RMQualtrough

Should it be higher levels of mind? After all consciousness itself is one thing as we always discuss. The contents appearing to it are what change.

I'm sat here cross legged with my eyes closed counting breaths, people often come over asking if I'm okay or ill. They probably think I'm sick or doped up. Do I need to do this at home instead? I like to be out in nature for this purpose.

Do you think a distinction is useful? So people can understand consciousness is unchanging and mind and content appears in it?

Some monks do when they set themselves on fire and such. But I think generally you learn to notice the feeling but not suffer from the thoughts etc stemming from it.

Well, the problem is if I go to a really remote part of the park, there are still dog walkers. If someone comes into an obscure corner of the park to someone just sitting on the floor cross legged with their eyes closed, that'd seem REALLY weird. Maybe sitting on a bench would be better? Then I'd just appear to be resting.

He was too obsessed with imaginary pixies. Of course all life is imaginary.

The sky does not go away when obscured by clouds.

I never smoke weed so when I do I get FUCKED. I've used Salvia a lot. It feels very similar to Salvia without the Salvia trip beginning. Just that "weird" bizarre "ohhh here we gooo againnnnnn ahhhhhhhhhh" feeling before you fall through the sky spinning.

Intellectual and logical inquiry is why I believe in this entire religious worldview. If it was just a feeling like a hallucination of an elf on a drug trip told me the Earth is inside a giant whale, I'd not believe that. I wonder if when people are purified on 5-MeO-DMT they experience the very first moments of their finite mind before anything else developed. Maybe it feels so familiar for that reason. I'm not sure if the thinker experiences actual loss of mind for a brief moment or if it's Atman (finite mind) made of and sustained by what WE call "brains".

Because most people just say "it's beyond words!" while people like Leo and Rupert Spira actually put in effort to explain it to people so they can benefit and understand.

5-LeO-DMT

I think the finite mind we presently talk to each other from might not see the same things necessarily? E.g. some wizard fuck who can see infrared somehow? What do you think? I can understand mind observing mind and dream analogies well. I'm not sure what the other ideas mean. I feel you are perceiving color BUT you ARE the color you are perceiving. That the perceived is just a play of the perceiver itself?

Goal is always going to be a relative thing. For Eastern traditions as I understand the greatest goal was to "end suffering". I believe the greatest goal is to understand reality and what you/God really is.

Bufo would work, period. Other psychedelics are kind of bullshit because mystical experiences aren't reliable or repeatable using them. It's possible on DMT to just float around with some jesters in a hallway or some shit. Then people may think "what a load of bollocks". The mystical experience is what is life changing, and that is a dice roll on any other substance but 5-MeO-DMT.

@Hulk I is an annoying term because it's poorly defined. I is how we refer to the body, the finite mind, or the awareness. Actually all forms of I are God because that's the only thing there is. But realistically it's better to talk about the difference between the character self and the observer self first. Collapsing of observer and observed into one is like the final thing. Thinking you are separate from your thoughts etc is very important at first.

Have you ever known non-existence in your experience? Then do not assume it is possible. It is easier to think of that than to realize that you the consciousness is having experiences the finite self does not know about.

No but the others usually refuse to speak about it for some gay semantic reason. Leo will legit sit and explain that which "can't be spoken of" for hours.

Feel Good Inc. legitimately is. The floating island with the windmill is true happiness. The "Inc" is like materialistic pleasures that don't lead to true happiness that comes from relinquishing these things.

Get sciency and rationalist for a moment. The usual scientific view is that each person has their own consciousness generated by their brain. Everyone has their own "I". Can you think of a reason as to why it would be literally impossible to split that "I" into two "I"s. I have been researching split brain patients a lot. When brain hemispheres are split, each hemisphere becomes a separate "self", presumably with a sense of having their own "I"... If you were to undergo this operation, you might wonder which half gets your "I". But it turns out your "I" "goes into" both sides. I have a feeling this should be impossible somehow. And vice versa the idea of linking two brains together, the "I" of each person would appear to merge. Neither person would from their PoV lose their "I" at all. There is something very important in these patients and case studies. I am thinking rather than "bubbles of consciousness" (the subject) there is only "bubbles of object". Objects can be separate so each object (experienced by the same subject) cannot know the contents of a separate object of experience. But moreover I feel intuitively there is something in this that can prove the subject experienced by all people is literally the same subject. Not different unique ones generated by each brain.

Enlightenment is about a finite mind coming to the realization I think. God is inherently enlightened and that is what we are no matter what we do. Like when dreaming no matter what characters appear it is your mind, I assume the idea of enlightenment is similar to becoming lucid in a dream.

It is the end of experience through this finite mind you talk to me through. You will have other experiences after your death but your current finite mind will not be present to know them.

It is how we describe the amount of changes that have happened in the only moment there ever is (the Now). E.g. 5 moons have appeared and disappeared from the Now since X event (and we call this "days"). If you can conceive of time as a room, the room is always the same. People come into and leave the room, so the contents of the room change and we measure this change with something called the past and future. The null empty nothing that is consciousness is not eternal IN time, time is in IT. So literally just imagine an empty nothing void (we can only conceive of this as say, black in all directions), and then space and time appear in THAT. Space and time appear in consciousness. It is never in any moment but the present.

This is about what you posted, bear with me a moment. As I see it, the brain is what the finite mind looks like when viewed from the perspective of another person. A dream is what the inside of your finite mind looks like when viewed from the perspective of the dreamed character. It is imagery that makes it possible to interact with a world of "things". The things aren't really there outside of perception, you need perception to be able to experience because experience only happens with some form of duality. When you mess with a brain you mess with a finite mind and change its contents. The finite mind and all finite minds are viewed by one field of consciousness that is absolutely identical and the same. It is singular. Any state you induce by altering a finite mind (messing with the brain from our perspective) is just changing the contents experienced. It can point you to the truth just as meditation or any other practice can. Literal experience of the truth would not be possible for the finite mind to know directly because you have the experience without it present. The finite mind only knows things that it is present to see. If you do something without it present, it can't know it, and that's why it does not know the awareness you have while under general anaesthesia (you are the surgeons operating on yourself) etc.

But you only know of one field of vision. You see what I mean? It is evident there are things my finite mind is not consciously aware of (I could not consciously write Bohemian Rhapsody), but this is also true of a dream. Why do we say that in a dream only our character sees, but in waking life we say there is more than one field of vision? That is a field of vision that extends beyond the one known by our finite mind?

I mean typical Solipsism, that the limited mind is all that exists. I see that SOME other conscious process may be at play since I can read works of fiction or poetry I could never ever consciously come up with. But what is the proof that there is seeing happening from perspectives other than your own?