RMQualtrough

@Eternity Yes that would be where I got to. I used n,n-DMT a lot, as well as high amounts of LSD, often together. I am done with it all now. I was rather "addicted" for a while.

If a person is willing to call the everything "God" or "Brahman, then why not "I"? I'd say "I" is the best term because it is the only one which does not imply duality to an outside reader.

Appreciate the reply thank you. If it is not the emotion then certainly I do not know what is meant by it. That was one of the things I always felt most confused by in trip reports.

I seek out toad reports, and it was Leo's valiant attempt to humanize the trip as much as possible which gave me a respect for the man. Because he didn't just brush it under the carpet as "CANNOT BE EXPLAINED!" Anyone who makes at least a serious attempt is commendable. IME I have found what you are saying true to a degree. The first time I used Salvia and DMT the abstractness was difficult to explain. It was not only repeated use but specifically and especially using doses which were JUSTTTT below a proper trip where I had enough faculties to think, and the effects were mild enough as for me to get precisely what is trying to begin happening. I can describe Salvia SUPER well now... DMT much harder because of variation between trips.

@BipolarGrowth Nice thoughts. When I read the bit about a person across the lunch table, it occurred to me that part of the experience of you or that other person, is the sense of BEING that self or other. What we call "I" if it exists in both people here, MUST be identical and the same thing in its nature, and I can prove this. But whatever that individual is, part of the experience of that individual is BEING that self. You ARE experiencing me rn and I AM experiencing you in terms of what we truly are. There is zero individuality. But "I" is also experiencing the brains and the "experience of brain" comes with the "sense of being -insert name-". It only has recorded memories of things relevant to your "self". So when "I" experiences "your brain", it experiences that limitation as part OF that.

Even within our own selves we have multiple conscious processes. When the characters in a dream talk I'm rarely aware of what they're going to say. I don't consciously conjure the landscapes around me. And yet here it all is. I know it is all me in a dream yet "my" consciousness does not appear to be responsible for everything being said and seen. It's like another me somewhere deep down is conjuring these things up and inhabiting the other characters in that dream. I can't even say that the thing I call myself is even one self.

By love do you mean the emotion as felt by humans? I have always been curious on this particular factor since many creatures are not able to feel this emotion. My strongest trip was DMT on 5 hits of acid, and in this trip most of my emotions cut out and I did not feel love. Only a sense of being overwhelmed. So I have personally avoided equating God/I (whatever term is most palatable) to specific emotion like Love over others. My own interpretation of these experiences is that psychedelics shut down the brain to various degrees, the brain being more of a limiter. But certain aspects stay online or are stimulated. One of the most important being the memory function (black/whiteouts being unhelpful). And similarly I think these drugs in some people cause increased feelings of wellbeing, love, euphoria (among other possibilities) - for others they may experience unspeakable terror and dread, or none of these things.

Terrence McKenna gave regular DMT to a Tibetan monk, who said after the experience that it is not possible to go further into the "Bardo" and come back. Toad seems infinitely further than n,n-DMT from what I have read. I am not brave enough to use such a thing.

I understand what you are asking. I theorize that the awareness self is having ALL experiences simultaneously. In fact if it is outside of time and space it MUST do for reasons which can be explained. There is perceived individuation. RMQualtrough is not having SQAAD's experience. But "I" is. "I" experiences both right now simultaneously as we speak. But part of SQAAD's experience comes with a sense of self and containment. Your brain (also made of "I"/God/Etc.) records memories pertaining ONLY to SQAAD, as well as the sense of "self and other". So the experience of "SQAAD's brain" which "I" is having, comes with "being SQAAD". I am guessing it is nothing more than semantics, which is whether you refer to others on the human-experience level (e.g. whatever my "ego self" is, its experience is different from your ego-self's), or just refer to them as God/Brahman/whatever, in which case there is no other because everything in all of existence literally IS that.