WeCome1

If was just a figure of speech, I didn't mean it to sound so categorically.

Well, if it is any consolation, that ^^^ is not exactly true, is it? Psyche has INCREDIBLE, gigantic, insurmountable inertia. If you've been mentally stable prior to that heroic dose - you will be stable again, if you just continue with your life and all the "human stuff". They do say that "a man who once tried shrooms will forever remain a man who once tried shrooms", but it's not the end of the world. It'll work out, give it time.

It is just sort of a default mode by now. Although, admittedly, sometimes the absurdity of this lunacy becomes too much, and we laugh like maniacs. I don't complain. Not sure I understood your question. So, there are five of us: me, my imaginary alter-ego MY_nickname, my girlfriend, her imaginary alter-ego HER_nickname, and our imaginary cat. When I speak about something I did, I formulate it as if MY_nickname did that; same for her. If I need something from her, I ask if HER_nickname would be so kind as to _whatever_. Also, if either of us fucks something up (like drops and smashes a vase) - we usually say that the motherfucking cat did it. I don't see how it can possibly be confusing for you.

This one time, during a mushroom trip, I remember I just sat there for some 15 minutes marveling at a simple wooden chair. You know, like, it just sometimes dawns on you, WHAT THE FUCK DOES IT ACTUALLY TAKE for a simple wooden chair to exist here before your eyes - that kind of a moment. Like, how can one overlook that it is not, in fact, a chair - it is a piece of some ancient alien god-tech of unknown (and unknowable) purpose which just happens to look exactly like a chair. And I SAT on that thing? Imagine you had a 10,000-year-old jedi lightsaber - and you used it to open beers Reality is so cool sometimes. No idea what @Holykael is complaining about.

Naaaah, chill out, you are far from schizo yet. So, me and my girlfriend, we refer to ourselves in 3rd person, like, 80% of the time. But it gets better: we each have a sort of made up "avatar" with an idiotic nickname and a whole backstory, traits of character and silly superpowers etc etc. So, in our household, you are unlikely to hear something like "I went to the store and brought snacks, want some?" - rather, something like this is used literally all the time: "my_nickname went to the store and brought some snacks, maybe ask her_nickname if she wants some?" - "She seems to have gone for a walk." Lol, almost forgot: we also have an imaginary cat. So you're good. As long as you are ironic about it, at least

Wellp, the strategy of taking from the world seems to have run its course. Maybe consider giving back? Some selfless service? There is always help needed somewhere. I've heard good things.

Is there a question somewhere? Or just sharing?

Your Majesty!

Reality is exactly, literally like it appears. But it is not at all what it appears to be. Also, "a picture is worth a thousand words":

In your other thread, @Water by the River provided links to another discussion; there is a link to the video of Francis Lucille where he attempts to explain how come your apparent experience is limited while the consciousness it appears in is unlimited. The guy is difficult to listen to, but give it a go. Indeed, think about it: did "your direct experience 10 seconds ago" happen? Did it EXIST? Does it NOW? Well, "the direct experience of @WeCome1 typing out this answer" exists to the exact same extent as "your 10 seconds ago". The difficulty of wrapping your mind around this is, as @OldManCorcoran tirelessly points out, due to the idea you currently have that there are points of view which belong to some entities (subjects of perception); doesn't matter if you conceive of those entities as "points of perception", or "fields of perception smeared all over the phenomena", or some "void that is aware" or anything else, does not really matter. As long as there is any sort of a "subject" - it is, implicitly, finite. And, since it is finite - it must either be one (which points to solipsism) or many (which is a more conventional view). I will not discuss solipsism (Razard is doing a fine job, check any of his threads). But the paradigm of "many subjects", almost by definition, implies that the point of view of each of them exists "somewhere", in parallel with yours; this is what you currently feel like is happening, correct? However, if, hypothetically, we were to get rid of the notion of there existing those entities-subjects, we would not need to jump through all those hoops regarding "what experiences exist, and where do they go when nobody's looking, and do they interact in any way, and what if a tree falls in the forest when nobody's there to hear it?.." It solves, by discarding as irrelevant, the questions of deep sleep, death, reincarnation, karma (belonging to someone) etc. There is this giant, total, infinite "mind"; within it, in the state of "super-position", are all potential "experiences" that could be experienced; they "are" there in a sense that they could become manifested in it; and they "aren't" - in a sense that this mind "forgets" them when it focuses on or manifests another experience. You tell me, how many of those there "exist". But it's all just words. More concepts attempting to describe THAT; a hand trying to grab itself. You don't need it, it's of no use. What you do need is to learn how to achieve the clarity of mind necessary for this to either become self-evident or get disproven as a neo-advaita bullshit another forum member is parroting.

This philosophical position does not suggest anything about how many "parallel" POVs there are - it is not about that. It merely states that there is no "objective reality" beyond your "subjective experienced phenomena", i.e. qualia are the bedrock reality. Might be a single solipsistic POV, might be many parallel POV bubbles made of qualia. Is water wet? No, really - is it? See, the meaning of "wet" is "covered in water", which implies that there has to be something else than water, that that something is finite, has an outer boundary or surface, on which water is applied to make it wet. Now, hypothetically, if there was only water spanning infinitely in every direction - would it be correct to say that "water itself is wet"? Probably not. You would rather say something like "water is water" - but, see, this becomes tautological really quickly. Water is water = Water IS = Water = ... ??? (because when all there is is water, it is meaningless to try defining it, because there isn't anything to define it against). Well, it's the exact same thing with "experience" (or perception, or awareness, or knowing, or understanding). All of those contain implied duality: that there is an object to be experienced, the subject who is separate from object and experiences it, and that there is the process of "experiencing" going on. The claim advaita makes is that all there is is "consciousness all the way in every direction". If that were the case, the word "experience" kind of becomes redundant. Consciousness isn't experiencing the phenomena - it is appearing AS phenomena, or sort of "takes shape" of phenomena. So consciousness is consciousness = consciousness IS = consciousness = ... ??? Hence "neti-neti", not this, not that, not anything in particular. The difficult part is to grasp the sheer TOTALITY of it. It is somewhat acceptable for a dualistic mind that colors, sounds and other senses are "made of consciousness", as are thoughts and concepts which are pure abstractions. But once you continue with this line of thinking towards something like "consciousness does not know itself/MYself - it only takes shape of the thought "I am""; or that "consciousness does not know or understand anything - it only takes shape of "knowledge" or "understanding" (even "absolute knowledge and understanding" - because there is no limit to what shape consciousness can take) - then it might start getting existential... You will, in fact, never understand it - IT will appear or take shape of the story of you understanding it. The lights are on but there's nobody home.

If you are into dark ambient, you might enjoy these two albums by a little-known genius from the 2000-s, Roman Sidorov. The guy used to spend weeks in the woods recording the sounds of Siberian nature, then distorted them beyond recognition, added some iron percussion and reassembled it all into shamanic industrial Lovecraftian soundscapes. Do yourself a favor and listen the whole albums, with eyes closed. There is nothing quite like it, this shit takes you places.

The main difficulty with communicating the Alien Awakening:

Here is a piece of practical advice that might save you decades of confusion and misery: An irrational mind cannot be transcended. Our intellect has two modes of thinking. One is the Rational mode: the mind considers a problem, takes available inputs, evaluates them rationally, reaches a conclusion, and terminates. We could say that its goal, its intention is to terminate - by solving the problem which set it off. The product of rational mind is clarity. The other one is the Irrational mode: the mind considers the problem partially, takes some of the inputs and pulls some other out of its ass, evaluates them in arbitrary manner, reaches a problematic conclusion, and considers it as the next problem/input. Its objective and intention is the opposite: to perpetuate a story, a narrative in the mind. And it just so happens that this story the irrational mind is spinning is the story of you. A story about how a man got fucked. The problem with clarity is that nobody can make sense of stuff for you. Even if some ultimate truth dawns on you automagically in meditation or overwhelms you with its inescapable totality during a trip - your irrational mind will hijack, subvert and nullify it soon enough. So, what can be done? Here are a couple quotes to set the mood: Maybe you cannot awaken by reading the forum - but you sure as hell can get a lot of deliberate practice in rationality here, or anywhere else communication takes place: Be clear and explicit with yourself about what exactly you are doing/saying and why you are doing/saying it. Read/listen carefully. Like, really, get to the core of author's communication - or lack thereof. Be aware of the whole context. Use proper argumentation. Thesis, explanation, evidence - instead of ungrounded truth-claims. Check your facts by tracing them to the source of origin. State an opinion as an opinion explicitly. Learn all you can about logical fallacies. Spot them wherever you can; avoid using them yourself. Be honest about what you don't know. Better to ask or remain silent - than to regurgitate a bunch of platitudes of unchecked origin and buzzwords the meaning and context of which you are not 100% certain about. Do your research before asking questions. It is not the point of this thread to discuss the metaphysics of whether there is or isn't anything else to do in spirituality besides exhausting the confused narrative the irrational mind is perpetuating - go create a separate thread for that, if needed. The point is rather to make a public service announcement that if you are under the impression that you can bypass rationality with enough substances and consciousness work and get some lasting results (clarity, peace, love, whatever you are looking for) - you are utterly and hopelessly screwed. Declaring something like "You cannot think your way out of the prison cell of Self-Deception(TM)" usually means that you probably haven't even touched the bars yet. Could this be your case? How sure are you?

Completely agree. Though, the point I was trying to make here is even simpler than that. If one can't ask a precise question, read and understand a long detailed answer or construct a cohesive argument based on reliable evidence - how much of a chance does one really have against one's Self-Deception? Maya will ride him like a pony. So, maybe, thinking straight should be somewhere at the top of the priority list for someone participating in a Spirituality forum unironically. I used to work in insurance; if there is one thing the industry has taught me - the mother of all fuck-ups is the idea that "this won't happen to me".

Nope, this passive attitude is a non-starter. You want a lecture about all those three topics at once, with slides and notes, delivered for your consumption? Well, I don't know about that... You had something in mind when you started this topic and the two others, something specific. You had some idea of what this "only the experience exists" means - so what was it? Be explicit! What is it exactly that you want to know? What is your question about? Formulate!

I have, you did not read it. But ok, let's try again. ONLY the experience exists. Only this/my POV experience exists; there is nothing beyond this "bubble of perception", and, consequently, no other POVs as well. What they call Solipsism. Only the EXPERIENCE exists. Only the experienced phenomena or qualia exist. Those subjective phenomena are not reflections of some objective reality - the appearance you see before you is the ultimate bedrock reality , it is a-mechanic, there is nothing hidden underneath. What they call Subjective Idealism, I think. Only the experience EXISTS. Much like the previous one, only phenomena or qualia exist - but here the emphasis is on the fact that there is no one experiencing them, no subject, they are "self-experienced", self-apparent, self-known; "Being, not Knowing". What they call Monism in the West or Advaita/Non-duality in the East. Which one(s) you wanted to talk about? I'll leave the rest for tomorrow.

Those shrooms took no prisoners today, huh?.. Don't let that ^^^ solidify into a limiting belief, okay? You do remember that there is love, kindness and compassion hardwired underneath all of that? Not even in some abstract True God Self - but in ordinary human consciousness. Heck, even in animals. Yeah, it's limited - and so it can be pushed to the limit and past it - because humans are; but it IS there.

Is it? Maybe it would be a good idea to begin by providing some quotes which gave you that impression - then we would have something to work with. We could pick those apart. Or the authors of those quotes could come and specify what they meant. Because now it looks like you are just generalizing and putting words in "some people's" mouths. I've asked once before in your previous thread, I'll ask again: ONLY the experience exists? Only the EXPERIENCE exists? Only the experience EXISTS? Do you see how those are three completely different statements? If you want answers - be specific with your questions.

Hot take: I have a theory that the only reason Razard isn't banned yet is because he single-handedly generates, like, half of the traffic to this forum (and website, by extension). Stage Orange capitalism, baby; no hard feelings, just business. If that were even remotely true, then, once you step up your game - you will become virtually immune: you don't ban the goose shitting laying golden posts eggs.

I happen to know a lot of monks from various traditions: Buddhist, Hindu, Orthodox Christian; one of my best friends is a dadi (a nun in Hindu monasticism). I suggest you re-evaluate the trust you put into your sources, because the portrayal of monasticism you have presented above is beyond rudimentary; in fact, it is the opposite of what you described. A Sage is what monks strive to be. And not just strive - they actually make vows to go through with it, and devote every waking moment to that goal. And boy do they have working and time tested systems for that. All a monk has are obligations. Yep, that is a bit closer to the description of the actual life of a monk. Monasticism is a life of discipline, devotion, service and cultivation of love. They actually do the spiritual work 24/7 - both during their practice and while engaging with the world. And because of that their life is filled to the brim; you honestly have no idea to what extent. "Ordinary" people are sleepwalking through life, compared to any decently devoted monk. This lecture explains well what monasticism is about, and why people consider it attractive. It is in Russian, but auto-generated captions can be translated to English, and the translation is on point, checked. It is long, but illuminating.

Just a little something I would like to add to the opening post. It might be tempting to label rationality "a mind game" and "just more concepts" within a dream. Don't. At least, not until you are very certain you have pushed it to the limit. Exhibit A: Confused mind thinks there is a knot; Clarity reveals there never was one; Rationality untangles confusion.

Soy un hombre muy honrado Who awakened lo mejor...

Care to elaborate? If only for the sake of practice?