Osaid

If this runs on your mind regularly it will turn into a dream until you absolve it or transcend it emotionally. Meaning, your desire to hate or move away from him dissipates. Not because you forgive him or want to be with him, but just because it becomes unimportant, and so you stop ruminating over it. Dreams are created from thoughts and desires you ruminate on in the waking state. I am not saying that you are wrong or right for ruminating over it, but this is how you get rid of the dream if you want that.

IME: The withdrawals always peaked at day 4 and then subsided from there on. IIRC it took a few months, like 1-3 for the body to really get it into gear and stabilize itself. Beyond that I would say you're decently fat-adapted and you can probably experiment with adding other things to your diet which are perhaps non-keto. Look at how your body feels and whether it is improving past a certain point or not. If your energy levels don't stabilize to a decent level within a few weeks then I would be concerned about that and start adding a bit of carbs to see how that affects you. You can ease into it by slowly lowering the amount of carbs instead of going into it cold turkey. This would prevent sudden and unforeseen side effects too. Always listen to your body above all else. I recommend having coffee/tea or something with fat in the morning, it does very well for stabilizing appetite. Combine it with walnuts or some other nuts if you want, they are very satiating. Make sure your meals are satiating and fatty enough, and don't snack too much or it creates insulin spikes which make you crave things, eat all your food "close together." If you want a really satiating snack, nuts are the way to go for sure. Eggs and dairy are satiating and very nutritious too. For meeting other nutrients you can go for vegetables/berries. You can objectively measure your blood ketones through certain devices if you want.

Nice! I'm happy for you. When you don't judge the "flicker", you see it as it is. It is like a breeze passing by. Perhaps it is a desire or thought that pops up, recognize the reason and intelligence for why it shows up, and then simply deduce if it is worth pursuing. Is it pointing to anything real? Slowly and naturally you will become disillusioned if you observe it like this. Being able to enjoy what "life is made of" without any ulterior motive is exactly what love is. To love something is to desire to be with that thing, without any other motive. When the object of desire becomes existence, rather than meaning or imagination, existence literally transforms itself into the love that you want. The taste of vanilla is literally equivalent to love, because you cannot love something without experiencing it. There is no love if there is no object to love, they are actually both the exact same thing.

I like my ice cream plain, without any extra added meaning. The meaning adds calories I heard.

The "oneness" in non-duality is not a logical mathematical "one" like a digit or a number that you calculate. It is nothing. Actual nothing. It is a lack of duality or division. Anything you imagine about it divides it. Non-existence is not nothing, it is an intellectual conclusion, it is still in the realm of imagination. You never experience non-existence. Consciousness is not a thing with an "outside" and "inside", that is your imagination creating a duality from within consciousness. Consciousness does not have imagined boundaries like that. This is why you cannot intellectually get there, your intellect only deals in divisions. You must become directly aware of it by removing the false self. When you say "nothing is outside of consciousness" you might as well say "only existence exists." It is just an intellectual word salad that states the obvious but in a more complex and philosophical way. What actually is existence? Becoming aware of that is what matters. You can't figure out what consciousness is by pointing to it with things that don't exist. If I tell you "Santa Claus doesn't exist outside of consciousness", that doesn't get you closer to figuring out what consciousness actually is, because it has nothing to do with what actually exists.

I guess you mean attachment, and the unwillingness to let go of past and future. What is there to accept? The past? You are not experiencing the past. The future? You are not experiencing the future. There is nothing to accept. In between that is the present. What you currently have in the present moment inspires what you want to do. It is perfectly self-sufficient. You can't experience something which will be lost or destroyed in the future, because that requires you to extrapolate into the future through your imagination. Experience is always something that happens presently. The present moment has a self-sufficient quality where you can't really lose anything there, that is just rumination about yourself in the future. There is only a potential to create from what exists there. Desires are initially perfectly pure and innocent and self-sufficient, but they become double-edged when you use them to imagine yourself in an undesirable future scenario. Every single desire comes with an equivalent desire to avoid something, this is what creates attachment in ego. The ego weaponizes this dynamic by imagining itself in the future scenario it wants to avoid, which creates a fear of the future. This double-edged fear only occurs if you believe that you can imagine yourself, which is the basis of ego, and it is what enlightenment corrects.

You previously claimed that having powers is enlightenment, now you say that there is no enlightenment. You are either contradictory or you realized that enlightenment does not exist within the span of hours. Science will explore physical reality forever at different levels. A pizza chef will explore pizza forever at different levels. A psychonaut will explore psychedelic states forever at different levels. These are all relative explorations. And it is just how life in general operates. It generates meaning and exploration forever. It is not necessarily related to enlightenment, although psychedelics do alter your ability to form an ego. Yes. So enlightenment exists again? There are no levels, ultimately. Either you are aware of what you are, or you aren't. You can't be partially aware of yourself, that means it is false and lacking. In the same way you can't be partially aware of the color red. Either you can see red or you can't. That's literally where I am right now. But apparently you're in some imaginary world which I am trying to pull you out of. Yes, I have no experience of imaginary worlds. Apparently you do though. I'm probably the wrong person to talk about that with.

Is it possible to further understand the color red? Is it possible to further understand a pleasant cool breeze during the summer? Is it possible to further understand the smell of a flower? Is it possible to further understand the taste of a cookie? Who is it that judges these experiences as incomplete, as if it is lacking in understanding? And why? What more is there to understand aside from the experience itself? Is there a point where the color red becomes more true? Is there a point where the taste of a cookie becomes more true? Is there a point where the smell of a flower becomes more true? What are you really chasing after when you say that you want to understand?

Where is the moment where meditation stops? Where do you stop being present? Is there an activity which prevents you from being present? Is it possible to ever not be present, truly? You are labelling parts of life as "survival" and "distraction." What is it actually distracting from? Are these things really antithetical to stillness or meditation? Does reality want you to sit down in one spot forever, is that the conclusion? When you are enjoying the taste of vanilla ice cream, whether it is survival, a distraction, a grandiose metaphysical plan constructed by reality, whatever the meaning is, does it actually change your experience of the taste of vanilla? It seems you are grasping for something deeper and more metaphysical. Something beyond the taste of vanilla. Something more grandiose. A bigger meaning to it. What will you actually experientially gain from adding that meaning? Will vanilla taste better once you find that meaning? You are trying to find meaning beyond reality itself; an overarching meaning to life. But there cannot be a meaning to life, because then that meaning would have to exist outside of life, which is impossible. Life is the canvas which allows for meaning to occur inside of it. You get to look at what exists and then create meaning out of it. It is not necessarily that things are meaningless, but just that you have to first see the value in what exists, and then that naturally creates meaning for you. You are doing it backwards. You are ignoring what exists and looking for value in the meaning of what exists. You are looking for some kind of overarching metaphysical structure to justify and guide your desires and actions. It is much simpler than that, you just need to look at what you are doing and what it creates, and then decide if it is something worth partaking in.

Your idea of freedom is having superpowers in order to manipulate reality. Enlightenment is not about that. You're imagining that. An imaginary world can only exist in imagination.

The sense of self is created because you believe that "you" have experienced the past, but how can that be if you are currently viewing a memory of the past? If the past is experienced then it is not the past, it is the current moment. There can't be two of you, one which experiences the past and one which experiences the present, there can only be the one who remembers the past from the present. The only way to perceive yourself in the past is through imagination created in the present. Same goes for the future. Try to define yourself without referring to the past or future. Your mind will draw a blank. It will immediately bring you back to that state of "not thinking" which is created by observing the present moment. This is not a coincidence. This is because the self is literally made out of your ability to imagine yourself in past and future situations. Pretty sure this is what classic meditation tries to accomplish, and it seems to work to a degree. There is a natural disillusionment that comes from it over time. It's the way you're using thoughts that creates a sense of self, it is not inherent to thoughts. The self is created because you believe that you can imagine what you are. I still think but I don't use it to imagine myself. Why do you assume that you need a self in order to engage with your thoughts? If there was a sense of self outside of thought, what perception is it made of? Sound? Sight? Touch? Smell? Is it somehow void of any perception in your experience?

Imagination does not mean false. That itself is an imaginary distinction you are creating, because you are creating a duality of false and real. You are making up that duality through imagination, the very thing you criticize as false. Duality is your ability to imagine things. Pain is not imagined. Physical reality is not imagined. I believe you are conflating some kind of grandiose state of consciousness with existential truth or non-duality. What is absolutely true must always be true, or it is not absolute. You cannot get around this fact. It can't be a state or experience located somewhere else in the future, otherwise that makes it relative. If you believe that duality is true or existential, you are mistaking the map for the territory, which is to say, you are mistaking imagination for reality.

No, they always just exist as imagination. Their basis is imagination. It doesn't affect anything outside of imagination. Just because it is useful to imagine things doesn't mean it isn't imaginary. Pain is not duality. Pain does not make claims about what you are either, that is a distinction that only your mind can make. I am not denying that physical pain exists. You are assuming that physical pain creates duality and separation though, which is not the case. When you look at the color red, ideas can arise of it. However, those ideas are just ideas, they are not red. The ideas are about red, they are not red itself. Similarly, any ideas you have may be inspired by your experience, but they are just ideas and imagination. Not the fact or experience itself. Ideas must always convert experience to something dualistic.

Yes exactly. When you don't think, you can't use your imagination to point to any dualities anymore. That is what is happening when you are in that "gap." This can feel unfamiliar or confusing at first, as if you are a blank empty vessel, but that is just because you are so used to engaging in reality through your intellect that it feels impractical to keep yourself there, but there is actually a deep wisdom and clarity which can be observed in that state. That clarity and wisdom comes from the non-dual aspect of it. Dualities are literally equivalent to imagination. If I tell you to look at a chair, those words cause you to single out a "chair" in your experience through imagination. The word "chair" causes you to imagine that object and then search for it in your own experience. This is why communication and language must always fundamentally be dualistic. The way language and communication works is that you make the other person imagine things/dualities through your words. It seems like there is "blankness" or "nothing" there. This can seem confusing or unsatisfying at first, but that is only because of your own expectations of what should be there. The "nothingness" you find there is of an entirely different quality than the one you might imagine. There is actually a very definite clarity to this "silence" or "nothingness." It answers all of your questions by saying nothing. If what you were previously imagining can be rendered void by simply stopping your thinking, it should be questioned how that is existentially possible. What is actually left over when you stop thinking? How come it vanishes when you stop thinking?

Yes. This is related to the separate self; the assumption that there was a "you" in the past which saw it many times. Knowledge ties into the past self too. There is knowledge generated from that past self, that you can "know" what you are experiencing because you saw it before or heard someone talk about it before. This knowledge partitions what you are looking at into various parts and dualities, thus limiting your perception of it. That's a way to put it. Existentially, I see it as if "nothing" is generating it. It is appearing out of nothing. Which is to say, there is no thing in your experience which generates it, and thus there is no limit or context to it either. This is essentially how I see the rest of my experience too. Even calling it "imagination" or "thought" takes away from what it truly is, in the exact same way that labelling anything else would. It is just an undefined experience, it can't be put into any kind of explanation. It is not real or unreal, and it is not imagination or non-imagination, it is simply just "nothing", which means it is completely undefined. Any way you try to define it or explain it is itself imagination, catch-22. Aside from that, I practically see thought/imagination as a reaction to your surroundings. If you smell food, you will imagine food. If there is a robber in your house, you will imagine ways to fight the robber. There is not really someone who chooses to have those thoughts, but it is just an intelligent reaction to your environment. You never ask yourself "do I want to imagine something?" before imagining something, because that kind of choosing never occurs as it would create an impossible paradox.

Woah, nice, whatever it is. I think you are tapping into something really big. Time will tell. Thoughts and imagination are always partial. If you imagine reality, it limits it, and that can feel claustrophobic. I talk about that more here: Pay attention to your perception of time and your emotions, interested to know if you notice anything there.

Yes, imagination is thoughts and ideas. Imagination is also limitation. It creates "things" or "objects" and various multiplicities. These multiplicities are equivalent to limitations and boundaries. Limitations are inferences created through imagination. Experience does not have objects. It is always the whole thing. The whole thing does not have any edges or boundaries, that defeats the definition of being whole. To be whole is to be undivided. Something undivided has no limit or boundary. When the mind is quiet, there is experience, but that experience is not anything you can imagine about it. It is undefined. If you point to some part of it and say "that is me" then you have defined yourself through mind and imagination, because you have separated that part of experience through intellect, which creates identity.

If you identify with a part of experience, that is always imaginary. Because experience has no capability to partition itself. You can't experience a part of experience, you can only experience experience, which is the whole thing, not a divided part of it. Only your imagination partitions. You cannot imagine yourself, which means any thing you imagine is not you. Why do you identify with one location and not the other? Why the bias? The bias is mentally projected, it is imagination. Solidity and physicality is unrelated, but you can certainly imagine yourself as that.

Nothing. No thing. Undefined. Pure non-definitiveness. Infinite. Unlimited. You are it already. You just imagine otherwise. When you imagine what you are, you limit what you are.

You can think about the future but you can't experience it. There would be absolutely zero fear about what is going to happen to me, but there would be a desire to avoid it. You can only avoid the future, you can't experience it.

Self is what you imagine or think that you are. It is the entity that is afflicted by past and future since those are also in imagination. Physicality is not self. I have seen people say that they feel like they are located in their head, or that they are looking out of their eyes, or some such things. But these are ultimately just beliefs they have; that they are located inside of the brain somewhere. They are identifying with a specific location in their experience, which creates that "sense of self."

The same way your "self" separates is exactly how all objects separate. You can only perceive separation if you believe you are a separate entity. In your experience, there can be various sensations and feelings, but these sensations and feelings do not make any kind of claim like "I am separate from everything else", that is only what the mind can claim about the sensations and feelings. Blissful identity shifts are possible. They can feel relaxing or empowering depending on what you imagine or assume. The way that works is that it dispels whatever belief you had about yourself prior which was causing you to feel fearful or disempowered.

The same way it is possible for you. But there is no imagined self which is mixed in with my survival. The focus is just on what is physically and experientially experienced, in other words, what isn't imagined. Physical survival is equivalent to life and existence itself. There is no discrepancy. There are biological motivations which exist outside of ego, like physical pain when touching a hot stove for example. There is just no more engaging with past or future. Physical pain occurs in the present, so it is a biological motivator beyond ego. My physical survival is mainly motivated by very primal biological motivations, in which there is a dichotomy of "pleasant" and "unpleasant" sensations. Unpleasant sensations generally motivate you to move away from something, and pleasant sensations generally motivate you to move towards something. Beyond pure physical survival, I am motivated by the various other things that life or existence itself is made out of. You don't need a self to experience physical pain, and you don't need a self to want to do something. The intention to do something is a reaction to a thought that you have, it's not really "you deciding it." You don't decide to have a thought prior to when it appears, so there is never truly a decision made by "you." When you imagine a unicorn, you don't ask yourself prior "Do I want to imagine a unicorn or not?" There is no entity which decides on anything, there is just an intelligent reaction to thought. There is nothing else beyond that. I expand a bit more on this here: I only dream when I am drifting into sleep or waking up. The actual period of sleep is very deep.

Your mind might be creating things, but fundamentally the way you separate what it creates is that you imagine the separation. Separation is perceived as something you abstract through imagination. Your experience has things inside it, but it is ultimately one experience, not two experiences. Your mind abstracts it into separate objects, and thus it multiplies the singular experience into something that is apparently multiple. Otherwise there is no separation, the separation is ultimately created through your imagined abstraction. You have to translate the experience into separate pieces, like "I looked at a tree", but in actuality your experience included much more than just a tree. If you account for the whole experience, it is just one seamless undivided thing which has no separation. If there is separation, that means a part of the experience is not being accounted for, catch-22.

Probably. I'm talking about enlightenment. What you're talking about is what I call an "awakening", or a glimpse into enlightenment. There are no levels of consciousness. Your previous beliefs about reality were recognized as false because the psychedelic experience contradicted your beliefs, and you perceive this as an uptick in consciousness, but it is just a removal of belief or identity. If something is expanding, then it is finite. It is ego. It is not absolute. For something to expand, it must be separate from what it expands into. You experienced the collapse of your false beliefs about reality, you perceive that as an "expansion." You can stop imagining, yes. What is left over from that is "nothing", yes. That much is not ego. From this you conclude that "you are constructing a dream", but that is just a metaphysical identity which itself is made of imagination. You aren't constructing anything through imagination. That itself is imagination. Imagination never leaves the medium of imagination. You can't conclude anything from imagination, you can only realize it is imaginary.