OldManCorcoran

^ I am referring to 100% ego dissolution. Ego dissolution happens to various degrees: 1. First is the normal sense of being our body with the world around us. 2. If you have ingested a serious psych like DMT, you might experience this intermediary. Where you start losing feeling of body parts, your sense of I shrinks, so where you feel you are your entire body, as you lose sensation the anchor for the I-ness shrinks until it's pinpointed in your head or some other bodily location. 3. When you lose all sense of your body, the ego function has nowhere to tether it's I-ness to and therefore loses boundary. This causes the I-ness to spread to every appearing phenomena within your field of experience. This is the experience of "being infinite" commonly brought about by a breakthrough dose of n,n-DMT. 4. Your ego function is actually shut off entirely. The "I" sense is absolutely non-existent. There exists only appearances without such a thing as an I... This is very alien to conceive of, and many people trying to intellectualize this, cannot help but mentally wrestle the I into the concept of it like "IT MUST BE THERE!!! IT COULDN'T POSSIBLY NOT BE THERE!!!" But no it is entirely absent, there is no I anymore at all. And all things are perfectly logical via this framework if you do understand what it entails. . There is a person online Steven Norquist who wrote about that sort of ego dissolution in a better way I think you will understand.

Dave you are still positioning yourself as being something existent additionally to the various things which appear. Whereby "I" see 7:05, "I" see 7:06. You are considering yourself to be an entity which views appearances. It seems to you as you describe because of a functioning ego. It's not real to the situation. If you walk past the Eiffel tower right now and I walk past it tomorrow, by your current conception you are imagining there is an I character you possess which sees the tower. Then the next day the I character I possess sees it, not you because you can confirm you are seeing your living room wall or computer screen or whatever you're doing! Without ego, there is the existence of the appearance and nothing more. So not you seeing the tower one day, then me seeing the tower the next, just the existence of the appearance of the tower on both days. It is identical regardless of who sees it. Do you understand this?

Note this is what happens when someone with a psychological need to believe in Jesus forgoes Jesus and projects the same anthropomorphic "God in the sky" properties onto Eastern spiritual conceptions of reality.

Logical error due to belief in separate souls / my and your consciousness etc. This is an ego trick. Imagine if instead of your ego believing itself to be a character viewing 5:41 PM on the clock, you could shift the idea of "you" to the actual sight of the 5:41 PM clockface. If you literally are that clockface and not the person seeing it, does it matter if your body is the one in front of it or if your friend's is? Does your body even need to be alive? If you literally are the sight of that clockface, does it even matter if your body is dead as long as someone else's is there seeing that sight. If you literally ARE the sight then whichever body happens to be seeing the clockface you are present. Because your identity is shifted away from the idea of a character who views things to being the actual viewed thing itself... Then what if you were the clockface and also the color red, and also the sound of music, and the scent of vanilla or w.e. else. And what if you literally were every single existent phenomena. It does not matter which person happens to be experiencing the world, if you are in fact the experienced world itself, and there isn't actually anybody at all who experiences any world... Where neither of us exist at all... When egos do not exist you can comprehend that easily. As easily as you have no issue with the existence of Earth and Mars or two different States or many different countries... So you aren't the character which dies you are the world which remains. There are no conscious beings, things are themselves consciousness. Red ISSSSS consciousness, it isn't over there seen by a consciousness, it IS it. It literally IS it... There is no such thing as "your" experience and "my" experience, that is ego story crafted on the notion of separate selves / souls.

Dude he just gets high all the time and then says whatever... Trying to recapture the actual breakthrough attained when he used a release dose of 5 years ago.

Lmfao...

Yes that's idiotic and caused by soul-like concepts. "Bubble of awareness" is a soul, like there's an awareness viewing things. So like there's an "I" viewing the sights happening to "me". That's why there's a conflict with the existence of several "bubbles" because each phemomena which appears in that case is thought to appear in relation to an I which observes it. So rather than red appearing and blue appearing and green appearing, there is thought to be an I character here which sees all three. This causes impossibility regarding other perspectives etc because the I which is meant to be whole only sees one thing in front of it, yet many people claim things are appearing in front of them. This cannot be... But without that conceptualization which is completely founded upon the idea of souls and selves, the wholeness is not confined to a me or a you or any bubble.

People who believe in Solipsism believe in souls. That is how the conclusion is reached, by believing in an essential soul observing changing appearances. If you don't believe in souls, there is no conflict at all between the existence of multiple sights or sounds simultaneously. If you shift identification from back inside you from the "I" to the actual appearing world, then you see moreso what I mean. If you identify you as being a brick wall you see on a walk, then you exist whenever anyone walks by that brick wall because you are seeing yourself literally as the sight of that brick wall and are present in that case whenever the brick wall is seen by anyone or anything. Solipsism and various other isms are just to do with identification.

The experimental antidepressant treatment protocol? Ket is not a good psychedelic IMO. Some people use it for that but I found it to primarily induce delirious thoughts, actually very similar to having a fever. If you're that into these things to try ket, you might want to look into doing a 5-MeO retreat. It's super different from ket or other dissociatives like DXM for example, but it's more what you are looking for in this arena. You must do the full release dose, your guide will help you, let him know your goal.

My most significant breakthrough trip of all time involved these dolls. Or after the event anyway, I interpreted it as being the smallest doll and the shells around me shattering one by one as I was propelled upwards from my ego. It was quite a fast propulsion... I was on a cocktail of psychedelics and then I hit a bunch of DMT hence the intensity and speed of it. I cannot be the same since.

You're roleplaying like Razard86 and that one specific mod lol. You haven't encountered these types of events....... They're very serious life altering events, people including quite experienced meditators pay thousands of dollars for the ceremonies to induce it. Nobody would waste their time or money with that crap (and also take the physical risks involved) if they could go through the same sort of mystical awakening by watching some videos.

If you know that you thought you knew, but no longer remember how or why you seemingly knew, how can you even know that you knew? Can you know that you knew that you knew? Or just know that you THOUGHT you knew that you knew? Unless you know right now... But then you'd know that you know, you wouldn't just know that you KNEW........

States like that or like general anaesthetic, the viewpoint you have about those events is egocentric or "Atman"-centric by the concept of it. Because you are considering this from the point of view where you are a being which views things as opposed to being the actual phenomena being viewed. So from your conception of the idea, you are not currently seeing the interior of my house (which I am seeing) because you know directly that you are seeing whatever is in front of you. That is the difference in conceptualization because in that way, there is a me, and a you, who is viewing these sights. As opposed to the existence of the viewing of the object itself, almost like things see themselves without us ever being there. So whenever things appear they appear unto themselves, and it is always LIKE you are the one seeing it. Which makes sense when removing the idea of the existence of the "you". Without ideas of souls or "Atmans" or whatever, there is ONLY the appearing object by itself. So if you hear a specific piece of music right now, and then I listen to that same piece of music tomorrow, it is identical both times, as there isn't a you and a me which hears the music in question, only the fact of the appearance of that music. There are logical certainties (I think certainties) about this idea. I like to use origami metaphors, because when you make something out of paper it's impossible to ever find any element of the shape you make which isn't substantially paper. So existence itself, it is impossible for any viewing to be done by anything else. That's the absolute unity of the situation.

Legit.

I feel this is probably correct. You really can't believe you are a viewer of things without believing in individual souls which sit apart from phemomena. Whatever is called a me will become the root of fear, because labelled me characters will be temporary. Instead if the only thing existent is, say, the sight itself, then any time the sight arises it is seen and known precisely the same. Regardless of which apparent person seems to be viewing it. The difference between me seeing the Eiffel tower today, and you seeing it tomorrow, in both instances there exists the sight of the Eiffel tower. But if instead we think we have a consciousness which views the image, then we will think that my consciousness views it on one day and yours the next. And I will not be able to comprehend how I am seeing the sight of the tower when you see it and I'm sitting indoors at home. Because I will be sure I am seeing the interior of my house and not the image of the tower. Without the I, there is no conflict. It is probably correct indeed.

Wow this guy is really zen, can definitely see those benefits of spirituality. Can't wait to sign up for his coaching.

This guy OBVIOUSLY isn't mentally capable of using psychedelic drugs dude... Do you want another Conor Murphy situation?

But they don't know that we know they know we know

I guess there's no point in trying to see it because we are already seeing it just through a cloud of ego. Of course there isn't anybody who sees sights. It's too difficult to remove the ego from the equation when sights are seen, but maybe that doesn't really matter. It really feels so much that I have always been here and me, it feels like if someone sees the same sight as me, it is a different person seeing that sight. It's not true but it's impossibly hard to comprehend it any other way...

Of course he's talking nonsense. Everyone is just theorizing. After a while a person's memory fades until even their own encounters with apparent truths are called into question. If you can't remember how/why you knew something, you can't know for sure that you knew it. Therein is a problem.

You aren't here, but the phemomena is. If the phenomena you see now appears again in the future, it appears exactly as though you were seeing it. Because of the fact that nobody is seeing it, it exists by itself. See if you saw just green void for your entire life and thought you were the green, you'd be afraid of the green becoming red because you think you're the green and will cease to exist with the green. But as you know, green can come and go and you remain. Well, that is how you consider yourself or "your consciousness". It is an idea that you are this person or ego, so you think that you are something which sees the sights around you and will cease to exist when the body and mind dies. But the ego like the green void can disappear and the world remains there exactly the same, just the same as if you were seeing it, exactly the same as though you never went anywhere at all. And you will be surprised to see that you were never even a you, and that no such thing as a you ever did exist at all. If in 1000 years a person walks the same exact pathway as you did earlier today, it will be you walking that pathway again. Because nobody ever walks a pathway, the pathway appears. And each time it appears it appears the same. This relates to things BEING consciousness as opposed to being viewed BY consciousness. They literally ARE it. Your ego IS consciousness, it is made of thoughts and memories which are made of consciousness. Sights and sounds are made of it. Etc. It never sits separately from things knowing them. It IS them.

He's not meant to be taken seriously... Sort of like a cosplayer. I don't even think anyone has had serious insights without the strongest psychedelics. Psychedelics are used in basically all tribes, used in India when they wrote the Upanishads etc in the form of Soma. Which is clearly DMT based on Hindu artwork of deities. Natty spirituality is a scam probably. Any tribe would just brew you some Aya.

Solipsism like that is for crazy people who believe in souls. There need not be separate souls, not logically... There need not be a my soul which walks past the Eiffel tower one day, then your soul which walks past it and sees it the day after... Logically there only has to be existent the sight of the Eiffel tower on both days, and no soul who views it. Every time the same sight appears, no matter who it appears to, it appears the same and is known the same. Not by different souls of viewers to the sight. Logically that can be true.

It's useless. We can glimpse something ineffable during a peak experience. But largely we are just going to have to wait until we die... Enough "chasing the dragon" trying to "understand" it again. When actually it seems those confrontations are entirely ineffable and thus can't be rationalized or intellectually considered. I voice recorded a regular DMT trip and was absolutely unable to describe the sensation or what was happening. I was barely even tripping hard compared to a breakthrough and couldn't verbalize what was happening except to say it was "very serious".

Does imagination even work that way, though? If you fall asleep and dream of a river, do you actually know the rate that it's flowing? It seems to just happen by itself.