Fran11

Unenlightened waking state: World Perception Enlightened waking state: World Perception + Conciousness of the Absolute. Enlightened deep sleep: Conciousness of the Absolute. Unenlightened deep sleep: Neither World nor the Absolute. But it's still a state of the Relative layer of conciousness. This layer has infinite levels, it can be very high or completely off without content nor God-realization like in deep sleep. Deep sleep is a state of conciousness.

I thought that point was clear but it may need expansion: He only percieves this false "mis-match" beetween his body and his mind because of social stereotypes. If society didn't have such stereotypes, this person would be able to have any type of personality and behavious (even name and bodily modifications if wished) without other members of society and himself percieving a "mis-match". As society progresses changing genders will ultimately be irrelevant because without such sterotypes it would just be chaning an irrelevant empty label.

People who comform to social stereotypes are not the ones who get hurt by them. That's like saying someone who is making an argument agasint racism should clarify that he's also against the (non-existing) marginalization of white people. Or that someone making an argument agains wage inequality beetween man and women should clarify that he doesn't propose that men earn less than women.

@Forestluv You are projecting onto me things I neither said nor meant. Tell me where did I say or imply that someone who willingly wants to do things that society considers "appropiate" cannot? I respect you and don't wanna seem rude, but it seems you just got triggered and aren't even trying to understand.

@Forestluv Ok you seem to be actively trying to misunderstand me, did the post trigger you that much? I think I was clear enough, maybe you need to cool down and read again with an open mind.

It's not like that. You tastes stay exactly the same/you change them at will, without having the limitation of other people labeling you and you having to change irrelevant labels in order to match your tastes. Just imagine a trans person doing what the fuck she/he wants without having to legally change genders in order to match society's stereotypes. It wouldn't be called trans anyomore because such notion depends on the prior existance of genders. I know it's not possible right now, that's why I clarifyed I was thinking some time ahead.

You get it

I get what you mean but we are talking about diferent things. My poimt is that you can only identify as trasgender if society has ALREADY programmed you with gender roles. See, "Behave as a boy", you assume there's "boy behaviour" and "girl behaviour". There's not such thing. Without such stereotypes no-one wouldn't say that and you wouldn't even need to change gender. You need to think this deeper.

I agree, it's a necessary intermediate step.

You won't confirm reincarnation even if you have a direct experience of the absolute. You have to become concious of the subtler levels of relative reality (astral and mental planes in Hermetic terminology) in order to percieve these sort of things. There are specific techniques, but your conciousness has to already be in a certain level or they won't work

@electroBeam Wow you took the word "seriously" too seriously I just ment it must be a priority in your life. Most cases of people not progressing it's because they just play around with spirituality. I liked the park example. In my experience, permanent mindfulness and constant identification and rejaction of the "I thought" are much more powerful than they seem, in the long term.

Of course, we're the same page on that one. But don't you think you are being unfair with everyday conciousness work saying it takes 40 years of meditating on a cave in order to achieve something significant? I've been doing conciousness work for five years now and I can go into Samadhi while meditating (can't control it much and it's not as deep as on psyches, granted, but still). If an average person practices seriously he/she will become orders of magnitud more concious over a couple years. Even if this level is not as high as what you can achieve in psychedelics, it will improve everyday life more than having had a peak of full God-conciousness. Again, I recognize the value of such peaks and I am very pro psychedelics, but long term practices are just irreplaceble.

Yes, I recognize that and I understand the value of having peak experiences. But whatever baseline level a particular indivudual can reach, he will do it mostly by everyday conciousness work, not by tripping (although it's better to do both of course). I use and love psyches, but they get gloryfied as the ultimate spiritual tool when as far as rising your baseline conciousness goes, they are not of much significance.

Fanatic psychonauts should study the occult. So that you stop understimating what sober conciousness can do by projecting your own level onto others. You'll be amazed when you meet people who can do things you can't do no matter what dose of mashrooms you take. Psychedelics are GREAT, but some of you people get dogmatic and close minded when their limitations are pointed out. They are not as powerful as other mehods to rise your baseline conciousness. Maybe some of you just care about having big peaks, but if you want to ALSO have a very high sober conciousness, they won't spare you of the hard work.

Psychedelics are the best tool for achieving conciousness peaks. No question about that. Almost foolproof. But if you want long term results they can't be your only tool by any means.

Yes, the quote is from I Ak That and Nisa actually clarifies that in another talk

Strictly speaking you can't focus on awareness because it's not an object. Consider that anything that you can put your attention on, is an object INSIDE awareness. However when you advance enoguh with meditation you learn to rest/relax your attention without putting it on any object (you may call it "objectless meditation", "resting as awareness", even "focusing on awareness" because altough not technically correct it may feel like that). Like I said, you can break through meditating on an object also, if you achieve one-pointed concentration (if you feel like you have achieved and nothing happens, it's becouse of subtle abstract thoughts which you don't have the mindfulness to notice yet) In conclussion, completly stilling the mind either by deep concentration or deep relaxation is generally what it takes to experience ego dissolution (at least for the fist times and without psychodelics).

Self-Inquiry is one of the best methods for long term dismanteling of the ego, along with permanent mindfulness. But it's hard to experience ego death at least for the first times just by self-inquiriyng. You need either to achieve one pointed concentration on an object, complete abscence of thoughts both gross and subtle (by resting your attention on awareness, objectsless meditation), or use psychedelics.

You've realised "no-self". You have realised that the entity which sees your visual field, hears your auditory field, thinks your thoughts, moves your body, etc doesn't exist. Your whole life you believed that you were an observer watching the screen of conciousenss and now you have seen that the screen is actually self-aware. The fake I comes into existance by a low level of conciousness which posibilitates it's identification with the "psychological I". Now you need to go for the actual experience of ego death, there's still a long way to go!

As he says, many many answers, none of them satisfying

Yes, but Magick uses knowledge about the laws of higher planes of existance (astral and mental planes) in order to change some aspects of the material plane. It's not different than using knowledge about physics to influence reality. It's still limited because it's not really breaking nature's laws, although it might seem that way to cluless people. I agree with @peachboy answer mostly.

So basically your whole point is that you call "ethics" what I was calling "evolution". Enough word game. Have a nice day

They are RELATIVE human notions that change over time. God is absolute truth beyond such notions. Everything you call "bad" is also part of God/Reality by definition. If lower SD stages were "bad" and God was "good" like you say, those stages wouldn't exist and we would automatically be born turquoise. Regading the spiritual path being "better" than samsara, again, only YOU are saying that, I didn't. It's a matter of evolution, FIRST we get disatisfied with samsara (probably over many lives) and THEN we pursue spirituality. I don't consider people who haven't got to spirituality yet "less ethical". Stop trying to equate evolution with morality/ethics, they are not the same. Yes, evolution does go in a particular way, but calling the early "bad" and the advanced "good" is a human projection

No, you are assuming less or more evolved mean good and bad. Has nothing to do with an ethical system. Are minerals and plants worse than humans? No, humans are more sophisticated and took more time to develop, but they couldn't have evolved if minerals and plants weren't there in the first place. Higher conciousness doesn't make you more loving and compassionate because you suscribe to an "objective" ethical system, but rather because you recognize your own conciousness in other beings, and why would you wanna hurt yourself? There's a BIG difference beetween buying into some objective morality (which if you follow you clasify people as "good" or "bad") and recognizing developement makes you more loving (you don't think of people as good or bad, rather you see there is a progression form selfishness to selflesness). The huge consecuence is that you stop judging "bad" people.

Agree, good answer