Maharani

I've tripped about ten times on each. I absolutely cannot tell any difference between the two. Certainly no muscle tension with 1P. They say that 1P-LSD is slightly less potent than LSD, but since I've never known the exact dosage of my LSD, I couldn't tell.

I've posted this in the spirituality sub-forum as well, but I feel like this framework really fits under self-actualization as well since it is very practical-minded. Disclaimer: All of these are just concepts, which can never be "truth". They are just pointers meant to aid reflexion of your own experience. Your experience is the only "truth" there is. This is my clumsy summary of a conceptual framework laid out by Roger Castillo in satsangs uploaded to his YouTube channel Being Lived. Roger is a student of Ramesh Balsekar, who was himself a student of Nisargadatta. *** What we are really looking for is happiness in daily living. The flow of Life will always be a mix of (physical and emotional) pleasure and pain*. Human unhappiness ("suffering") is our psychological attitude towards the flow of Life. Happiness is unbroken peace of mind regardless of circumstance. Peace of mind is simply the absence of suffering. Suffering manifests as 1. guilt, 2. blame, 3. pride, 4. worries & anxiety, 5. expectations & attachment to outcomes. The root cause of all suffering is our false belief in personal doership. When we examine how thoughts & decisions come about, we find that they are always the result of a person's genetic make-up & conditioning through Life. Our feeling of free will is both an illusion and a gift. The experience of being alive as a human is meant to feel as if we are free to do whatever we choose in each moment. Our own free will is never different from the will of Life (or "God's will"). When we deeply feel and understand that Life unfolds according to "destiny" (cause & effect), our attitude of doership & attachment falls away and peace of mind persists on a continuous basis. *** In Roger's words, non-dual awakenings (such as those brought about by 5-MeO-DMT or DPT) are simply means to an end: to find happiness in this human lifetime. The happiness that's available ("enlightenment" or liberation, which are synonymous in this framework) is simply the absence of our psychological attitude towards pleasure and pain: unbroken peace of mind regardless of circumstance. * Painful emotions include anger and sadness, which we only tend to know with psychological suffering layered on top: Anger plus blame, sadness plus guilt. Even after "enlightenment", we still experience emotional pain, except without the additional layer of uncomfortableness that is suffering.

It's really the same as with the strawberry cake. Say you're considering some options of active participation with your evolving conditioning. You consider listening to YouTube satsang, finding Mooji, Rupert Spira and Roger Castillo in your recommendations. You find Roger too analytical and Rupert too boring. You've never even heard of John Butler, Rupert Sheldrake or Lisa Cairns, hence they don't enter your consideration. You go with Mooji, whose satsangs have resonated with you in the past. Choice or design/conditioning? Meditation vs. self-inquiry. You've tried meditation, you've sat for two hours at a time, the thoughts wouldn't stop arising, your ass hurt. On the other hand, something clicked with you when you tried self-inquiry for the first time two days ago. You decide to enquire some more. Choice or design/conditioning? You see a video in which Leo recommends anal administration of 5-MeO-DMT, but you've tried a low dose of psychedelic mushrooms in the past and even that wasn't for you. You have no inclination of plugging your butt (maybe you even have a medical condition preventing it) with a super powerful entheogenic substance, and decide to pursue your spiritual seeking sober. Choice or design/conditioning?

We were having a conversation about truth. The point I thought I made was that even if there is an objective truth, it can only ever be "known" (experienced) subjectively, and only described in words with relative accuracy. In this sense, no concept can be true. With this disclaimer in mind, I think that the concept that "the only truth is your own experience" (more specifically, Roger says "the impersonal sense of I Am") is valuable for dissolving the belief system that causes human suffering. Words are always imaginary and abstract, no? They can only be more or less accurate, more or less useful. In any case, the concept that "Life is predetermined" is really just pointing out that your choices are a result of your design and your conditioning (including the present-moment circumstance), and that Life only ever goes one way. As far as spiritual teachings go, I don't think it gets any less esoteric than this framework. How is "the attachment to the self identity" not an abstract religious concept? ;P Tongue in cheek aside, I would appreciate if you could explain what you meant by that.

I disagree. All spiritual concepts are only ever just words. You can't describe truth with words. Classical advaita uses much more radical "double speak", such as "all there is is consciousness", "you are not the body", "the ego (person) needs to dissolve", etc. These are all perfectly valid and useful teaching concepts with the purpose of dissolving suffering. They are not and cannot be truths. I would say "accurate" contains an implied notion of relativity. It is relatively accurate to say that the total live biomass of Earth is about 600 billion metric tonnes. Can you objectively know the "true" biomass of Earth? This teaching framework uses different terminologies for the feeling/sense of "free will", and the belief in "personal doership". The former is a permanent feature of the human being, the latter can be dissolved by de-conditioning. It is a paradox, but Life is paradoxical, what can you do? Best to be up-front about it, and precise about the way you define things. Roger likes to give the example of ordering food from a menu: In the moment, you feel completely free to choose whichever item you feel like eating. But when you look at your decision, you will find that your genetic make-up and conditioning determined what you ordered. For instance, you felt like getting strawberry cake because you've always liked strawberries and the picture on the menu looked appealing. If the menu included chocolate cake, but you're allergic to chocolate, that's your genetic design determining your choice for strawberry cake. If you absolutely love chocolate cake, but it's not on the menu, that's present-moment circumstance determining your choice for strawberry cake (or leaving and going to a different restaurant). Your choice always feels free, but is always determined by your genetics and conditioning. The framework makes this same distinction, but labels "physical suffering" as pain. The circumstantial flow of Life is always either pleasure or pain. That includes momentary emotional pain such as anger or sadness, which only feel "uncomfortable" if there is an added load of (attitudinal/psychological) suffering: Anger plus blame, or sadness plus guilt. Even intense pain is a lot more bearable if our attitude towards it has fallen away. You said you agree that (psychological) suffering manifests as an attitude of guilt, blame, pride, worries and expectations. What, then, would you say is the cause of this attitude? Aren't guilt and blame based on a belief that you and everyone else could and should have acted differently?

I agree completely with the first sentence. When I say "the only truth is your own experience", that statement is not the truth either, it just points at the fact that objective truth can never be subjectively known; the only truth that can be known is our subjective experience. In my case, I do trust it and hence "hold it as a belief" because, even though I do not have unbroken peace of mind, this teaching framework resonates with me deeply and is delivered by someone I intuitively trust to know what they are talking about. (I would also say that I trust it to be "accurate" rather than "true"). However, even though, in the absence of direct experience, this is still only a belief on my part, I like to put forward the framework for the sake of argument, anyway (with the disclaimer that it is not intended to be "true"). It's not the feeling of free will that is responsible for suffering, it is the belief that we are separate and independent from Life, that we (and everyone else) could and should have acted differently in the past, and that circumstance needs to be pleasant in the future in order for us to feel complete and happy. The feeling of free will (according to this framework) will remain in place even after that belief system has fallen away. The feeling of free will doesn't need to be "held in place" after liberation; in fact, we can't rid ourselves of it even if we try. What I said was that the "no-doership-story" (i. e. this framework) doesn't need to be held in place as a belief system after liberation. Happiness, or peace of mind, is defined in this framework as the absence of suffering. Suffering is defined as our psychological attitude towards circumstance (pleasure and pain), which manifests in the form of 1. guilt, 2. blame, 3. pride, 4. worries & anxiety, and 5. expectations & attachment to outcomes. As you've suggested, this attitude evolves as a part of our growing process (around the time we learn to speak when we are two or three years old) as a result of our conditioning through Life. The complete falling away of this attitude (which occurs as a result of different conditioning, such as psychedelic peak experiences, meditation, spiritual teachings, etc) is referred to as liberation.

All of those would be described as emotional pleasure in the context of this framework. They make Life more pleasant, but they are not necessary in order to be happy.

The latter leads to the former. The good news is that we don't have to do the changing The only practice Ramesh used to suggest (and even then, "only if you feel like it") was this: At the end of the day, sit down with a glass of sherry (for instance) and look at one action you performed that day that you are convinced was your doing. Enquire what led you to do it. (The "suggested" answer being, your genetic make-up and conditioning through Life in each moment - but again, the only truth is your own direct experience)

I feel like we're saying the same thing in different words The only truth is one's own experience, which behaves as if we have agency. The story about "no agency" doesn't intend to be a truth, just a pointer at the underlying dynamics of psychological suffering. It's not a belief that needs to be held in place, especially if suffering has already fallen away (as it seems to have for you?). Let me try another angle: Would you agree that peace of mind is the absence of an attitude of guilt, blame and expectations, and if yes, what would you say causes us to experience that attitude?

For sure. It all comes back to truth being inexpressible with words. Stories are the best we can do (although of course the "goal" of spiritual teachings is ultimately to get rid of the psychological story in our heads - at least according to the story I'm offering here ). This framework suggests that these things happen "through" us rather than by our "doing". But as you've said, it depends on what story you're trying to tell. The goal of the framework is to bring about peace of mind. If someone finds it to be inutile for that purpose (or disagrees that peace of mind is the "purpose" of spirituality), a more appropriate teaching will probably present itself Not to belabour the point, but this framework does intend to "resolve" it: feeling of free will in each moment (even after the story falls away); simultaneous deep understanding of "I'm not the one doing Life" (as in, the one who grows the body or chooses to dream at night, nor even the one who creates thoughts or makes decisions - in the sense that all the decisions we make are inevitable, anyway). But as I've said, it being a paradox, it can't be resolved "intellectually". Peace

By the body's natural intelligence I simply mean the "Life force" that moves us at any moment. When there is hunger, it searches for food. When there is an interest in composing symphonies, it is drawn to that and listens to symphonies by other composers. When there is an interest in "enlightenment"/liberation, it is drawn to that and investigates it. All the same, these urges and interests are always a result of the organism's genetic design and conditioning (say, a general interest in music and spirituality because that's what our parents and peers were into). We don't have to look at it from an esoteric "God chooses" standpoint (although that might be valid, too). "Pre"-determination really just describes that in each moment, Life unfolds according to cause & effect, and that when it comes to human thoughts & decisions, the cause is always our genetic design and conditioning (including the present-moment circumstance). Roger likes to give the example of conception: The sperm and the egg meet and the organism starts growing based on its genetic blueprint. It doesn't choose to grow its limbs, heart, brain. Even in the womb, it is constantly subject to conditioning (the mother's movements, for instance). At what age does free choice enter the picture, and based on what dynamics? Is there ever another factor beyond our design and conditioning? Do you start to consciously move white blood cells through your body, digest the food you eat, beat your heart? Do you choose to dream at night? How are your thoughts & decisions different? Of course! Peace to you as well.

Despite it being a trick question, I'll answer it anyway... The new conditioning, just as the prior conditioning, is brought about by Life. The body's natural intelligence moves it toward the books, videos, substances, practices it finds interesting. Of course, Life puts all of those in place. We didn't create the books, videos, substances, and we didn't have an option of being drawn toward or "stumbling upon" different ones.

Literally the only difference/improvement in enlightenment is that your psychological resistance falls away. When there is pain, there is no attitude of "I should have pleasure right now, Life made a mistake". When there is pleasure, there is no attitude of "how long can I make this last?, what will happen when the pleasure ends?"

If you look at the pride, you might feel that it's actually a form of uncomfortableness. There's an intuition that tells you you can't take credit. Roger Castillo lists pride as one of the five forms of psychological suffering (the other ones being guilt, blame, worries/anxiety, and expectations/attachment to outcomes). There can be a pleasant feeling about something that Life brought about through you, but if there's an attitude of "I made this happen", that's the very kind of thought we're trying to get rid of because it makes us unhappy.

This framework suggests that enlightenment, liberation, and happiness are synonyms because all we're really looking for (and the only unconditional happiness that is available for the human being) is peace of mind. All that is needed to "get there" is for the belief in personal doership and the attachment to outcomes to fall away, which happens as a result of new conditioning (such as non-dual teachings, classical 5-MeO-DMT-style awakenings, meditation, whatever works for you).

The only change enlightenment brings about is the end of your psychological narrative of guilt, blame, pride, worries and expectations. Enlightenment is simply peace of mind. If there is anything you really want to experience with the psychological narrative still in place, go for it!

Once more I agree with all but the wording. It's a freedom from psychological thought & attitudinal resistance. It's not a freedom of willing Life into a different path than the "pre"-determined one.

I guess it does get a bit semantic. "Good" would denote pleasant outcomes, like the invention of medicines. "Bad" means painful circumstance, like the Holocaust. Labeling painful outcomes as "wrong" or "unacceptable" means to have an attitudinal resistance to the circumstance, in other words suffering. We can discern painful outcomes from pleasant outcomes without resisting them attitudinally... is what I meant to say.

I don't really see how the latter ("free") follows from the former ("good, loving, intelligent"). In any case, I pretty much fully agree with your post. I just think that this vantage point is sort of impractical when it comes to pondering free will on an experientially perceived individual level. I offer again this answer: There is a *feeling* of free will in each moment, but every thought and decision is the one and only possible result of a person's design (genetic make-up) and conditioning through Life.

I would say the original post is a pretty good summary of the underlying cause of suffering. Suffering is an attitude towards circumstance that is rooted in a sense of being an independent individual who is "separate" from Life. Once we recognize that human beings are extrusions of Life, designed and conditioned in each moment by Life, lived by Life in the one and only possible way, our psychological narrative of guilt, blame, arrogance, anxiety and expectations no longer makes sense and falls away. Enlightenment, then, is unbroken peace of mind regardless of circumstance. We can still distinguish between (relative) good and bad (penicillin = good, Holocaust = bad). The middle path is to recognize that any point on a duality spectrum, regardless of being relatively good or bad, is inherently valid. So the "mistake" is not in discerning between good and bad, but in labeling the bad as unacceptable or wrong. I hope this doesn't come across as semantics. If one's current "state of consciousness" is one way (OP's seems to be relatively "advanced" (peaceful) to me), why wouldn't contemplation be a useful tool for "progressing"? Although of course, "feeling" might be more useful than thinking.

What I meant by abstract/ultimate is that while this is "obviously true" in a sense, in practice the human being doesn't perceive themself as the universe growing itself. More importantly, you as the universe may be "willing" the growing process, but you as a human being cannot choose to grow a tentacle (what's up, Leo?) or transform your penis into a vagina. It is your "will" as the universe to grow the body by the laws of physics, but your "will" as a human must then be limited by that.

In an abstract (and maybe "ultimate") sense, yes. In practice, do you choose to grow your bones?, to beat your heart?, to split your cells?, to dream at night?

Pleasure, in the form of money, relationships, social relationships and jobs, even if we attain it for a period of time, will always be interspersed with (physical and/or emotional) pain. These things cannot make us permanently happy. The belief that they can is what creates our unhappiness. Unbroken happiness for the human being is available in the form of peace of mind. Continuous pleasure is not available. Happiness is when our attitude towards pleasure and pain falls away (namely guilt, blame, pride, anxiety, and expectations). When that happens, what remains is peace of mind.

I had "normal" discussions about God with friends long before I came in touch with liberation teachings. Wouldn't you agree that "what is the meaning of Life?" is a spiritual question to begin with? If not, maybe you could define what you meant when you asked us not to "throw spiritual stuff in there".

Yes. You can never let go of your conditioning. When it is said that your will is never different from the will of Life (or "God's will"), what is really meant is that all of your thoughts & decisions are always a result of your genetic design and your conditioning through Life. You are never separate from Life. It conditions you in each moment. Even after liberation, in each moment, we have the feeling that we are free to choose whatever we think or feel to do. The "ego" is a set of beliefs that make you feel separate and independent from Life. Liberation is to recognize that you are always being lived by Life in the one and only possible way. Even still, the experience always includes the feeling of free will in each moment. It's a paradox that cannot be resolved "in the head". Yes, and yes.