Nemra

That's why no one should casually join it unless it is involuntary. Joining the military should be first and foremost treated as a need and not as a way to grow up as a person unless you love the military lifestyle. Training to survive in harsh or war-like conditions wouldn't necessarily make you mature, although it can sober you up, but that's it. Life is already full of responsibilities, which may be necessary or unnecessary, and you can make yourself more responsible if you think you lack responsibility. Actually, by joining the military, you are giving away your responsibility to consciously make yourself more responsible if you feel you can't do it yourself. In this case, the intention mentioned is not a good enough reason to join the military.

Debating stuff doesn't make people open-minded automatically. It is not a good enough method for truth-seeking because people mostly debate to convince others why their beliefs are true. There are few religious people that are intellectual; however, they still deceive themselves in more sophisticated ways to cling to their religion. I'm not specifically talking about extremists. I'm being critical of the mindset that all religious people have. Religion is supposed to be a method of delivery, albeit a very bad one, and not about realizing some truth, which is the fundamental confusion among religious people that makes them believe that their religion is absolute. Yes, New Age people are similar to religious people in some ways. However, there are structural differences in how they perceive reality. E.g., New Age people don't cling to the mythology of one religion. They may cling to many because they're more open-minded. I'm for organizing people in such a way that it doesn't become a religion, and I would throw out the spiritual language as it's being used to effectively deceive oneself because of how spiritual words are interpreted.

@zazen, the constructs you mentioned aren't equal in terms of making people conscious. Religion is such a low-intelligence construct, i.e., it's very limiting and conformist, that the epistemically blind cling to it and makes them believe that they are thinking for themselves and making decisions based on their own understanding, and if those people ever understood that, they would feel disillusioned and probably would get depressed because of how stupidly unconscious it has been for many years. If you value truth and independent thinking, why would you want to follow a religion? Yeah, you can understand religion, but that is not the same as following it. It is like understanding criminal behavior. Understanding religion wouldn't make religions right by default, but following them requires you to believe that they are absolutely right without a doubt, and questioning them is not admired; otherwise, it makes no sense to follow them because they are constructed that way. Following a religion is like using a shitty food delivery service that is always given five stars by the users. Being a religious person requires your surrender of the things I mentioned in my above post, and you should also defend your religion because following multiple religions is essentially against being religious. Religions completely ignore that they are surviving with a very conformist attitude, and with spiritual language, religious people try to justify its survival and make claims based on beliefs as they believe that beliefs should not be questioned and that they are seeking truth, which deceives them.

It's really about how conscious you are. Following a religion will make you less conscious because you surrender your authority over your most decision-making, independent thinking, and desire to gain understanding, especially about what reality is, to other humans. There is little to no consciousness in conformity. If by "perfect" you mean "truthful", then that person cannot ignore the unconsciousness of religion.

I think that such distinction is pointless to understand why it is bad for your body. They are just alkaloids.

If a person is religious or still clings to a religion, they are epistemically blind. Though I would like to think that enlightened people aren't religious, but who knows?

I know. I'm talking from experience. Read the above carefully.

They are. You are wrong.

You didn't understand what I said. Your reaction is very telling.

I'm jealous. I couldn't even get my spore syringe from the customs because they didn't understand what it was and wanted a phytosanitary certificate. I can only get spore prints, and somehow the customs didn't care about it. I have to start from scratch.

They take epistemological blindness to a whole new level — and they are proud of it.

@freddyteisen, psilocybin and DMT. I haven't tried the other ones yet.

@Leo Gura, so, did I understand correctly that psychedelics are intended for deconstruction and inducing radical states, while non-stop meditation is sitting while getting extremely bored in order to learn to be present or to accept reality in your normal state?

I only got more present and conscious with two psychedelics I have taken than with non-stop meditation. When taking those psychedelics, deconstruction of reality gets deep really fast compared to when I'm in a meditative state. Furthermore, after the psychedelic experiences, I became more amazed at how things could ever exist. Like, I am fascinated by the direct experience of objects around me. I have to do weeks of meditation to even achieve less than what psychedelics offer in minutes.

This is gold!

I wanted to vomit when I was chewing the leaves. Though, I'm glad that it didn't work.

What about jailbreaking the mind and alien consciousness? You have mentioned them in your blog posts that those are the goals. Are they simply a part of awakening, or are they something different? How do you define?

@Leo Gura, do you think that society can be built only on truth?

@Davino, well, I haven't started meditating again; however, after a few DMT trips, I remembered my meditation experiences, which made me relive those. Although, I don't have a problem sitting in silence. I prefer that rather than talking with others. I seriously meditated in the past when everyone else on this forum was obsessed with psychedelics because of Leo, and I got some profound experiences by meditating at that time. However, I cannot deny the power of psychedelics. For the purpose of getting insights and going beyond, I'd rather do psychedelics than meditation. Meditation for me is more about discipline and being present, even if you can go beyond by using it if you do it for weeks non-stop. I doubt that non-stop meditation can be as effective as psychedelics for most people. Psychedelics target the necessary stuff without my will in minutes, and it doesn't matter how much I resist against it, which I think makes it more fundamental and powerful than meditation. For me it doesn't make sense to meditate to go beyond if I can do it using psychedelics, unless psychedelics were worsening my health. However, after the trips, I am more open to meditate, but not for going beyond.

Gaining an understanding of a specific subject would not make you trip. You just take a psychedelic. Why not? Maybe there will be way more effective methods that we can access in the future. Maybe with them we can have psychedelic experiences, and maybe we'll discover new ones along the way. I'm not sure it'll work, though.

I find it fascinating how psychedelics can even work. It could be trash or toxic for another animal, I think. I don't understand how it could happen that it is designed to affect humans the way it does. I think that people focus too much on the psychedelic itself instead of considering the biological reasons for its effects on humans.

Terence McKenna’s True Hallucinations:

Hofmann's Potion:

The Substance - Albert Hofmann's LSD:

I think what that means is that IQ isn't supposed to measure the ability to grasp the truth.