Corpus

Re Culadasa (and Leo too)- make a distinction between the bathwater and the baby in it. There is value in both of the materials they provide and to make a definition of perfection, apply it and then a-judge by the definition will mean one misses out on some incredibly useful stuff.

People love childish, stupid talk, and struggle with honesty because it doesn't sit well with self-interest usually. And honesty is a flexible notion depending on ones self-interest. That's politics folks!

You are not obliged to believe him. He is a politician after all. Political power involves assessing and juggling many considerations and inevitably involves paying lip-service to worthy notions selectively, following up with force when self/national interests (as perceived) are involved, and there is no divine code of conduct which is ever followed "because it is right". Dirty business. Re Saudi Arabia- I am no geo-political expert but considerations which are pertinent, as I see it, include: What happens if the Royal family falls? As the epicentre of Islam, is democracy going to follow? Not immediately. How would this strengthen Iran? How would Israels interests be affected? How would the clerics react to "mischief in the land" when considered from the position of the Sunnah? Who would the people listen to with their present level of thinking? Could instability in The Land of The Two Mosques be a clarion-call for a new and "clearly unavoidable" jihad? How would oil supplies be affected with consequences more globally? If the UK supported US interference in Saudi Arabia, what consequences for London, where much Saudi wealth is invested? Would the UK still find customers there for its weapons, a big part of the UK economy? Would Turkey think its a good or bad thing, with the Caucasus on its doorstep, a place where "many a staunch defender of Islam" ("jihadist") has been born? How would this affect Russia, with impeders to its interests in the area, and an antsy Caucasus possibly playing up? I am sure there are other factors, but these suggest its a convoluted juggling act being a politician.

Good point. Let us examine what Cameron said. He is a politician so probably lying scum, but lets overlook that and take him at his word.

Libya, I think, is an interesting case. We need to put it into (at least) a couple of contexts to perhaps expand our understanding. The longer-standing context should include the USA's memory of its humiliation (subjectively felt) over the downing of the Pan Am flight late in 1988; the lust for revenge lingered and was not satiated by the subsequent bombs it dropped on Libya not too soon after the event. The more immediate context (relative to the time of Obamas enthusiasm for hitting Libya) was the wishful hopefulness that existed at the time in terms of the Arab Spring. Gadaffi was apparently going to send his troops into the town of Benghazi, which he claimed was full of Al Qaida-affiliated militants, to take back control and suppress this de-stabilizing force who were promoting insurrection/rebellion in the nation. To really understand how Gadaffi felt about Islamism (as its termed now) and his own political beliefs one should perhaps read "The Green Book" which he wrote outlining his politics. He was no lover of marked religious adherence, regarded it as threatening and had little qualms about keeping a close eye (and occasionally a tight fist) on those with a more religious outlook than his own. Relative to his position, Benghazi was militant but note- only relative to his own views. Ironically Benghazi did attract proper Jihadists from places such as Tunisia and Morocco, and this led in the ensuing years to the rise of ISIS affiliates and the bombings in these countries. Obama, Cameron and the French leader at the time believed that deposing the guy would lead to a democratic successful nation emerging, with the leaders instilled there, as a debt of gratitude, looking favourably on oil contracts being granted to concerned parties, and this gullible idea that its good to have democracy and it also pays well (potentially) prevented clear thinking and a more accurate assessment which would have considered the geography and tribal culture more carefully. Such thinking also played a part in the adventures in Iraq and the same poor analysis led to immanent effects for anyone minded to look. Politics is a dirty business, and it takes people with appropriately dirty characteristics to even want to ascend to political power. Obama achieved this power suggesting he has enough dirty characteristics, and focus of intent. Situations always unfold in unknown ways and these dirty characteristics may not be as successfully deployed in the presence of this unfolding.

There is a lot of wisdom in this post. There is a massive web of causality at work here, extending geographically and temporally, and a valid beginning point is impossible to identify. Kind of turtles all the way down ie Why drone strikes? Because Al Qaeda. Why Al Qaeda? Because Iraq sanctions/ Israel/ US bases in the Arabian Peninsula/ Russian-Afghan War. Why each of these? Infinite regress. Blaming Obama misses this point. The only part of Leos post I would highlight which merits some further thought is "When you are put in charge...".(4th paragraph). Obama devoted years and much effort to securing this position ie sought it out and he would have been largely aware of what it entails. Altruism, narcissism, lofty idealism and a blindness to real-politik? Who can say. Those who aspire to lead powerful nations will have a mix of both positive and less positive attributes, and it is the balance of these which can have a big impact on how high they rise, along with how well they reveal/misrepresent these to a populace who tend to be emotionally and selfishly driven.

There is no one anatomical site which would explain this, and a metabolic/electrolyte issue would not give two hoots about your state of focus. In the absence of other symptoms and no regular medication use (I assume-correct me if I am wrong) it doesn't sound like a neurological issue on the basis of the information you have provided thus far.

Does it ever occur when not meditating/doing spiritual stuff irrespective of eyes being open or closed? How do the hands feel? How hard are you concentrating?

@Moksha Is it your upper eyelids or also the lower, and is it unilateral or bilateral?

Do these quotes, the first of which has been edited, not demonstrate how defining stuff causes vertigo by its circularity? Language at work.... "Using a thorn to remove a thorn" seems like an apt bit of language to add.

Obstacles, and ignorance, are still the Absolute "doing what it does".

I'm not sure it is quite so simple. In the 3rd world, where child mortality has historically been (and to some degree, remains) high, having a large number of children with the knowing that a significant proportion are not going to make it through to adulthood with the knock-on consequences to the parents' own well-being, remains a key factor in explaining this issue. If its always been the case that this wastage is to be expected, it can take some time to alter ones thinking to align with the more current situation.

But isn't conceptual understanding a part of reality? Does reality have an opposite? Isn't conceptual understanding, for most, a pre-requisite to even becoming aware that it might not be complete, akin to a preliminary method of approach?

Understanding, under-standing ie what's it standing on; the underpinning or the ground of whatever is approached, without which there is no standing.

There is more association going on with ayahuasca than dissociation. A challenging/"bad" trip will confirm this experientially.

Good point that is not emphasised enough. Words such as fantasy, imaginary, dream and illusion carry a lot of baggage. It is not established that that was intentional, or the reason for leaving a princely lifestyle plus wife and kid behind. But all we have to go on are a load of stories. He offered enough of value to ensure sufficient provision to meet his essential survival requirements which when you think about it are pretty few especially if one lives in a climate present in much of India.

How reliable is the memory (thought) of the past event? Wasn't the past event, when present, a self-serving evaluation? Can the memory of the past be edited/modified to serve a purpose? If so, then what actual relevance can the presumed memory have to the event it purports to re-member? Also mumbling aloud.

@Cosmin_Visan I hear what you say, and can sympathise. The problem (forgive me for assuming the right to speak for you) with a forum such as this is that it is limited in being able to "teach" in a way that is universally effective, and the phrases which this place is replete with only make any kind of sense beyond ones instinctual rejection/perplexity once some work has been done. It kind of "gives the answers" without showing the proofs, and there is a good reason for this which only becomes clear when some of the work is done. If you are interested (and it is incredibly worthwhile an endeavour IMO), a good place to make some preliminary enquiries would be to look into the philosophy of language and its limitations. Remember, all of your inner chatter is composed of language so getting a handle on this would be very useful.

Absoulutely. For example, in the quote I "see" the word "Tier", not Pier, and Leos choice of décor could be an arty "bbb", or even "ggg" and he had chosen to place it upside down.

The problem could be the "baggage" which comes with the word imaginary. "Imagine", if you will that the relative reality is perspectival, and that the appearance of the brain (which is never in the first person perspective) is how "consciousness" appears in the relative domain. It looks like matter, right? Matter is the appearance of That/Consciousness/The Absolute, and "the appearance" we call "life" eg all the metabolic processes which animate this particular chunk of matter/appearance is the "appearance" of That/Consciousness/The Absolute "personalized". The Absolute imagines, and a "real" world appears- to itself, as a person with a brain. Different forms with one essence.

A beautiful demonstration of self-interest, which is always calculated. It makes one wonder if the other diseases for which vaccines have been tardily developed could have come to fruition quicker if selflessness was actually the case, instead of just opined.

These 2 quotes ^^ sum it up IMO. The luxury of time is not forthcoming; the decisions made are akin to "war-gaming strategy" and is the position we find ourselves in. Will there be unforeseen consequences? Almost certainly. Just consider the ramifications which will emerge as nations jockey for positions of access to the vaccine, and the political consequences and shifts in power this could precipitate. Any longer-term health consequences of the vaccine itself will be revealed should any occur.

The OP should also clarify if its a salt or freebase they possess, as this has implications re dosage to try, and ROA. Trying to smoke a salt and getting a crap effect may mislead you as to what you actually have (assuming its 5 MeO DMT in either form). Synthetic vs natural is a false distinction if talking about the same compound.

Isn't a "shape" an imposed concept on the imagined colour which makes it distinct from what is not the imagined colour?

And I don't claim to get it fully myself. I know I would have reached that point when @Nahm 's posts always make sense. I think....