zurew

I don't think its totally spontaneous. Even what seems spontaneous doesn't necessarily spontaneous. Also why these masters teach meditation yoga contemplation etc, if they think / know that it is spontaneous? It doesn't really make sense why would Peter teach about contemplation and enlightenment, if he really thinks that it won't help at all.

Would you say, that you can be really highly conscious, when you are really drunk (when you are so drunk that you can barely speak)? Also, i would say that even if what you are saying is true (that we can make a really clear distinction between states and levels of consciousness), there seems to be limits to certain states how much consciousness you can hold. I wouldn't say, that you can hold the same level of consiousness being really drunk compared to being sober or being high. So being in a certain state seems to determine how conscious you can get.

You don't know that. Maybe its totally random , but maybe not. If it would be totally random ,then why most spiritual teachers doing decades of spiritual work before they get enlightened? Also why some people say they get instantly enlightened after they are doing psychedelics? Just because Peter Ralston says something , that doesn't mean you have to take it for granted or as truth. Saying that relative stuff doesn't have anything to do with enlightenment would imply that there is no reason to do any yoga, contemplation , psychedelics or meditation or other spiritual practices. Or if you want to say, that even though they don't produce enlightenment, they can make it more probable, then we go back to the same debate, which method is the best or what methods are the most effective.

How?

What you don't yet understand is that your dream is made out of consciousness and you are too. Thats why ultimately speaking there is no difference between the things you are talking about because the "bulding blocks" of you and your reality is consciousness. Both "fantasy" and "reality" is made out of consciousness. It doesn't matter if right now you have the ability to change the dream or not. Because its still inside your consciousness, and its still made out of consciousness.

What would limit God to make Absolute copies of itself ? You are totally right in the 'you can imagine them into reality'. Thats true. However, we are talking about someting that is outside of your imagination. Basically something that you are not conscious of. You are 100% conscious of your solipsistic dream, you can create whatever you want, you can be whatever you want to be. I know, that nothing can be outside of my imagination/consciousness because i can't stop imagining, and thats the point, that from God's viewpoint nothing can be outside of his consciousness, because he is unable to stop imagining. He cannot escape his imagination. He cannot be aware of anything that is outside its own dream. The only thing that could be separate from God is an exact Absolute copy of God. Being Absolute comes with this cost, that you can't be conscious of other Absolutes and you can only interact with your own dream. These bubbles would be separate. They would be separate, because each God could do whatever he wants to do in his own solipsistic bubble, and no other God could intervene his dream. This is the Absolute power, being able to clone your Absolute self an infinite number of times. Each and every God could create and do whatever they want by being and doing their own dreams. Each and every God would be able to imagine an infinite other number of Gods in their own dream, but that still wouldn't change that possiblity, that other God's actually existing that they wouldn't be aware of.

He is not getting bamboozled. He is right. You can't leave your absolute solipsistic bubble. Anything that would be potentially outside of your solipsistic bubble you cannot possibly know anything about. We are talking about a claim, that cannot be verified. --> so the conclusion should be 'I don't know' not 'There isn't any'.

If we want to be reductive we can say that consciousness has its own levels, because even the mind is consciousness. But i can see why you are making a distinction between the levels of mind and consciousness. It maybe more understandable for some people.

There is no difference structurally speaking between your definition of real and imaginary thats the point. Using your ego as a standpoint you could experience your definition of dream or your thoughts different from your definition of reality, but thats doesn't change the fact that you are in your dream, and every part of you and your dream is made out of consciousness. you can call this dangerous or you can label it any other way, but that won't change the fact, that the structure of you and the structure of your reality is made out of consciousness. How you experience it, doesn't really matter in this case. THe same way, when you go to sleep, the same goes down. You are in your own dream, you are a dreamcharacter, everyone else is a dreamcharacter, every part of your dream is made out of consciousness. You can experience pain, sorrow, sadness or joy or ecstasy . But that doesn't just the fact that it is a dream. What you are doing is making distinctions. Making distinctions is practical and good for survival, but what we are talking about is Truth. If you want to talk about survival its great, you can make as many distinctions as you want, because it will be beneficial for your survival.

I know, but he uses dream and awakening and hallucination differently. So i tried to engage with his way of thinking and tell a question according to that.

So in the case of awakening, practically speaking, would you be able to distinguish between a hallucinated and not hallucinated awakening?

? Personally, I don't trust the word of drug users, they're often delusional, have poor judgement, and are mostly projecting their shadows onto reality. More importantly, their realizations and breakthroughs seem to always be tainted by their backgrounds/beliefs, so they're not very reliable. If you read the bible and took psychedelics, you're likely to see Jesus, etc. What is a difference between hallucinating an awakening vs having an awakening? The same line can be used for all the other spiritual techniques including meditation , contemplation and yoga. Like "what if that was just placebo, what if you were just hallucinating?" The problem with such questions is that it doesn't really help to investigate the underlying problem because none of them could be falsified. These things can be investigated with what i mentioned in my previous post. This is not about our personal preferences, this is about knowing what method can work and what method work less or not work at all. Not just a claim, this is the actual case. What is/was outside of your consciousness? The answer is everything is inside your consciousness, you are in your own dream.

Everything is part of the dream. Meditation, yoga, contemplation is part of the dream too.

People who say there shouldn't be any moderation at all, i don't really believe them, because if i were to ask them these questions most likely they would backtrack. The question are: Would you be okay if people would be allowed to share without any penalty: Your medical informations (including all the medical procedures you went through, all the surgeries, all the medicines that you need to take etc) Information about your private life (Your address, images about your home, images about yourself when you are inside your home, information about your sexual life [for instance porn sites would be allowed to share all the data they gathered about you], information about your private documents like [driving license, identity card etc] Videos and images about rape, murder, torture etc. Sharing private information about business products and services (like passwords, and information about the products, and sharing content that should be paid for) With that being said, most people don't agree with where the line is being drawn. Debating about where the line should be drawn is necessary to really drop all the unnecessary rules. However, when debates like that happen, we should be able to look at this problem not just in terms of our own individual lense (what we want ourselves to be allowed to do), but what society in general should be allowed to do on that particular platform. These rules should be based on principles. Why principles? Because we can't make an infinitely long list about what you are allowed to do and what you are not allowed to do. There could be an infinite number of edge cases, where the line isn't clear, and if there isn't any direct rules for that, then we can't solve any of those cases). This is why strong, clear core principlesrules should be made and we should build on those. Debates about morality happening the same way. There are principles, and we compare those principles (with principle x what are the worst case that can happen and what are the best ways that can happen, the same goes for principle y). Then we can debate why principle x is worst or better than principle y. We can think about principles like we think about a system. We drop certain inputs into that system, and it can evaluate in our cease, if we should be allowed to say it or not. But the system should be very clear and understandable. Also we can't forget why that particular platform was created in the firstplace. Different platforms with different goals require different set of rules.

This same argument could be used for yoga and meditation too. But you are right in that to claim there is a direct causality between psychedelics and awakening is really hard to prove. The same goes with meditation and with other spiritual practices too. But how much we can explain psychedelics away if enough people start to say, that "the very first time i used psychedelics i awakened". We could say that, "but how could we make sure, that that person really awakened and not just pretending it or misunderstanding something"? Of course that is possible, however the only way to collect data on this is by people sharing their subjective experience. Also, lot of nuance is possible. If you do this certain practice like that it may help you awaken but if you do it in a slightly different way you won't. Again this could be said for any method or practice. But, if a lot of people start to claim that it was because of psychedelics , then there is a claim number ,where we can say that there is at least a correlation, if not a causation. If thats the case, that a lot of people claim that they awakened using psychedelics, then we can't say that all of that was because of coincidence, because there is an underlying process going on that must be investigated and explained. The only way to really make sense of this, is to collect statistical data and compare them. But its really hard to collect data on how could psychedelics can help you awaken, because they are illegal almost everywhere. But we shouldn't forget this: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". I don't even know how much statistical data is about how certain spiritual practices could help you awaken. The people who would do the comparison and the people who would make their conclusion and experiment and research would have to understand what awakening is really about. Also, we can use time to investigate this. For example, people who claim they awakened from psychedelics, you can ask them when did they take psychedelics, and how much after that did they awaken? Because if all or most of them are saying that it was directly after using psychedelics then there is at least a correlation if not a causation between using certain psychedelics and awakening.

Think about it how much more clarity have you gotten so far, from us collectively discussing this topic? I don't want to pull the zen master card here,but I think that me answering your questions (or anyone answering your questions) just makes you even more confused about this topic, so i would suggest to investigate it yourself. Note, that I or anyone here could be deluded. Please don't give your authority to anyone (Not even for Leo).

God isn't anything/anyone who is different from you. He is You. You are IT.

The only problem with this is that this assumes an objective structure to your dream. Everything is constantly changing in your dream including yourself. The minute you start wondering about the structure and about yourself that very act is affecting your dream. Perceiving and creating happens simultaneously. Whatever you call actual reality, is inside your consciousness. Just because you imagine that you can't change it, that does not mean, that you can't change it.

You don't know that, how would you know? Do you understand just because its impossibble to know, that != There isn't any. The whole point is "verifying stuff in your direct experience". How can you verify something in your direct experience, if it is outside of your direct experience and you can't escape your consciousness, because everything is in your consciousness. 2 Absolute solipsistic bubbles can't know about each other. So it doesn't matter for you, if there are any other solipsistic bubbles or not. Its just a possiblity that can't be verified. Literally nothing changes, your dreaming will go on for eternity.

Exactly, just look at Eckhart Tolle.

???? how the fuck did you come up with an idea like that ??

All the infinite finite parts and at the same time the Whole. Thats why i said you are the parts and the structure as well. Yes, follow this advice. @machiavelli

Whatever i would answer here wouldn't really matter for you. If i say, ohh yes i have my own conscious experience, what does that mean for you? What does that mean for you if in your dream a dreamcharacter says that it has agency? Its still a dreamcharacter after all. The same goes for the opposite ,what can change if i say that i don't have any agency? I would be still a dreamcharacter in your dream. Whatever i would answer the conclusion is still the same. I am You.

If you were awakened to absolute solipsism you wouldn't ask your dreamcharacter (me), if i had my own seperate experience or not.