Fran11

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

It's not the higher the better but it is more evolved. For an individual might be negative to not match his/her enviroment (for example a green person may have a difficult sime surviving in a red enviroment). But for society as a whole, transitions from one state to another do solve important problems, that's why they emerge in the first place (for examole, if we don't transition from orange to green we destroy the enviroment). It could have negative aspects if previous stages are not fully integrated, in my country (Argentina, third world) green denies the importance of a healthy capitalism for economical development and basically want a state that spends the same a first world country can afford, which really hurts the economy and backfires.

I've been contamplating what Leo means by saying that there's no difference beetween the hallucinations you see on psychedelics and sober perception, and how to reconcile that notion with the fact that long term effects of psychedelic hallucinations are very limited (if you get a million dollars on a psychedelic trip it vanishes, and things like that). I want to check with you and give an example that might help you understand if you are contamplating this as well. You can think about it as if there are two levels of reality. The first level is that in which god creates all the appearences that we see on our bubble of "individual" conciousness. And the second level is the "story" (material physical objective reality) that God wants us (itself) to buy into. So on the first level, there is no mechanical difference beetween the way God creates psychedelic and sober hallucinations, that's what Leo means. But on the second level, becouse God is creating the story of a physical reality, it has to work AS IF we really were taking a chemical and those hallucinations were the product of it affecting our brains. That's why if you manifest a million dollars on a psychedelic trip it will be gone when the trip is over, even though there's no difference beetween the appearence of the money on phychedelics and the appearence you would have if you got it sober. A good example is a video game, if the main character consumes a phychedelic and the video game shows you the hallucinations he has while on the substance, they will be gone after the trip is over, even though the game engine is creating those images exactly the same way it creates the game's "real world". Much love from Argentina ♡

Yes, he may have considered that possibility also. Anyway, ultimately only you can decide. I'm glad its been helpful!

He did. 1:53:00 of the Outrageous Experiments video. And also you have to understand for yourself insted of taking everything literally or too seriously. In what sense do you think the universe is destroyed? You have two other possible interpretations beasides the one I alredy gave: - Every point of view of God ends. Which as already has been said would imply we should all be gone already becaouse of people in the past undergoing Mahasamadhi. - The life you are experiencing right now is the only thing that Infinite Mind is creating/will created/has created and God has non other point of view that your minuscule individual bubble of perception. What I call naive solipism. You can't prove it or disprove because you will never enconunter anything outside hour experience by definition. You have to decide by comparing your individual bubble of pereception vs the absolute, doing that, intuitively seems it ridiculous. An infinite all-powerfull mind with infinite possibilities and all it ever created was your life?

It's not so black and white. There's a wide range. It's not like all of them see really crazy shit. Some of them only hallucinate voices. Why would that necesarely imply more conciousness? Are we not all hallucinating voices when we talk to "real people" after all? Even visuals don't necesirely imply more conciousness, when you have hypnagogic hallucinations for example, you're in a below-baseline level. Don't let psychedelics make you think they always go hand in hand.

You're very welcome ? According to my current understanding, yes.

According to most traditions it continues to experience manifestetion by reincarnation or as a disembodied being. I haven't confirmed that by direct experience though so I wouldn't argue too much on that.

No, I'm not saying there's an objective material universe and that it continues to exist. The word universe in that context means your POV, because that's all you ever encounter in your experience by definition, that's the universe for you, and it ends with Mahasamadhi.

So do you deny that the ONE ocean has multiple POVs? I'm sorry but that opinion that's becoming fashionable here seems like a very naive form solipism that people use just to play games. I'm not denying solpism per se, just the one-pov version of it. Yes, you are imagining all others POVs AS GOD, not as one POV imagining others. If you really believe that why are you even bothering to reply this thread? Mahasamadhi is the end of one of the multiple POV of the One. That's what is ment by ending the universe. Even Leo in the same video says that there will remain the imagination of the suffering of his relatives if he dies.

Agree, even sober reality isn't nearly as rigid as materialist think. As your baseline of conciousness increases you come to notice it also without psychesdelics.

The more concious the less attached as a general rule.