OldManCorcoran

Guy hears voices in his head and everyone goes along with it to seem woke. Dude has schizophrenia...

Nobody typed that and nobody is typing this either. As soon as you start thinking there is somebody who sees or types or whatever, then you are seeing a separation, or AT LEAST a mixing of two different parts, like the one who types it plus what is typed. It's not clear to me right now and is something I only touched for the briefest moment, but it should be logically obvious: If there is ONLY reality itself and nothing more, then even if there is someone who sees something, what could be doing that seeing except from reality itself? Someone sent me a post earlier and it is true, when we are seeing from our eyes with an ego active, it is impossible for the sight to look anything other than in front of us. We can't envision the sight being behind or beside us. Because our minds are adding a fictional layer of a position of observing to that image. And the position of observing is where the ego lives. If the ego is taken out of the image completely, and you leave ONLY the image, then every time that image appears, no matter who it seems to be appearing to, it appears the same. It is also important to consider that all categorical divides are just thoughts in your head. In reality there is no categorical difference between qualia and dead matter in some distant galaxy, without a mind to apply a categorical division dead matter is not substantially different to qualia. Dead matter seems impersonal to us, like atoms can exist before our birth and after our death, and even without any living being at all. If you can comprehend qualia existing just as impersonally as that, you might get it.

Dildoing your ass with 5 isn't really an issue but rather the RoA itself is not great. Consider alcohol... Take one double vodka and DOWN it, vs sipping it across the night. The larger the quantity of something entering your bloodstream and the shorter the timeframe in which you can do so, the stronger the effect. Same w slightly different substances like DMT and changa (smoked DMT with MAOI). Changa is a much softer trip and a lot closer to some sort of short acting Shrooms or LSD. I think those longer softer drug trips can produce a lot of delusion actually.

Maybe someone who understands those religions can advise, but I do believe reincarnation and the "cycle of death and rebirth" has nothing at all to do with a soul being with you at birth and leaving at death and entering another thing like an animal. I believe they are probably referring to change moment to moment. So any thought changing in your head is death and rebirth. And karma rather than being about doing good or bad is their word for cause and effect.

Why would you watch Leo videos? When he starts doing other weird substances like MALT, or using 5-MeO in bizarre sexual ways rather than vaporizing it, he just starts talking random nonsense lol...

Yes similar to that. I can track the changes in ego as someone gets higher and higher on something like DMT. It is like this: 1. Normal sober perception, I end at the edges of my body. 2. Low dose DMT. Start losing sense of your body so your awareness feels to shrink. If you can't feel any body part anymore except say, your chest, it feels like your awareness ends at your chest rather than your entire body. 3. All sense of body is lost. Now because your ego has no place to cling itself, it is simply everywhere. It encompasses everything, there is no perceived edge so it feels infinite (like how outside your field of vision is not even black, it's not existent, and you can't mentally place the border of where these two things meet). 4. The sense of ego is actually erased completely. Rather than feeling to leak into infinity, boundlessness, it becomes like the vision that is beyond your field of view, which like above is not black, it's just not existent at all. Then you don't exist anymore. Everything continues appearing like above but you aren't there.

But you can literally just remove the word "you" in all of that!!! It becomes unnecessary. Like there is never awareness OF red, awareness IS red. This is also a coldly logical inevitability, like making origami animals, the origami animal literally IS paper... As opposed to paper being a process through which the animal is known. The animal literally IS the paper and there's ONLY paper to any single tiny part of it. The paper is irreducible and indivisible. That is existence... Existence IS red. Or "consciousness" IS red, never conscious OF red - but IS red. Just like that awareness isn't a process via which things are known, awareness is existence, and if the term existence replaced it, it would all become easier to discuss... It is nothing more than that... Anything which exists is existence whether a subjective perception or something else. Human language communicates the fact of existence with the term awareness. "there is no observer and object, there is experience." Why not end the sentence there? Why add the "you are" part after. It's unneeded. It's not real, you absolutely summarised in the prior line. Existence IS the experience of being you, or the color red or a sound or taste etc. Your example of no-self is not what people are encountering. That is normal "ego death" as with DMT or acid or shrooms. No-self event is reported very rarely in toad ceremonies, you will see people painfully struggle like this to try to express it. It is genuinely like erasing you from existence and somehow the world doesn't go away with you. It isn't just being a mass of ever-changing flux, or forgetting what a human is, or feeling to be merged with everything and one with the divine. It's like being erased entirely. I've ONLY ever seen these events reported from toad ceremonies, rarely, and rarely spiritual practitioners and monks etc.

People spend a long time with it because these are the real depths of mystical experiences and it becomes frustratingly difficult to convey. When trying to convey a no-self style mystical event, when you tell people they are not there but the world remains, they invariably imagine it means they're in eternal void like what Atheists believe and it's NOT THAT. They invariably will take the appearing world out along with the idea of the I am... And it is MADENNING because after a no-self event, what you're communicating is very basic, but you just cannot get people to drop the concept of I or self and entertain the notion of the world appearing ANYWAY... And have them comprehend that it appears exactly as if they are seeing it even though they aren't seeing it, even though they don't exist. It's like telling someone they don't exist, they will be incredulous and state confidently that they are certain they exist because if they didn't exist how could they be thinking these thoughts etc. IT IS SO HARD TO EXPLAIN to someone that they aren't actually there, they don't exist, and yet of course they are still seeing the world etc. Just that they aren't seeing it. Nobody is. Lol. How do you convey that particularly?

You didn't do the thing...... ? When people speak of no-self events, you have to do the thing to get the frame, you have to just briefly entertain your absence as something real. You have likely had similar events but I think you ought to understand people who have had "no-self" type "awakenings". Just because it's something people could discuss, and so it's good to understand what happened to them. When the thing happens, you will be sitting there aware of the red color. But you're not there... I just said you are there yes, to stress that the color is still there, because when you think of qualia in your absence you are removing the conscious nature of qualia instead of only the I. Which isn't possible as you know. So if you were to envision big bang into JUST blue, in absence of mind, consciousness, god, just hypothetically entertain the absence of those things, entertain non existent void then JUST blue coming into being. NOTHING. NOTHING. NOTHING ELSE. NOTHING ELSE. Entertain it, please just briefly. That literally NOTHING AT ALL exists but the qualia of blue. Before dismissing that it is impossible and never happens. Entertain it appearing ANYWAY, and hopefully see that consciousness is not really there: consciousness is literally existence and nothing more and briefly this will be apparent. Consciousness is existence itself, not even related necessarily to subjective experience, the word shouldn't even exist it should just be called "existence" or "being" because that's what it is. The reason you can't remove "consciousness" from red is because consciousness is not consciousness, consciousness is literally just the sheer fact of existence. Nobody has to exist to see red, no god has to exist to see red, seeing doesn't even need to exist to see red. Red just exists. With no additional steps at all. And the existence of for ex the sight of red, invariably means it appears precisely as it is seen EVEN IF nothing exists to see it, because the sight of red can only ever be the sight of red. Which means it appears as the sight of red despite absence of ANY witnessing. In a devoid reality with absolutely nothing AT ALL no god no mind no consciousness, then bang BLUE... When it appears, so long as blue exists it exists exactly as you understand it to mean that "you" are seeing it. The primary difference is a recontextualization away from the idea of such a thing as seeing or hearing or tasting, or even of "being conscious"... AWAY from "I am" and instead to JUST "am" or "is"... There is no such thing as "being conscious" and the word consciousness ought to be replaced with the word "existence", "is-ness" or some similar variant... It's like 1% different from what you are saying. But a lot of people will have these types of events happen and it is slightly different. With am instead of an I am.

For clarity, the blue IS the perceiving of it. Blue without perceiving is like saying water without wet, but even MORE synonymous than that, to where there isn't anything but blue without anything perceiving it. Because like the phrase water and wet, you still have an idea of water which is wet, there's water and the property wet, which given two words become two ideas... It's more singular than that so there isn't blue and the property of perceiving, it's ONLY blue. Oneness IS blue, it IS red, it IS things rather than observing them. Probably that is important. See: If you say it is the observing of blue, human mind is like "oh okay so there's the act of observing and there's blue... I observe many things, like blue, red, green". And through this back door enters the ego... It is just blue. Blue IS the observed blue. It's blue, just blue. And green, just green, etc... So big bang to nothing but blue qualia. Not observing of blue. Just blue... Even in the hypothetical big bang into nothing but blue. Hypothetical, force fot a moment to consider its a big bang into just blue. With no minds, no god, no people, no life, no death, no consciousness. JUST blue... The blue IS the observed blue, it cannot be blue qualia in any other way than it is observed... And so with none of those other things even existing, it is absolutely inescapable that if blue qualia exists, it must exist precisely as it is seen... That is how absolutely nothing is magically "conscious", all qualia which exists can only exist precisely as it is seen and no other way. No minds no god no people no life and STILL if it exists it MUST exist precisely as it is. Because it cannot be blue any other way. And so there stands blue totally alone. Seemingly seen, but not seen not observed. Simply existing. Oneness IS blue IS green, etc...

Well there is something irreducible and when that is coated in tonnes of layers, i.e. the way we function rn thinking we are people blah blah, that would be what we think of as I. But, one time, only very briefly, the I portion was taken entirely out. It was like the world continued to exist in my absence. In the way YOU understand it (because having not had full ego death like this), I was still there. But in actuality, the world continued to appear but I was not there at all. Thinking in materialist terms is actually ironically useful for insight about this sort of metaphysics: I.e. people say there was a big bang and a bunch of matter is what that bang created (something along those lines?). Well envision this instead: Instead of the bang producing matter. It produces the color blue. The qualia of blue. And that is the ONLY (!) thing it produced. NO sentient beings, NO brains, NO matter, it JUST PRODUCED BLUE... Well, see how the existence of that blue means it must appear AS THOUGH it were seen. Even though absolutely nothing exists from that bang but blue qualia. NO witness was produced. And yet blue qualia is blue qualia and exists ONLY as a sight. And all sights cannot appear without appearing as though they are "seen". ... Like that...

Interesting

Thanks... It's quite ungodly isn't it, strips human traits and things like design. However, in itself it must be infinite in every capacity, logically? Because for example, for it to appear as 100 IQ intelligence in humans, it must have AT LEAST that itself. It must have at least or excess of everything there ever is, in itself. And I can't see how there could exist any limiting factors to set a maximum limit on any particular element.

It is inevitable logically. There is some sort of fundamental reality belying everything... If there is anything to know something, what could there possibly be to know it apart FROM fundamental reality.

No for many reasons. First of all I'd be angry as hell if I just spent all this time in the gym etc then died before I could enjoy looking sexy. Also I have anxiety disorders for real. Actual anxiety disorders. So fear of the unknown is quite major... If I died suddenly in an accident that'd probably be ideal for me.

If there is anything to know, what could possibly know it except fundamental reality itself? There can't be anything OTHER than whatever happens to be, what reality is, etc. It isn't logically possible. If all you have is paper you can only make shapes which are essentially paper, because there ISN'T anything else. Logically inevitable. If there exists someone to see something, the only thing which could possibly be seeing it, is the same as what everything is, 'cause paper origami shapes. There could never actually be anything else existent to do the seeing.

Toad is death sentence. Meditation is cope.

Meditation is trash. Medicines exist to induce awakening. Most tribes do this, rather than sitting around meditating like a nonce.

No, telepathy is invented. Resurrect James Randi for a quick debunk.

I think you might be mistaken. The things you come up with yourself are generally quite different from the words of people who have had ego death. Your words are generally more like a Christian... IMO just book a toad ceremony, and don't tap out at the "handshake" dose, let them send you all the way... Same for Holykael, Razard86, and the Nic Cage avi dude. Because the things these people say, they just haven't had ego death. A lot of teens think they've had ego death on weed, or acid or shrooms or w.e... The ego death in those sort of trips is closer to ketamine. Yimpa for example only has experience with "ego death" from ketamine therapy, and he also doesn't speak like someone who has had ego death. I've been K-Holed and it's not like the type of ego death people are talking about with something like 5-MeO. And not the pervert ass boofed bathtub orgasm 5, the proper way, vaporized, "release dose".

He isn't correct because he thinks Holykael ("holy cow", get it?! I just did) is the only thing in existence... You yourself also need to have some sort of ego death. And Razard86. And that Nic Cage avatar person but I forget that guy's username.

I like the term building blocks because it sounds more like an inanimate object/not an experiential phenomena. But I think the perfect metaphor already exists in origami.

This is how you feel because you talk about things you legit don't understand at all. Sounds like stoned teenager musings... You need to stay away from these places until such a time that you have an encounter with the "divine" or w.e. one would say.

I do have social anxiety, I have had the condition since I was 15 or 16, with warning signs in the years just prior... It's a lifelong illness, it cannot be improved for me. But I score fine on this test because the questions are like "eating in public". And also doesn't put "sober" as a qualifier. I'm not scared of parties because if I'm going to a party I'll be about 4 double vodkas deep and drunk when I turn up. Lmao. Sober I just wouldn't even go.

I mean you don't and can't know this for sure... It's logically coherent and very possible without any logical error in that, but not really possible to know one way or the other... I also can't know 5 seconds ago happened.