The0Self

I don’t think about it at all ?. Since it’s the only thing you’ve always known, you don’t even know that you know it. No transmission even touches it. There is no you. This is simply the infinite.

Enlightenment is nothing that would ever be hoped for. And it’s all that’s longed for.

It's very inhumane to the animals, but it's also inhumane to the diseases it hopes to solve -- great for humanity, it seems. It's a double-edged sword, of course.

Definitely. Yeah the main thing I was attempting to add to your comment was just pointing out that if one can get to J5, they can probably quite easily get to J7, but certainly J6 which is essentially just a slight tweak to J5. The biggest jump seems to be from 4-5, and also 0-1 and 7-8 are big jumps.

5th jhana is a very high state for not using substances. As in maybe 1 in 100 people who have experienced both jhana 5 and a profound mystical experience on LSD will say they had a more intense experience from LSD. J5 is ultra mystical, of course not nearly as incredible as the collapse of time which can happen on LSD, or glimpses, but generally orders of magnitude more amazing than what came before it. But 6th and 7th are just a small step up from j5, in terms of the skill required to cultivate them... The big jump in that regard is between jhana 4 and 5, and of course also 0 and 1.

The answer is there is no answer, but that's not just a mere giving up -- there's no doubt in it, nor belief. Very, very obvious. It's absolute unboundedness appearing; nothing apparently being everything. As it's all there is, there is no answer nor reason to it, nor is there a question in it, as there is no outside (it's all there is) and therefore no inside... and it's always already whole and complete.

The infinite. But it's a malformed question because this isn't caused by the infinite -- this is the infinite. There is only the infinite. There is no how; why; right; wrong... there's only what is, which is infinitely empty, full, and ungraspable -- and has no limits such as meaning or causality or context, or logic, or any real bounds whatsoever. All apparent limits are absolute uncontainable freedom, freely appearing contained.

In terms of the potential awkwardness that can arise? Or the jealousy? If neither of those are problematic, then there's no reason to bring it up. Otherwise, then okay sure, but in that case I doubt it would be coming from wisdom, it would likely be coming from impulsiveness or neediness.

Exactly, that right there is the reason for doing it. Therefore, a case could be made that it would be wiser not to. Nothing right or wrong with it though.

It's smart and strategic to just not bring it up though. But I know what you mean. No relationship that I ever felt was worthwhile would have ever suffered from the conversation, but we're dealing with human emotion here -- nothing good comes from bringing it up. No reason not to do it either with a good partner but also no reason to do it.

Experience is the connection between what is already not separate. It's an illusion. The experiencer on the other hand isn't really even an illusion -- it's just not there period lol -- go ahead, try to find it. The appearance (not separate from the body) apparently functions, and (in the story) when those functions are appropriated by experience, there can seem to be an experiencer, but that's really just an extrapolation; an empty assumption; an illusory sense. Trying to change what appears to be, isn't actually happening -- it's just the artificial appropriation of organic body functioning as "my" "own" "actions." You could say experience is all there is, but that would be rather misleading, as there is no knowing. Experience and knowing seem to be the same thing. "There's only knowing, but there is no knowing" -- while that's relatively true, it is on the other hand just as close and perhaps less confusing to say "there's only what appears to be." Everything is no-thing and no-thing is everything appearing -- each hides ingeniously by actually being the other. When there isn't a reality in reality, there's automatically nothing outside of nor inside of reality -- only what appears to be, without any fixed and knowable reality or context to it or in it.

Several years ago my girlfriend at the time seemed concerned or curious about how many women I'd slept with (basically while we were having sex, no less, lol). I hesitantly told her probably like 18 or 19 (the vast majority of which were quite recent at the time). Half expecting her to be upset, I asked her in return, and she then very hesitantly just told me through nervous laughter, "more than that..." We laughed about it, and I seem to remember that for some reason we agreed to never talk about it again. It was weird -- I feel like she was expecting me to say something ridiculous like 40, and so she'd be able to say "not that many," because she then actually seemed surprised that the number was less than hers... It didn't bother me even slightly. I didn't feel jealousy or really anything at all in relation to it, but in fact she was probably the most jealous girlfriend I ever had. It came up other times briefly with other women but usually one of us would just change the subject... or brush it off as irrelevant -- best way to deal with it . I'd never bring it up in general.

Your mood is everything in these situations. If you're in a good mood and passionate about the conversation and interested in others' contributions, you'll automatically be deliberating less and thus more on autopilot and less in your own head. Say everything like it's worth saying and that will reflect in others and they're more likely to believe you're worth listening to.

I don't claim. Nothing happens without a cause. And all there is, is no-thing appearing to happen. Causality appears in the story. Your apparent disagreement is only a misunderstanding. This (all there is and is not) isn't caused -- you don't disagree with that statement as it is meant, you only think you disagree with your idea of what it means. That which is only-apparent is only-apparently caused. As long as this was caused, it's a part of a process. The only thing that experiences process and causality is an illusion -- a center of knowing what's happening. There's nothing other than all there is to know something other than all there is.

Love = not-a-thing = everything = no-reason

This. Although it depends on what you mean by body load. If you mean physical symptoms of use, then they can both be intense. If you mean the body energy (sometimes leading to sensory-overload and ego-death) associated with the "consciousness-elevation" aspect of psychedelics? Then, at least in relation to the other effects, yeah LSD has more of that than mushrooms, and 5-MeO-DMT has even more than LSD.

In the story of cause and effect, I, or this body, got up this morning and wrote the post. But of course that wasn't really the cause, because waking up in the morning also depends on an unfathomable amount of other things, ad infinitum. There isn't real causality, it's only apparent. There's only everything... How could everything be caused? The cause would just be everything too. Very simple logically, but what it points to is beyond logic (and beyond causality).

No one is imagining anything. There’s just what appears, and it is without meaning or limit or cause or other.

Used a lot of each. They were my favorite two compounds. 5-MeO-DMT is quite powerful but it really did in my case seem to share a lot of similarity with LSD (LSD-25, not necessarily other analogues). You know how each psychedelic has a very recognizable character? LSD and 5-MeO are similar in that respect — at least to me they were. An ultra high dose of LSD will be more powerful than a super low dose of 5-MeO, obviously, but the far shorter duration of 5-MeO and its relative lack of tolerance accrual make it a decent choice for consciousness work. Both turn up the consciousness dial more than the visual distortion dial, it seems, unlike mushrooms which for me are ultra highly visual. But LSD is still extremely visual in its own right, especially in relation to 5-MeO. Although at some level of ego fading, visual effects don’t really matter. Both compounds are great for ego death and God realization type stuff.

So to with everything. There’s nothing behind anything. Just absolute emptiness, but in emptiness there is no need for anything (emptiness can’t possibly need anything, including anything to bolster nor limit it), so the emptiness is the fullness. There’s just boundlessness without meaning or cause.

There's no you for something to be behind.

Nice insight! You can only do something in the next moment, which doesn't exist -- there is no moment, only now/this. There's only now but it's not a now that can be found, it's all there is. What is not there at all times, is at all times not there, and there is no real time.

It's not a gain. The awakenings on the apparent path can seem like gains though in the story. Self can only do something in the next moment, which never is -- the illusion can just apparently dissolve for no reason. It can seem like the path leads to enlightenment, but obviously nothing ever leads to all there is already. This only ever leads to that in the story of the person. There's nothing to find -- it's losing all beliefs and thoughts about who and what you are and what you own and know and think... Once nothing is left, nothing is lost; there's only everything, which is not-a-thing appearing to happen. It's also an energetic openness and recognition that there's no one to become enlightened; that enlightenment never happens to me, because there isn't a me in the first place. There's only boundlessness appearing as anything, to no one; without meaning or goal/direction; without limit, boundary, or separation.

Pointing to it can be attempted: It's separation, ironically via the connection between things which aren't separate to be things in the first place. The owner/ownership; location; witness; doer. There's no self to become no-self. Self will never be not-self, as there is no self.

'Why' or 'how' implies something personal or intentional to the already completely empty appearance, seemingly confirming that someone could be aware of and in control of what's happening, namely a me, and "I'm a me!" Therefore the dream apparently continues, for the seemingly-always-apparent me -- its constancy is illusory too; it only seems constant because it can't know when it's not there, since me itself is knowing (which automatically contains the apparent experience of real-time and the need to know); it's not appearing at all times and it's certainly not there in deep sleep or anesthesia. While there's absolutely nothing wrong with it (there's only wholeness anyway), all teaching is dream story -- there's nothing to teach.