fooling yourself? I go there and I verify that, which means that I either prove it true or false. You can go around claiming you're god, but what that really means is what matters. There is more to it than what the guy in the video portrays it to be Given what Leo claims about god (especially god = you = reality. Nothing new under the sun. just look at Giordano Bruno and lesser mystics from history), the difference between his teachings and other spiritual teachers is only in terms of depth/breadth/degree

@Nahm ok that makes it much clearer, thanks I think that's exactly the reason I started this topic: I find the same kind of language that I used in Leo's points See the ways he describes his experiences with 5-MeO to Ralston, to which he responds: "go there, then come back and tell me what it was like"

@Nahm Can you please clarify what you mean? I don't understand what part of the conversation you're referring to