JuliusCaesar

http://www.empathtest.com/ To introduce some sense of balance or a yin yang type continuum to Leo's post, share your results here.

Yes, at the level of development humans are(I mean not really in terms of spiral dynamics but literally just overall) some meditation practice will be necessary. Because there are certain limitations that psychedelics have(at least, the lesser ones that Leo has done) which preclude you from actually evolving. Basic meditation done seriously(at least hours a day, 3 hours a day would be like light practice comparable to attempting enlightenment on 5 micro grams of LSD) creates a form of discipline that allows you to perform more specialized forms of meditation. And these more specialized forms(some of them) can grant you authority over the dream mortals call consensus reality. And with this kind of power, you can have a serious impact. But it's only attainable(this way) through hard work. I call it hard work because the ego mind doesn't even want to do basic meditation for 5 minutes, little own take on the balls to wall practice necessary to have any practical value. Of course, this is one such limitation of weak psychedelics I was pointing to in the above paragraph. I believe I've found a method to make meditation more palatable and satisfying to the ego than it ordinarily would be. I'll be making a post on it in a few days, as I want to experiment further with it before I prescribe it to others. The only way to transcend this is to become Omnipotent in the relative domain. Which necessitates Omniscience(without which what I'm describing is nearly impossible as this is too big a task for materialist science, or any other ordinary human method of discovery to tackle). The kind of Omniscience I'm describing is what Leo refers to as specific Omniscience(like, you could use it to accurately determine what tomorrow's lotto numbers are for instance). And not the general variant(as you'd be disconnected too much from the dream to even be able to see what tomorrow holds) which is what you'd experience under the influence of 5 MEO DMT. This is truth, but one that's being weaponized by your ego to hinder your evolution. You're using the absolute truth to fool yourself into believing that you can't consciously manipulate consensus reality. Which is only true(in your human experience) because we've made it so. And just as we've made it so we can undo it. So yes, it's true that you're 100% perfect and all of creation is(after all, what manner of madman do you think made it all?). But it's also true that if you became like the Q from Star Trek you'd still be perfect. And this is the next frontier for you(or well, it is for me, and would be for you if you'd move past the current limitations of your understanding). Well naturally, the psychedelics being done by hippies is child stuff in comparison to the more potent ones. So this is only true because you're referring to a group of lunkheaded rapscallions who seek only pleasure. There's of course nothing truly wrong with that in any sense. But they will not, and cannot(from their level of development) seriously seek after truth. They have the required open mindedness unlike those who came before them. But they lack the intellectual firepower to make sense of things properly. And as such, they might find themselves before the greatest of wisdom, but it does them no good because they're deaf and dumb.

@impulse9 You speak of Leo as though he were some foolish child. And yes, to some extent I'll stipulate that there are substances he won't touch with 10 foot pole out of fear of death. However, because he appears to lack the ability of divination, he's right to be fearful, these kinds of things will literally kill you or at least reduce you to schizophrenia if scientific means are the only way you have to comprehend reality. Were you or I in his shoes we'd be just as overly cautious as he is. Of course, that's sort of like saying if you were born a rattlesnake you'd rattle like one. And furthermore, it's refreshing to see someone who understands that psychedelics aren't chemical substances you ingest. It baffles me how primitive Shamans(primitive even by the standards of the apes who think they're so advanced with material science) manage to properly understand them(psychedelics). It makes me believe that humanity may one day surpass even us as a species. And I don't know whether to be excited for that, or to be so happy as to not know whether I should shit or go blind, or whether I should curb my exuberance altogether.

My heart sank watching that video. I tried to love it, but from an ordinary state of consciousness I found that to be difficult. "SHE SHOULD BE SKINNED ALIVE. Once her identity is found the authorities should give her the death sentence. All animal abusers out there should be stoned" ^from 2:08 in the video. Is it just me, or is stage Green eerily similar to stage Blue?

Your dreams are, and most of mine are. Though some of my dreams are as vivid as the dream you call real life. If you practice lucid dreaming to any serious degree, you would experience that yourself. In fact, sleeping dreams can be even more vivid then the waking dream. Does that make them the real world and the one you think is real merely a fantasy? There's a further issue with your assumption, and that's that it isn't in fact rational to assume that reality should be vivid. Because your memories of the waking world are as cloudy and disconnected as your memories of the dream world(and that's assuming you remember the dream at all). So, by your own logic you shouldn't be able to trust your memories of the "real world" either as they aren't as vivid as the present moment. If you can't trust your memories, then you also can't trust your present experience either as it will turn into a memory in the future. Furthermore, you wouldn't be able to trust your understanding of causality, science, physics etc etc. I'm able to anticipate that you'll rebut by arguing that dreams can't be real because they don't always conform to the expectations of a Newtonian Clockwork universe. The problem is that you're effectively assuming that the laws of physics can only be one way(that is to say, there can only be one specific physics that's correct). For example, you have the fact that General Relativity, and QM very obviously contradict Newtonian Mechanics. And yet QM is the most successful theory in scientific history. Another issue with your logic, is that I've personally experienced precognitive dreams. That accurately foretold things which should have been humanly impossible to know. There are also many others like myself, and in fact psychic phenomena itself has been studied and verified rather thoroughly. But the issue here with any of what I have said is that at your level of development, you're likely not to be open minded enough to even accept the possibility that the supernatural might be real. And you also assume that if it is real, it should be easily demonstrable because you imagine then a human which is Omnipotent, or practically so. But what you fail to realize, is that the level of proficiency in occult arts you're expecting is so difficult to attain that virtually no one is there. So what you have are a wide variety of individuals at an insignificant level of competency who as such are capable of doing very little. They might be able to predict the toss of a coin to 55% accuracy in a trial of 10,000 tosses for instance. But you'd probably want a study where only correct predictions were made. Which is like expecting a child to build a 40 story skyscraper all by himself from scratch. This applies not only to colours, but literally every aspect of the human experience. For example, if what you call a human is what I call a dog. Then everytime we've pointed at a dog and agreed it was a dog, we'd actually being experiencing completely different lifeforms. So the notion that we all live in the same reality is taken purely on blind faith. But it must be believed or at least taken for granted, because otherwise we wouldn't be able to function properly in the dream of consensus reality. Think back to the last time you remembered a dream upon waking. Did you see things in that dream? That means there was EM radiation, otherwise your visual capacity would have been inoperable. You could just as easily do physics on the light in your sleeping dream as scientists do in the waking dream. Well naturally, I'm attempting to articulate things to you that are from outside the human experience when all you have had are human experiences. Consider this, if I turned you into a single celled amoeba with your human memories intact. How effective do you think you would be in explaining to the other amoebae what it's like to be human? This is essentially at the heart of the dogma of materialism. This unreasonable bias toward the empirical and away from the anecdotal. The idea is that if something is real(that means it holds true in consensus reality) it should be replicated a large quantity of times, by a large quantity of different observers. Take for example, the fact that every human since the dawn of time has observed what appears to be a flat earth(because it's really a very large sphere). How empirical is that observation(of a flat horizon/water level in great bodies of water)? Well, there's something like 7.85 billion humans currently inhabiting the Earth, and reasonably speaking they've all observed this apparently flat surface. You might say, well what about the images from space or what about eyewitness testimony from astronauts. Mind you, eyewitness testimony is highly valid in the court of law but in the court of science it's held in the lowest esteem. And really, most humans have no direct access to the technology required to enter low earth orbit so they have no first hand experience that such a thing is real or even possible. So clearly, a flat earth is more empirically substantiated than a round earth. And yet you know that in reality the earth isn't flat. Now of course, there are less direct ways of determining the shape of the earth then simply going into space(some of which I myself have used). But that is beside the point as I'm addressing the issue of empirical vs anecdotal. The solution to this problem is to blend the anecdotal with the empirical in a coherent way. This is to say that, if certain phenomena which are empirical are also corroborated by the anecdotal, it should be assumed that observation is of a higher level of validity then it would otherwise be. This of course goes both ways, but I don't need to tell you that because you believe the empirical is somehow superior to the anecdotal. Anyhow, this integration also must occur at the level of 1st person vs 3rd person experience. That is to say for example, that if you hear of an apparently empirically substantiated fact(like the notion that QM is the most successful scientific theory to date). Because the experimental evidence was acquired by individuals other than yourself, it would be irrational to simply assume that the notion is true. For instance, how do you know that Quantum Entanglement is part of reality? If that question is asked of me, I can answer it. It's because I've become Omniscient to the point of realizing my Omnipresent nature. And consequently, I know firsthand that reality is one. So obviously, Quantum Entanglement is a phenomena that, while it seems outside of everyday experience and from that standpoint ridiculous and impossible(because everyday experience is on the level of the macroscopic illusion) I know it to be not only possibly correct, but inevitably so from firsthand experience. You see how I have first person and third person experiences blended into the same thing? There's another dimension of this I feel I haven't properly elucidated. And that's that the integration of soft and hard sciences must also come with some sense of logical consistency on some level. Because we're dealing with truths of the relative domain, non contradiction usually holds to be true. Or another way of putting it, is that the fundamental nature of reality is so highly paradoxical and contradictory that it can manage to be fully logically consistent whilst contradicting itself. Take the example of a flat earth for instance. I know that yes on the one hand, the water in my bathtub appears to be flat. But on the other hand, I also have seen ships disappear over the horizon. And furthermore, I've seen them zoomed in on and the portion lost never recovers in spite of what flat earthers will say about it just being perspective. Also, once in Florida for my Cousin's wedding about 4 years ago. I was on a beach and went up and down stairs and looked upon a city in the distance. I noticed that, when I went up the stairs the buildings rose with me, and when I descended they fell. Such that at the top of the stairs I could see more of them and at the bottom as some of the portion I saw at the top had fallen below the horizon. You probably know that just as a 4 year old could tell you, on a round earth going higher allows you to see further around it. Consequently, the only way to explain this in a flat earth paradigm would be to assume it was some kind of optical illusion. Like, maybe atmospherically induced refraction of the light created the illusion that the buildings were under the ground. The problem is that if you run the numbers on that. You'll find the index of refraction of the atmosphere is far too low to produce such distortions. I can believe this because I know firsthand this is indeed the case. You see how the empirical evidence(many different instances of partially disappeared objects on youtube) and my personal experience(what happened to me in Florida) allows me to believe that the footage on youtube isn't doctored or something, and the fact that many other humans are uploading phenomena validating the same demonstrates that I don't have to worry that I might alone be dreaming up a spherical earth whereas the rest of the species is imagining a flat earth(or to adopt the phraseology of your worldview, that I might be a schizophrenic for experiencing a curved earth because the real thing is flat due to the fact that everyone else experiences a flat earth). I know I've used excessive space explaining how I know the Earth isn't flat. But I've still got another dimension of integration to explain which fits perfectly into the overall narrative of the previous paragraph. And that's on the level of overall validity. You see, thus far I've demonstrated the Earth can't reasonably be flat because it must have some degree of curvature. But what if it isn't spherical? What if it were shaped like an egg for example. How do I know the distribution of curvature is even enough for the Earth's shape to be mostly consistent with a sphere? Consider this, if the earth were flat, then from all points on earth the sun would be travelling at the same degree. Imagine you're a cosmic being looking down on earth. It's shaped like a pizza and you can see the sun circling it at an of arc 90 degrees to it's surface(so like how the sun appears in real life from earth's equator). Now imagine you become a human standing in the middle of the pizza(what would be the north pole). Observe the sun and notice that the path it travels through the sky is at a right angle to the horizon. Now imagine you teleport to Ecuador, you do the same experiment and you would see the sun's diurnal arc has shifted but is still at a right angle to the horizon. How would it appear if the Earth were spherical? Well, let's do the same thought experiment. Let the sun run 90 degrees to the horizon from the equator. Now become a human on the equator, and notice that the diurnal arc of the sun is 90 degrees to the horizon. Now, teleport yourself to the North pole. You can see the sun because it's directly overhead at the tropic of cancer. You see the diurnal arc of the sun is not perpendicular to the horizon as it was from the equator. But is now parallel at an angle of 0 degrees relative to the horizon. Now, imagine you teleport yourself halfway between the equator and north pole and repeat the experiment. Now the sun appears to have vertical and horizontal movement. Because it's travelling straight up and down but not at a right angle as it was from the equator, but instead at a declination of 45 degrees. Or another way of putting it. Is that the sun now appears to be horizontally zigging back and forth(as it was from the north pole) but with a 45 degree tilt from the horizontal. Obviously, this means that if you went even 1 degree north or south(that is up or down relative to the equator). The celestial sphere(that is, the apparent object in which the sun, moon, stars, and planets are) would shift a degree in the opposite direction. Which means, that if I'm living on a sphere my experience of the sun's diurnal arc would be affected by the curvature of the earth. Such that if I watched the sun for a day and traced out it's motion in the sky comparing it's angle against the horizon. And then went, say 70 miles north and repeated the same experiment. That I'd see a difference in angle proportional to whatever degree the earth's curvature would be over the 70 mile change in latitude(which according to mainstream science is just over 1 degree). I live in Pueblo Colorado, USA. And according to Google, my latitude is 38.2544° N. I've observed the sun travelling at an angle of approximately 38.25 degrees to the horizon. Which is perfectly consistent with everything mainstream science has to say about the shape of earth. Furthermore, I've seen timelapse videos of the sun from the Equator in which the sun's diurnal arc was perfectly at a right angle to the horizon. I accept that these were not faked footage for many reasons. One, it's rather empirical because there are many examples of this and as far as I know no one has ever even attempted to refute this fact(that includes the many flat earthers on the internet). Furthermore, I already know from direct experience that the Earth has some kind of curvature(refer to what I observed in Florida). So to sum up, I know that I'm tilted approximately 38.25 degrees north of the people on Equator because I've seen this deviation in the sun's diurnal arc. Which is inevitably something that should only occur if the Earth were Spherical. As I also have footage of observers from Alaska showing the sun travelling at an arc of around 25 degrees(depending on where exactly in Alaska the timelapse was taken, there's some variation). Which ironically is also used by flat earthers to argue that the earth couldn't possibly be moving. Because they think for the sun to travel vertically around you and your camera to see it the whole time the earth must be stationary. Of course, what they fail to realize is that the earth being stationary and the sun moving, or the sun moving and the earth being stationary both produce the same effects on the celestial sphere. And consequently there is no way to determine whether or not the earth is in motion from simply doing naked eye astronomy. Anyhow, the point is that given all the observations I've cited, the Earth would necessarily be a perfect sphere(or incredibly close to it). Because there is no other shape that would be consistent with the "wonky" behavior of the sun(that is wonky from the point of view of an intellectually honest flat earther). The curvature clearly both exists and is far too consistently distrusted in 3 dimensions to produce any other shape. Okay, so the point of the tangent I just went on was to show you the fastidious and exhaustive deliberation with which I handled the issue of adjudicating between the possibility of a flat vs spherical earth. And notice that I almost appear skeptical of basic mainstream scientific facts at times(which in general one maybe shouldn't be). I did that to demonstrate how the empirical and anecdotal require integration, as well 1st person and 3rd person experience. And furthermore, that skepticism needs no upper boundary as long as your skepticism is proportional to the extent that you're skeptical of your skepticism. Or articulated another way, open mindedness needs no limit as long you're equally open to the possibility that everything you've heard/believed could be wrong. Of course, it's more likely that there were bits of the truth amidst the falsehood. If I am correct in assuming that you understand and hopefully accept the things I've said. You would realize that you don't actually know if supernatural things are unreal. Because naturally, you would have to investigate the subject with an open mind. And you would also need to be patient realizing that attaining certain powers may be more difficult than you want it to be, or have been told that it is. So for example, you would probably start with studying sorcery or psychics or something along those lines. And if you did, you might hear someone saying they did something you think is impossible. But keep in mind that you as a human have no control over possibility and impossibility, and as such it's entirely possible that they were telling the truth. And the only way for you to discover for yourself whether or not this is the case is to attempt to recreate the same. I'll give you an example of something I've done that I never have shared with anyone here on this forum or anywhere else. But I think might be valuable to you. I was listening to this specialized guided meditation track once in the morning. It was designed to produce a lucky day, where everything fortuitously falls into place and I reach my goals easily and effortlessly. The first day of this, I simply listened to the track once in the morning then did nothing with it. I went to sleep, and woke up the next day from a most troubling dream. I was pushing my dad in a wheelchair through a nursing home(he's not old or injured in the waking dream) and I go past a boy who was running from a drug deal he did or something shady like that, and he dropped a foreign currency note on the ground. I believe it was a 5 euro note, but then again it may have been from a country not even in consensus reality as I don't recall exactly what the note looked like. Anyway, I remembered more of the dream but that was the only relevant part of it. So it's the next morning and I do my meditation again. I went for a walk that morning after finishing my meditation. And decided I wanted to test it by manifesting a $100 bill laying on the path I would find and take for myself. Well, at first it seemed to be going well because my emotions were much more positive than they usually are. And I engaged in what essentially is like a daydreaming fantasy akin to what you might do ordinarily in the sexual domain. But, when I had finished the walk the experience hadn't happened. And I felt somewhat upset for having apparently failed. Later in the day, my dad called me and asked if I wanted to eat at Carl's Jr with him. I said yes, and he picked me up and we drove to Carl's. When we arrived I found 2 one dollar bills laying on the ground of the sidewalk. I then proceeded forward with a sense of vindication and the utmost joy, and put that money in my pocket. And my dad said something about the money beforehand, and I said it's mine now. Keep in mind, it may not have been the $100 I originally asked for, and it may not have materialized at exactly the time I wanted it to. But that's the only time in my 22 years as a human I've ever found money randomly on the ground other than one other time I was in Washington DC, I got lucky by accident on that occasion, and it was years ago. Furthermore, I had a dream predicting(roughly, not in the highest quality possible, I've had precognitive dreams with much greater clarity and precision than this one) what would happen in advance. In it, I was with my dad carrying him around in a wheelchair which represented me trying not to anger him because we disagreed about something and I was tiptoeing around the issue(at the time we were driving to Carl's), and some kid lost his money on the ground and I saw it in the dream(which corresponds with whoever I made lose that two dollars in consensus reality). So to sum up, the fact that this is a rare occurrence lends to the possibility that my will materialized in sort of a lose way. And the fact that I had a dream predicting the scenario ahead of time should be the final nail in the coffin of doubt that my mind created the experience. If you desire to learn more about reality's mechanics with respect to the above account, then read Liquid Luck: The Good Fortune Handbook by Joe Gallenberger. Also, I recommend you watch the following video. As it refers to an example of another person doing something similar to what I did, only to a much higher degree of competence(which she did without liquid luck but solely with her mind, though it required more effort. And I probably got more bang for my buck so to speak, just by virtue of how little I did to affect consensus reality.) Please do what I have asked, it shouldn't take too much of your time. And if you're a true scientist you will see it through.

Intriguing, though just from reading that I feel even more certain that Salvia can't seriously be considered to have recreational potential. Well, unless you consider going batshit crazy a good time. Salvia should only be used for serious purposes. Such as determining the cause of an illness/finding the cure. Or solving a problem that seems humanly impossible to solve. And even then, there are less dangerous alternatives which are also effective.

I believe this is what you're looking for.

I empathize with your lack of empathy.

Quite probably the best response possible.

You're referring to Salvia? It's rare to ever hear someone speak of it like that And yet somehow there are people crazy/stupid enough to use them recreationally.

Personally, I've been considering doing 4 Aco DMT as it appears to be one of it's prodrugs which Psilocybin is also. I would subject the substance to GC/MS to ensure purity, and utilize a microgram scale for dosage. Personally I'd recommend anyone wanting to do "mushrooms" or really any psychedelic to do the same.

I've advise against Datura for multiple reasons. First, the potency has such a large range of variability from batch to batch that accidental overdose is rather probable. Second, due to the anticholinergic properties of the substance and other deliriant type properties, it will mindfuck you into oblivion so hard you can't even fathom it. Of course, Salvia is similar in that regard, it's just that they're ridiculously powerful substances. So, to sum up don't do Datura. Even if you physically survive, which would be more likely if you did it under the guidance of Shaman who is experienced with it. It'll alter you so much that you're very likely to fall into a psychosis which could easily be permanent.

Salvia both has high potential for spiritual growth, and to inflict great suffering also. So to answer your question, it probably would be beneficial if you smoked a breakthrough dose but it might fuck you up at the same time. I suggest you read the Psychonaut wiki page on Salvia, and especially that you read the trip reports on there before you even consider doing it. https://psychonautwiki.org/wiki/Salvinorin_A

If you decide to take LSD for your first trip(which I'd advise against) do something like 100 micro grams. And yes it's true that your mind would be clearer on LSD, it's just that Psilocybin hits the more emotional aspect of consciousness better than LSD. And consequently, it has higher recreational potential as on acid you're more likely to radically dissolve your ego and freakout. I know you're likely not doing this for pleasure, but I believe safety should be your first priority. And that of course includes your sense of mental stability. Which you're likely to miss if you go from an ordinary mortal existence straight to being God and knowing that you're imaging everything firsthand. If you do chose to try LSD first, I'd recommend you study the following Psychonaut Wiki page in depth so you have some idea of what you're getting yourself into. But don't be frightened by my warnings, LSD is an incredibly safe substance in comparison even to many legal drugs. As long as you know that what you have truly is LSD-25, and not some other substance like an I-Nbome because you've tested your acid. And you dose appropriately, you should be fine. https://psychonautwiki.org/wiki/LSD

I would advise you take somewhere between 1 and 1.5 grams. At that dose, it's likely to be a good light experience. I also recommend you read the following trip report to get a general idea of what you will happen to you. Though keep in mind it'll only provide a sort of rough model since your experience will be at least slightly different. https://psychonautwiki.org/wiki/Experience:_1.5g_Psilocybe_Cubensis_-_Analysis_of_body_and_mind

I would recommend Psilocybin over LSD for your first trip as that should produce a softer experience. Which you want because your first trip's agenda should be to prepare yourself for future trips. Relative to dosage, what species of mushroom do you specifically plan on taking? Because the actual concentration of Psilocybin can vary rather substantially between different mushrooms.

I would definitely recommend you do Psilocybin/Psilocin first. It's the least likely to give you a bad experience though it's still possible. Especially if you take an excessive dose. I don't recommend Cannabis, seeing as it's not going to raise your level of consciousness the way a psychedelic would.

This can easily be recreated in your sleeping dreams. Does that prove they aren't dreams? Or that they aren't your imagination? How do you think "nightmares" are possible? The dream characters you encounter in a sleeping dream experience a separate reality to you. Are you saying that makes them real? In your worldview surely dreams must be somehow unreal as compared against the waking world. Furthermore, you couldn't possible know that we all live in the same reality without having direct access to our experiences and comparing them against yours. For example, when you look up at the sky and see what for you is the color blue and call it blue, I might also call it blue, but the color I see as blue you might see as red. But, if you were to become me(or anyone or anything other than yourself for that matter) you would think you're losing your mind. So it's impossible for you to determine whether or not I share your experiences. Which defeats your whole argument as it's based on the notion that we all live in the same reality. No, everything is literally the same as nothing. The absolute truth is Omnipresence or in other words, you aren't the body/human you think you are, rather you are everything(all possible realities/things that can be imagined by infinite imagination) and nothing(the non attributional consciousness of which all those things consist). And really, you aren't actually any of those things, because you're a self, and the self is whatever it permits itself to become. I know I may appear to be beating a dead horse, everything is easy to explain. However, nothing is much more difficult. Because when we say nothing, we almost certainly mean something other than what you think we mean. This definition of nothing, is not something which doesn't exist, that's a different nothing. Nor is it empty space, though it's more similar to the spacetime continuum than for example solid matter, because space is more subtle than matter. And the definition of nothing I'm using refers to the most subtle form possible. Which is essentially no form at all, the problem with saying that though, is that it's so formless it isn't even formless. Because just as a form needs to exclude every other possibility to be itself, so the formless would need to exclude every possible form. But this kind of nothing does nothing of the kind, it rather includes every possibility, so much so that it includes every possible form of exclusion. Hence why it's nothing and everything simultaneously. It's only logical that nothing is inevitable. Because for reality to consist of something would mean that all realities and everything within them would be that something. Like for instance, if the building block of the universe were chickens, everything would be a chicken. Humans would be a chicken, their hand would be a chicken, the molecules which make up their hand would also be chickens etc etc. You see why existence in it's rawest form cannot be a chicken. But let's take this a step further. If this were so(the chickens being everything notion) it would be impossible to differentiate between one chicken and the other. Like the chicken I am(as a human), and the chicken the Sun is would be indifferentiable because we'd be exactly the same thing. You see how they cancel each other out? It's only because there are differences between myself and the sun that the the sun and myself exist. This is an assumption which needs reevaluation. Reality is made out of differences, not physical matter. The problem with your understanding is that you're making metaphysical assumptions without even realizing it. Which is what most professional scientists of our day are doing also. There's also the fact that you seem to be limited to the human experience. Whereas I've experienced things beyond what's ordinarily possible for a human. Consequently, I have a very different worldview to yours. It's sort of like this, imagine you think the world is flat because it appears so to you as a puny creature sitting on the globe. Now imagine we send you up 500 miles to look down on your home and see that it's in fact spherical. This is effectively like what would happen if you were to reach the states of consciousness I've reached. The only difference being that this awakening affects all of existence, not just a planet.

Well, the human experience would be very different if they knew their true identity. There are many other reasons mind you, like the fact that humans have a hard time accepting they're creating all things including those they find evil or displease them. It's mostly a problem of ego, if you desire to think of it as a problem. To quote Plato “No one is more hated than he who speaks the truth.”

We're not supposed to discuss sourcing. But my advise to you would be to always have your substances tested before doing them.

Absolutely. The subconscious mind doesn't differentiate between real and unreal the same way the conscious mind does. For instance, you may be watching something on television which is highly engaging. It might be a football game where your favorite team is losing badly the whole game then in the 4th quarter they "pull out of their ass" a seemingly miraculous victory. If we were to measure your nor adrenaline levels, we'd see them spike when the excitement occurs. This is because your emotions are created and regulated subconsciously. If you were to use your conscious discernment to "determine" whether the game should be exciting or not. You'd realize that you're looking at a spectrum of moving lights being projected onto a sheet of glass, and not something that is real(that's to say, you would realize the game isn't truly occurring inside the tv). Therefore, you would think of the "game" as being not real and feel silly for reacting to it as if it were. To the conscious mind, it seems that repeating the same action and expecting different results is foolish or even insane. But, repetitious experience/action/thought patterns solidifies the "reality" of that experience or action subconsciously. The more solid it becomes, the more real it becomes, the more real it becomes the more powerful and permanent the effects of it are. This is why 10 hours of meditation is more powerful than 1 hour. And why 10 hits of acid is more powerful than 1. And also why repeating a certain form of meditation or Sadhana results in higher possibilities. So if you try to utilize your mind to do magick, don't be discouraged if it fails. Realize that with repetition, it's effects become "realer". If they become real enough, eventually you'll have unlocked whatever potential you were seeking.

My advise would be to develop your Vishuddhi. If your energies become dominant there you'd be directly aware of how you're dreaming things up. And consequently can banish undesirable imagined things(like demons, goblins, and your landlord). I'm just kidding about that last one.

Relatively speaking, truer words have never been spoken about a drug. It amazes me that people would forgo psilocybin/psilocin(by far one of the safest substances in existence in terms of biological toxicity and addiction potential) which has a majority of positive experiences in trip reports for something so consistently maligned(and rightly so for it's ability to mindfuck and torture) as Salvia. I mean, you would think people would at least be fastidious enough to discover MDMA as a potential inducer of pleasure(though it's slightly less safe than Psilocin due to the possiblity of Serotonin Syndrome). Oh well, I suppose individuals using drugs recreationally tend not be the sharpest tools in the shed.

Real vs unreal is a duality, which to be experienced or expressed necessitates self-deception. From an absolute perspective, there is no difference between the two realities he experienced, they are one as all is one. But in the relative domain, he experienced a hallucination similar to that of our "real lives" just of a radically different dream, with different rules. While it's unusual to explore other realities as you've described, there are similar accounts from others doing psychedelics, some practicing astral projecting without substances, and even just basic meditators who've experienced time dilation to some degree(myself included). So the fact that he spent months in a totally different dream for such a short duration of time in our own reality shouldn't be entirely too shocking.

I believe what Charlie is trying to say is that when you've had an epiphany it sticks with you. And not necessarily that he thinks memory of experiences past are invalid. Though I could be wrong, perhaps I'm projecting my own wisdom.