fluidmonolith

@Serotoninluv @Nahm Thanks for the detailed thoughts and suggestions - I'll look into 5-meo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zjuDdysOL8 In this week's video, Leo suggests that the death of our egoic identity feels similar to, and in fact may be identical to, physical death. I have a related experience: A few months ago while engaged in meditation and other forms of study, I came to the powerful realization that to further my understanding of reality, I would need to be willing to die. At that time, my ego did not permit me to die. I have been considering solutions to this issue since then. I know of accounts of others who have had enlightenment experiences in which they claim a sense of physical death. I suspect I will need to accept death to move forward, but in the months since my initial experience, I haven't come to any conclusions regarding how to do it. Has anyone else struggled with this? If so, how did you overcome this challenge? Is this just an issue where more meditation and introspection are needed? Or are there other possible solutions or perspectives? Thanks

@Gili Trawangan Thanks for your reply. I have been experimenting with dmt as a form of ayahuasca, which led me to the above realization. But I've been pretty cautious with my dosage as I'm doing this solo (no guide). Perhaps a higher dose is necessary.

Please do not misunderstand - I am not disagreeing with the fundamental principles of quantum mechanics. I only question the validity of the claim that the interpretation is the science. Just as you shared a video giving one interpretation, I can share a video giving another: This is physicist Neil deGrasse Tyson. As a disclaimer, I am not claiming his views to be my own, but rather to be an example of a different interpretation of the same scientific data. We could easily argue that Neil deGrasse Tyson is not enlightened, and that perhaps if he were, his viewpoint would be different. But by claiming such, we are letting the enlightenment experience(s) dictate the truth, not the science. This is fine. In fact, we may argue that it is preferable, or even ultimately only possible, to find truth from direct experience rather than science! My only point here is that science (atleast with the methods and technologies used today) is not capable determining the absolute truth of reality. I think if we can accept this, we can let science have it's place (in the development of knowledge and technology) while spiritual seeking will have its own place too (in finding meaning, purpose, and absolute truth). [Modern] science and spiritual seeking aren't interchangeable - they both have different functions.

@Inliytened1 Thanks for sharing! While I am not a physicist, I have also watched and studied many videos and documents related to the double slit experiment. The results of the original double slit experiment and the follow-up testing explained in this video are quite fascinating, perhaps especially to those of us who pursue personal development and enlightenment. However, I still claim that the conclusions drawn in this video go beyond the true science and into interpretation, as I mentioned in my previous post. In the double slit experiments, the act of measuring the position of a photon influences the experimental results. This much has been demonstrated scientifically. However, someone decided that 'measurement' (with a scientific instrument) was analogous to 'observation' (by a person). This is interpretation. And then someone decided that 'observation' means 'conscious awareness'. More interpretation. And we can keep going down this path until we believe that quantum physics proves infinite, singular consciousness. It does not. Please understand that I am not claiming your conclusions about reality to be false. Rather, I encourage everyone to be extremely cautious when trying to understand ideas that are presented to us. We can use the results of the double slit experiment to support claims about infinite singular consciousness, and indeed, to grow we should speculate when proof is not available. However, we also need to recognize speculation for what it is. There are many ways to interpret the results of the double slit experiments, and infinite, singular consciousness is just one of them. When we think of science as being incomplete, or not caring about the big picture, we think of unenlightened scientists. We forget that we, too, are responsible for our own biased interpretation of scientific results, even if we are not in the science business ourselves.

There’s some animosity going on here, and I do want to help contribute to the conversation, but hopefully without fueling the fire. I think the disconnect that is fueling this argument can be precisely summed up by something Leo mentions frequently in his videos: to paraphrase, modern science, including quantum physics, is not the appropriate tool for understanding metaphysics. This is not inherently a problem with the science, but rather an indicator of a misuse of it. When we try to inflate science to suggest, for example, that “quantum physics says X about the nature of reality”, then we’re not arguing about the science, we’re arguing about its interpretation. Science can look within the system (of reality) and create remarkable insights and technologies. But it cannot look at the entire system from the outside, because it is itself within said system. If we can accept this idea, then quantum physics will be a lot less threatening because it won’t be (improperly) leveraged to attack anyone's worldview.

@Danioover9000 Good question. I will answer with another question. How do we differentiate between "deferring to an authority" and "verifying for ourselves"? What does it mean, on a fundamental level, to verify something for yourself? If you believe something is true because you have verified it for yourself, how do you personally differentiate that self-verification from what an authority may have told you? I completely agree with Leo's point that who or what we choose to recognize as a source of truth (an authority) is subjective. However, I challenge that "verifying for ourselves" is no different than trusting another form of authority. I am interested to hear how others think about and experience self-verification.

What is your personal outlook on the value of direct experience? How do you personally sort truth from illusion? We are often encouraged to question everything and detemine the truth for ourselves rather than blindly accepting assertions from others – with the exception of the assertion that direct experience is the ultimate conveyor of truth. I argue that we should even challenge that assertion. Before accepting that what we directly experience is true, we need to ask ourselves "are our experiences true?" Some people are hesitant to speak about insights and enlightenments they've had, with the argument that words are insufficient to describe some experiences, and can even cause confusion and mislead others. The process of translating an experience into language to share with others can introduce errors and assumptions, 'corrupting' the experience. One of the insights I've had is that our experiences aren't just translated to others - they are also translated to ourselves so that we can make sense of them. In other words, the moment the experience is over and we think back on what happened and what it means, that thought and that understanding, is also a translation. It is just as prone to error and assumption as if we were telling it to someone else. Another consideration I challenge us to make is to carefully separate experience from interpretation. For example, if I see a blue car drive by, I can say "I see a blue car", but I might also be tempted to say "there is a blue car driving by". The former is true (after all, I did experience a car driving by). The latter is an interpretation and is possibly true, but not necessarily. Separating raw experience from interpretation is subtle but, I would argue, of the utmost importance to those of us in this community. The blue car example is a silly one, but as we pursue existentially meaningful experiences that can become more and more separated from the reality that we perceive on a day-to-day basis, separation of experience and interpretation becomes critical. So that is brief summary of my outlook and experience. But I am curious as to how others arrive at their own conclusions on direct experience. How did you, personally, decide that direct experience is the source of truth? And if you haven't decided that, then how do you, personally, decide what is true and what isn't? Thanks

I agree completely. I have used a rigid meditation schedule (X minutes per day, every day) in the past, but I gave it up when I found that the quality of my meditation was poor. I now meditate when I want (which is ultimately less than I did before), but I still meditate regularly, and I can meditate with much more intention and less obligation.

I recommend backing up one step. Don't ask yourself "How am i God?", instead ask "Am I God?" Some who believe that to be true do so from experience, not from argument. Arguments work for science, but they will not work here. Someone else's argument cannot become your experience. Ask yourself if you are indeed God, and if and only if you find the answer to be 'yes' (or even 'maybe'), then you can ask how. Finally, be ready to dedicate some time to finding your answer, this is a difficult question.

@Eonwe5 I can agree with this. I think the biggest difficulty is sustainability in a new practice. There doesn't need to be mandate to do something (like cardio) every single day, unless you're confident that you can sustain that activity forever. On the other hand, convincing yourself to do something unpleasant can be difficult, however it is crucially important. So I try to combine these two. It's ok to miss a day now and then to keep yourself sane (or more frequently as needed). But it's not ok to give up or to make excuses (e.g. too tired, not enough time, etc). In reality, there are rarely perfect opportunities to work on unappealing things, so we have to do it even when we don't feel like it. But all of this ignores motivation. By motivation, I am not referring to an inherent quality that some people have and some don't, or a quality that we need to build up. Rather I mean "why do you want to accomplish a goal?" If you're not really convinced that a goal is important to you, it will be hard to put much effort into to accomplishing it. To paraphrase one of Leo's videos (unfortunately I can't find which video it was to link here), we often drastically underestimate the time and energy that will be needed to accomplish a significant goal. This results in discouragement when we don't accomplish our goals as quickly or easily as we wanted to. To counter this, I would encourage you to contemplate why want you a specific result (e.g. the result of the exercise you mentioned). Spend some time considering why it's important for you. What will happen when you achieve it? What will happen if you don't? Try to assign a value to it. How much of your time and money is it worth to you? How much of your willpower? How much of your comfort? And realize that there is opportunity cost in accomplishing any goal. We all have finite time, money, and motivation. I would encourage you to make sure that your most important life goal is progressing acceptably first, and if not, work on that. Then, if you have extra time/money/energy, you can invest some into something else too. It's ok to say no to some practices in order to give you the resources to progress in more important ones. No one can be perfect at everything. @Mu_ I have used exactly your dieting example to make changes to my own diet gradually and successfully. Things like drinking less sodas or less sugar intake in general. I don't say "I can't drink sugary drinks", I just say "I won't buy them frequently." And when I get accustomed to a reduced level of consumption, I can then slowly reduce consumption even more. I can look back over several years and see how much my diet has improved, but I think it will require the patience to allow such long time periods to accomplish lasting change.

I have been using Cycloastragenol. It is not a nootropic, but it does have nootropic effects, atleast in my experience. Leo mentions a slowing, or “brain fog” that is likely age related. I take an anti-aging supplement called Cycloastragenol. A bit of science background…Telomeres are strands at the ends of our chromosomes that shorten with each cell division. The telomeres don’t code for anything and are solely protective of useful DNA. Once the telomeres get too short, the cells will (hopefully) stop dividing – if it does not, it can start losing useful DNA with each division, which can cause mutations (e.g. cancer). If the cell does stop dividing as it should, this is called senescence. A senescent cell has limited capacity to repair tissue since it can't divide and make more cells, so as more and more of our cells become senescent, general functionality declines. According to the telomere theory of aging, shortening telomeres are responsibility for much or all of the aging process in humans, and re-lengthening short telomeres would, in theory, slow or even reverse aging. Note, it is not proven that telomere shortening is the primary cause of aging in humans – currently it is only one among several theories. Cycloastragenol is a naturally-occurring molecule found in the Chinese plant, Astragalus. It has been shown to stimulate telomerase activity in humans (and mice), which is the enzyme that lengthens telomeres. Now that the background is out of the way, how do you take cycloastragenol, and what does it do for you? I have been taking 10mg cycloastragenol capsules daily for 2 years, and I have experienced nootropic effects that increase mental alertness and capacity for complex thought – this has been useful for me since my work can be cognitively demanding. These effects are probably more of a return to optimal mental function rather than hyper-functionality that Leo describes for some of the supplements in his video. The effects are significant, but too mild to be compared to any stimulant or psychedelic in any way. Cycloastragenol is intended as an anti-aging drug, not specifically a nootropic. I have experienced other effects as well, including decreased tiredness during the day and higher metabolism. Other users report better quality of sleep, faster growth of hair and fingernails, and quicker recovery from physical exertion and illness. I have not experienced any side effects. These pills are not addictive, and I am not aware of any tolerance that the body will build up over time. The effects have been persistent (e.g. there’s no peak and decline after you take it), which is to be expected of a treatment that repairs the body – the effects last beyond the half-life of the drug in the bloodstream. However, the onset was slow. I took this drug for about two weeks before noticing any effects, and I can stop taking it for around 1-2 weeks before I will notice its absence. I do not take any other supplements. Cycloastragenol is available in a form called TA-65 from TA Sciences. These are 8mg cycloastragenol capsules and are fairly expensive, around $6-$7 per pill. There are also generic brands that are more affordable. I take a generic version, which is around $1-$2 per pill for 10mg pills. You can also purchase 5mg and 25mg pills, but I have not tried any dose other than 10mg/day, so I can’t predict how these would work for you. These cheaper pills are from likely Chinese companies, but many manufacture the product in the U.S. Such products include Nature’s Bliss Cycloastragenol, Counter Aging Wise, and Crackaging Cycloastragenol, and all of these can be purchased through Amazon. Disclaimer: I am not a medical professional nor am I involved in or make money from the sale of any of the products I discussed here.

It is definitely not a waste of time to learn science. It is only a waste if science is the only thing you ever learn.

Thank you for the advice. It was this video: Leo was specifically referring to mindfulness meditation in this video but the advice given is useful for other meditation practices as well. See 39:45 - 46:00 (approximately). Again, to summarize (paraphrase): "do it every day, without excuses or holidays or vacations or bad days or busy days". This section of this video has been of the greatest use to me.

Unfortunately I don't recall the name of the video that helped me the most, but I believe it was about meditation. It was the video where Leo said (to paraphrase) "meditate every for atleast 20 minutes or you'll never figure it out."

That is something else I do not know at this time. It is very puzzling to me because some people seem very certain that they know things, whether they are religious leaders, gurus, scientists, or people with no credentials at all. But in my experience, nothing is certain. Absolute certainty typically seems to be a result of the mind grossly over-simplifying things or making foundational assumptions about reality. Of course, just because I can't claim certainty of knowledge doesn't mean others can't. But I will also not just take anyone's word for it that they know something, without any additional evidence.

@Shadowraix I also have this question. Non-duality is an attractive idea, but I know better than to believe it just because others do. As you say, that wouldn't be any different than accepting another ideology just based on popularity or authority. But we are still left with the question of where we derive truth from. Is it inherently better or worse to believe ourselves (our own experiences) than to believe others? And how do we know?. For a long time, I had the impression that questions like these could not be answered. I knew that these fundamental questions existed, but I didn't spend much time trying to answer them because I thought an answer was impossible to arrive at with any certainty. More recently I have decided that it might be possible to answer these questions, but I'm not yet sure how to go about answering them.

Anyone can only prescribe the techniques that have worked for them. For Leo, that may have meant reading hundreds of books. For others pursing enlightenment, perhaps not. For example, some people attain enlightenment experiences after years of dedicated practice and meditation while others attain it seemingly randomly without ever meditating. Leo mentioned in his video on mazes that everyone's maze is different. Reading 300 books may have been integral in solving his maze, but that doesn't mean the same is true for yours.

I think the point is that the masters can't show us how to get there. We can only show ourselves (but gathering information from others is perfectly fine too, and probably speeds up the process by lifetimes!). Imperfections in the teacher aren't equivalent to invalidity of the teaching. It may be accurate to watch Leo's videos and think to yourself at times "Leo is being arrogant here", or "Leo seems really unloving and distant here". But who cares? Only the ego. We can gain insight from the successful and the failures alike, if we are willing to ignore the ego telling us "this guy is dumber than me, why should I listen to anything he says?". The more we can shut down the ego, even if just temporarily, the more we can learn from even mundane sources. Because the real teacher in self development isn't an external expert, it's you.

I agree. Work on yourself first, and then your behaviors may teach others more than lectures. As an example, I have tried for a few years to get my wife to practice self-development techniques to reduce stress and become more open-minded, but these attempts were essentially lectures, and not very successful. Recently, she went with me to a meditation retreat, and she told me she did so because she saw the results of my own meditation practice. She had never meditated before, and I didn't ask her to go with me, she volunteered. Some of my relatives seem to be starting to see value in self-development too, but not because of anything I've said to them, rather from changes they can see in me as a result of it. I think as we become more self-aware, we're able to understand and accept others more and more. This lets us help them without ego getting in the way. Not everyone can see their own ego (without practice), but most people can see other people's egos, and they will resist help that comes from ego rather than love and acceptance.

Thanks for the response Leo. You are right, I don't see it...yet. I have been working on personal development through self-actualization, contemplation, and introspection for many years now, but non-duality is a new concept to me. Your work here (as well as others, like some of the sages or gurus you've mentioned in your Spiral Dynamics stage turquoise video) has been a big part part of that introduction. Thanks for all of your work here, I appreciate it, and I'm sure many others here do as well.

No worries, none taken. I am still contemplating the concept and implications of direct experience as the source of truth. In all fairness, I do realize that I am probably asking the impossible to say "prove direct experience to me". And even though I may be skeptical of some claims regarding reality (again: not that I think such claims are wrong; just that I can't confirm they are right), I am still interested in sharing those experiences.

That's the difficulty in using direct experience to derive truth, right? That experience can't be shared or even really agreed upon by others. In this example, we have two possibilities: 1) Taking 5-MEO causes people to exit the dream and see true reality 2) Taking 5-MEO causes people to think they have exited the dream and seen true reality. If one hasn't taken 5-MEO, it makes sense that they would expect case (2) above. I have not used psychedelics, so I cannot personally validate or invalidate them at this time. The best I can do at this time is to admit that both (1) and (2) are possible. I suspect if I did try psychedelics, I might draw similar conclusions (that I am have seen reality outside of the dream). But I still have a problem with this conclusion. Even if future me takes 5-MEO and decides that case (1) above is correct ... that doesn't mean it's actually true! All it really means is that I think it's true. Even if I trust my experience completely, that doesn't mean that I'm right. Right? In other words, even if someone takes 5-MEO and then agrees with you, that just indicates agreement, not truth. I'm not saying that case (1) is wrong. I'm just trying to figure out how direct experience alone is sufficient to make it true. What am I missing here?

@Sbilko I can understand the depression that results from the conclusions of current science about the fate of the universe. That it will end someday, and even before then, will become isolated pockets of matter separated from each other by uncrossable distances. It would be nice to be able to think of the universe as having limitless potential, and with a finite endpoint, it cannot. Rather than searching for inherent meaning in the universe to provide this idea of limitless potential, I think we will become wiser by finding contentment within ourselves. Wishing for universe to be a certain way to provide us with happiness can only lead us to lie to ourselves, or suffer needlessly.

@SomethingFromNothing I can't explain why the universe came from nothing because I am not aware, at this point, whether that is true or false. However, if I ask "How did the universe come from nothing?", it sounds like I have reached a conclusion without really understanding that conclusion. Before I can ask that question, I need to answer a more fundamental question "Did the universe come from nothing?" Unless I really know that that's true, how can I answer the next question? How do I know the universe came from nothing? Because someone told me and I believed it? Because I experienced it? Because I rationally thought it out and came up with something that makes sense to me? I think language is also a barrier here. I will admit, a lot of the language used in these forums is very hard for me to derive meaning from, likely because we all have different perspectives and experiences, and sharing those experiences is not really possible with words. We must contemplate the questions "What is something?" and "What is nothing?" before we can even ask questions like "How does something [the universe] come from nothing"? Part of this process of contemplation could include the realization that we are all interpreting reality from a set of presumptions, or foundations, that we assume are true, but may not may not actually be true. In this case, the presumption is that of cause and effect. We assume everything in our everyday life has a cause (because it seems true in our experience, right?). In many instances, we observe "something" existing preceded by "something else" before it. We never see any obvious "something" sprout up from a "nothing" (I'm using these terms in quotation marks because we haven't really defined them yet). I think it is a mistake to conclude that (1) our perceptions are always correct, and (2) what we perceive in one case will be true in a different case. Just because everything we can see around us was preceded by something else doesn't mean the same is true for the universe. But in any case, I would start with really contemplating the meanings of "something" and "nothing" before trying to figure out if or how something could come from nothing.