RedLine

Why can't you practice be aware of awareness while walking ( without concentration object)? Are you saying you can only do it in sit meditation?

so you mean you can maintain peripheral awareness without concentration object? For example, walking meditation is explained as concetration on the feets + peripheral awareness of the scenario. Is it possible to do walking meditation using only peripheral awareness?

The problem I find with this technique is I am attaching to objects very fast so I have to refocus on the awareness again and again and this become neurosis. I would say this technique is uselful only for advanced yogis who have a high degree of equanimity and concentration.

do the work there is no shortcuts

beliefe = experiencie thought as content (as a reality) and not as form (a thought itself) so yeah you are not gonna remove that structure permanently with a pschycodelics trip. Best case you substitute your previous belief for the belief of the trip.

Sorry if the question looks like gossip but I am also very deep into meditation, bodybuilding, philosophy and art and maybe I could find an idea to make money from my LP following Frank example.

If you are aware enough, you realize everything is Perfect as it is, Good, Love, whatever you want to call it. But at the same time, it looks like there are suffering and that there are things better than others. For example, If you are in a position to prevent the torture and rape of a child, you would probably stop it because you believe the child is going to suffer and be traumatized during his lifetime.. You are being hypocritical if you say that everything is perfect but at the same time you think that it is better to avoid the rape of a child than not to do it. If you still arguing that everything is Perfect but there are degrees of perfection then you are contradicition yourself because "degrees of" implies "better than" so no everything Perfect. The very idea of being a spiritual teacher goes against this principle because spiritual teachers admit that 1. There are people who suffer. 2. With their teachings they could alleviate that suffering. That is, they believe that it is better not to suffer than to suffer. The only master I know who is coherent with that principle is Ramana Maharsi. He was literally willing to die in a cave, if monks hadn´t there and feed him he would have died. He responded to what was asked of him, but did not take any action to help the people, everything was organized by his disciples and he simply responded kindly.

So you are denying essence of reality is Good/Love/Perfection? That is not what I have experienced, not many others.

So, suffer is an illusion. You are contradictig yourself. Think about it. Suffer is desire of change. If everthing is ok as it is now, it means suffer is an illusion.

How can you live wit your "egoic agenda" knowing that it is not truth? How can you think "I have to get a job to improve my life", "I have to help my mom to relieve her suffer" thinking that everything is Perfect at the same time, thinking that suffer is an ilussion, think that there are not good or bad. You are pushing in opposite directions if you have these two perspectives at the same time. This paradox has make me very insecure and block me for years. What you say does not make sense rationally and does not help to solve the problem. Yes, Reality is not rational bla bla bla, but even if you were enlighten you still operate trough reason. Elightment is transrational, it does not cancal reason. You would still think about what you would cook tomorrow. Maybe it is just metaphysical/non-dual games for you all. It is not for me, it is existencial stuff for me, it hurts.

If the goal is to see the experiencia as an object, why do teachers use the label hearing instead of sound, seeing instead of image, etc? If I use the verb listening, it feels like something I am doing (I am listening). However, if I use a noun, it seems completely as an object: sound. Am I doing wrong using sound, image, sensation, odor, thought and flavor labels?

I feel I am more detachment from experience if I label sound, it feels more like I have nothing to do with then experience unlike if I lavel hearing, since it looks like I am the suject of that verb. I feel more "involved" in the second case. Do you think I am doing wrong the technique labeling with noun labels? It is very important for me to do it correctly since I am practicing this technique 3 hours per day.

It varies a lot depending of viewer's country. In my country 1M = 800-1000$. So yeah, maybe he gets what you say, I didn't take that into account.

Understood. Thank you!

Define arahatness

It is, by far, the best anime I have ever seen. I saw the anime on tv when I was a kid back in 2003 and it blew my mind, it put me in an existential crisis. I have seen it again a couple of years ago and blow my mind again. Last episode is masterpiece.

So what is the point of saying that he is in arahatness? Isn't it contradictory? He says that he is at the highter level of awareness (arahatness) and at the same time he admits that there are more deep levels. I totally agree with this. The foundation of human passion is always the same. It just take different "modalities". The distinction between Truth and Happiness doesnt´make much sense to me. Hypothetically, if someone were 100% "happy", they would no longer seek the Truth, they would not actually seek anything .If you are looking for truth, it is because you believe there is Good in truth, even when this truth would be totally horrible. I think there is something wrong with the next assertion: Daniel Igram is looking for Happiness and Leo Gura is looking for Truth, that is why they take different paths.

Read the threads from this guy: https://www.actualized.org/forum/profile/9495-matt8800/

@Enlightenment No, they are stages (they can be experrriced as states too). Read Wilber's Diaries, there he describes how is his phenomenology being in permanent casual and non-dual stages. He uses hundreds of maps from different tradicions to elaborate that map, not only theravada.

35M views in 8 years. It is around 5,000$ per year.

There are two "degrees of enlightenment". The first stage is experienced as non-ego (Wilber´s casual) and the second as non-self (Wilber´s non-dual). I am not completely sure if Location 4 equals to casual stage or non-dual stage. You can check a brief description of the difference between the two stages in Brief history of everything - Ken Wilber Chapter 13. Here a extract (this is a translation from Spanish, I don´t have the book in english): The Christian mystic Bernadette Roberts expalins very well these two different stages: https://francis.ugjka.net/eng/269 - A question on no-Self%2C Bernadette Roberts%2C Advaita%2C Buddhism - Francis Answers - 138.html I mean after his "new mode".

are you sure you are in non-dual and not regular nirvana (casual state)?

I don´t think so. He is very happiness oriented, not Truth-metaphysical oriented as Leo is. Frank Yang would probably be more willing to do it. I am very curiious to read a trip report from somebody who is in non-dual stage of consciusness (arahatness) and make the 5-Meo experiment. It could radically change our current understanding of maps of spiritual development and metaphysics depending how they describe the "experience" regarding their sober state. No joke.

Did Daniel Ingram take 5meo?

whatever he means it is an idea, not an experience