Nak Khid

Martin Ball already did 5Meo for 8 years by 2016

.J

what's your point?

WRONG !!! there is no is

.

Notably Ralston skipped over these questions . I suspect he is not on this on this solipsistic page

yes, 100%

So do you think if some potentially lethal situation comes up requiring you to suddenly run or the like, do something energetic to to avoid being killed do you think you might be like "I'm not going to bother" .

https://mcusercontent.com/8a146e2bfe98efdd8c326d97a/files/08332a98-370d-44da-86ff-2c04a3ff1858/CHNL_Summer_2020.pdf?mc_cid=f12b90ff1c&mc_eid=3667cfd58d Ralston newsletter, correspondence with Leo Gura, p 15-16 (see link for full, inlc Gura letter) (excerpt) As for mahasamadhi, here is an edited down version from Wikipedia: Mahāsamādhi is the act of consciously and intentionally leaving one's body. A realized and enlightened yogi will consciously exit from their body and attain Paramukti. This is not the same as the physical death that occurs for an unenlightened person. Mahāsamādhi occurs only once in a lifetime, when the yogi finally casts off their mortal frame and their karma is extinguished upon death. To tell you the truth sounds like bull to me, just fantasy and nonsense, born from a belief system. If you can leave your body and function outside of it then give it a try, come visit and we’ll talk. If you can dissolve into an infinite singularity of love, do it and let me know how it goes. If you find you can’t, then you might be mistaken. This has to be more than a subjective state, however, so how will you know whether you are having some subjective experience or something physical has really changed? In the case of mahasamadhi all they are really saying is the person dies. That they are a "yogi" their death is believed to be different than mere mortals. How would they know? The guy is dead. If they were deeply enlightened (and I suspect most aren't) they will be where they already are right now upon death, no change at all, except there is no longer participation in the relative. 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. Please consider this as a possibility ~ Ralston

Satori is a Japanese Buddhist term. How would you , not having been trained in Zen, that the 5-MeO-DMT experience, while intense, is the same type of experience that Zen practitioners call satori?

Ram Dass on Psychedelics and Enlightenment, 1976

Since neither of us has the ability to telepathically talk to every Zen master who ever lived your remark is hypothetical

How would you , not having been trained in Zen, know that the 5-MeO-DMT experience, while intense, is the same type of experience that Zen practitioners call satori?

Satori is a Japanese Buddhist term for awakening. You not being a trained Buddhist or under the observation of a Buddhist who has experienced satori, how do we know what you or anybody else who has experienced 5 Meo while having a profound experience are having the same experience as satori?

My bad I thought ShivaShakti hadn't read it just the video but they did

.

what do you think of their results on research compared to google? Do you think DuckDuckgo is as "smart" ?

The topic of this thread is Ralston and he has a bias against them (if bias is the right word) and asking "How is it possible that Leo and Ralston disagree?" But it is very clear if you look at the letter, everybody has an agenda However the opinion of Adeptus Pyschonautica, the video I posted is a channel focusing on plant medicines such as ayahuasca, and psychedelic experiences, his intro is here. Look at the threads that are currently up on the main page there are mainly opinions "agendas" going on Leos last video was about being open minded. That means look at his agenda and others agendas

well at least he's not exaggerating

I see

https://mcusercontent.com/8a146e2bfe98efdd8c326d97a/files/08332a98-370d-44da-86ff-2c04a3ff1858/CHNL_Summer_2020.pdf?mc_cid=f12b90ff1c&mc_eid=3667cfd58d Ralston's newsletter, letter correspondence with Leo page 15-16 (near middle of scroll)

https://mcusercontent.com/8a146e2bfe98efdd8c326d97a/files/08332a98-370d-44da-86ff-2c04a3ff1858/CHNL_Summer_2020.pdf?mc_cid=f12b90ff1c&mc_eid=3667cfd58d Ralston newsletter, correspondence with Leo Gura, p 15-16 (see link for full, inlc Gura letter) (excerpts) Leo,You are correct, I don’t agree with your formulation, sorry. Don’t hurt yourself with the drugs, it would be sad for your brain to be damaged by overdoing chemicals, and it can happen. I will always disagree with you on the drugs, it's not possible for them to create enlightenment, but they can certainly change your state. Of course, you can become directly conscious no matter what is going on. But I will never support drugs. This is not because I am against them as a stance, I did many "consciousness raising" drugs in the late 60's in the San Francisco Bay Area, and then I stopped. It is because I know they can't do what you want them to do. Enlightenment isn't about physiology or chemistry. Timothy Leary gave it a really good try long ago, he was very serious, and even had levels on his property indicating the amount and constancy of being on LSD depending on where one was on the property. (I know LSD isn’t 5-MeO, but the message is the same). He was convinced he could become permanently and deeply conscious using it. He failed after decades of trying. It doesn’t work that way. I know he had extreme altered states, many insights, and seems he was a good person, but no real enlightenment. It is OK that you go this route, and I hope you don’t hurt yourself, so be careful. But I know it will not work, in a year or a few years you will find that out. Only you can become directly conscious, no drug or state or change can do that for you. I hope you didn’t get discouraged with the direct approach and decided to be lazy, trying to get something else to do it for you.And actually, yes, I do walk around in a constant state of kensho and satori, but I suspect you have a different notion of what that means.I think what you mean as an awakening or a direct consciousness is experiencing something first hand. This is an important thing to do in this work but you misunderstand what direct means. And you confuse brain and neurological activity and what can be experienced with consciousness. As for your other questions:1. Yes to the beginning, no to the end. There is no "will". 2. Perhaps, but I disagree with your conclusions. It isn't that way. 3. Yes, but not as individuals or entities.4. No, no one has, no human mind can be omniscient, and in absolute consciousness there is no need for it, because nothing exists. You are speaking of experience, and that kind of experience might better be called psychic or supernatural or an altered state. Are such states possible? Yes, and it is possible for one to be very powerful and aware in many ways. But no state, no matter how grand, is enlightenment. !Love,!Peter

God is Finite and impermanent as all things are Many religions in the history of the world have worshiped a finite god. The attribution of the belief in “infinity” has lead toward a de-personalizing of God. God is in actuality finite and personal but supreme above all other finite and personal beings. God has a specific nature and it includes certain limitations that are not voluntary on God’s part. Among those limitations are that God cannot know the future insofar as it contains events not yet knowable because they will be determined by free will beings other than God and that God cannot coerce free creatures to do his will. These denials/affirmations about God are necessary “contractions” apart from which the “expansion” would make God religiously unavailable if not irrelevant. Concern with the problem of evil—i.e., with reconciling the existence of evil with that of a good God—becomes acute for thinkers who rest their case mainly on the existence of evil in the world they find around them, and this has led many to realize a finite God, according to which the world may be under the direction of a superior being who is nonetheless limited in power, though not in goodness. This is a serious alternative to the idea of a supreme and unlimited source of all reality as found in the usual forms of theism. Indeed, it is a moot point whether the idea of a finite God should be classified as a form of theism. It does come close to traditional theism, however, in its insistence on the unity and absolute benevolence of God. There are clearly advantages in the notion of God as a limited being, especially where evil is concerned. Though one could still insist that God intends nothing that is not wholly good, one can now account for extensive suffering and other ills on the basis of the limits to God’s power. God is doing his utmost but there are are evil powers—that he has not yet subdued, though hopefully he will eventually do so. There is also induced in this way a sense of urgency in humanity’s own obligation, as the apex of creation, to cooperate with God—to be a “fellow worker.” God will clearly need this help, though he himself is in the vanguard of the battle against evil. Thus, those who incline to the idea of a finite God usually have been activist in thought and practice.