UnbornTao

I don't see how this would be considered a mental issue unless it gets in the way of normal, everyday functioning - it just sounds like active daydreaming, running through imaginary scenarios in your own mind, or "being in the clouds." Don't fret, though - we're all fucked up in our own particular ways.

It's good that you're willing to acknowledge that. I'd add that responsibility doesn't mean blame. You can actually become responsible and move towards your goals without blaming yourself or feeling guilty about past behavior. Focus your time and effort on building what you want rather than on dwelling on your past history too much. Ask yourself questions such as "What am I working towards? What I am looking forward to? What is it that I want to master in life? How can I be more effective in that?" And make it happen.

Sounds reasonable.

Consider that. Additionally, do you think that if Maharshi were to take a bunch of 5-MeO or other chemicals, what he was conscious of would be affected or touched in any way?

It depends on what you mean by knowing, but you're (again) likely referring to the domain of experience. A state is a state. The fundamental blunder lies in the assumptions behind phrases such as: "If I am high on 5-MeO-DMT and super conscious of God…". Can you see how this relates to perceptual phenomena - and that it's relative? If you're actually conscious of your nature, that doesn't disappear when the drug wears off or your state and experience change. It's no more true than believing that taking a shower produces God-realization. Obviously, with the substances, you can experience dramatic shifts in mind state that you can't get from a shower (unless the water is really, really cold!). I should've clarified that I'm not against psychedelics or the retreat, in case someone is thinking that. The retreat could be immensely transformative and valuable for people, but there's no pill for this direct business, and the method can't do it for you. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), my counterargument goes no further than yours: believing that direct consciousness can be chemically induced, or that it is an experience, or a function of the brain, is false. It has more to do with wishful thinking than with reality. It's easy to fool oneself by being carried away by the trip, because it can be impressive, unusual, blissful, "loving," and all the rest.

Consciousness doesn't come and go. The point of it being absolute is that there could not possibly be anything beyond it. How could there be - except as a relative phenomenon, where it is thought of as "lots and lots," and notions of higher, lower, easy, or weaker apply? And it may well be about semantics. You seem to want another term to feel special or like an outlier. But "beyond" is still relative, as hard as it is to understand. Even when it is pointed to, what is it that is being referred to? Any distinction that comes to mind as a result of hearing these terms will, by necessity, miss the mark. Do you mean the subjective, chemically-induced state in which you actually thought you could turn yourself into an alien and record it on camera?

God is a fiction? In any case, you still believe that, basically, fiction 1 (drug) + fiction 2 (brain) = awakening from the fiction.

According to you. But the point is that no method can produce direct consciousness, and there's no means to it because it is direct. It's simply what you do while "waiting" to become conscious. Like leaping, without the leap. In reality there's no path, much less an easy one you simply ingest. Reflect on the mental framework behind the seemingly trivial term "baseline (or sober) state of consciousness." What you're essentially saying is that you aren't high on a drug right now; you are not experiencing all the bells and whistles of the chemical you've conflated with "Consciousness." And then you always, inevitably, "come down."

It depends - do you have any hobbies? Since you're already going to be spending on personal development resources, you might also want to invest in things that help you decompress and relax, like a good video game, a sport, or something similar. Just a suggestion.

bump

Holy fuck the conversation is all over the place now

The bitch of it all is that consciousness ain't a state. Hence the conflation. @Leo Gura - you may not be as awake as you think. You keep associating your drug-of-choice trips with "Awakening," which makes me think you're still referring to experience and perceptive phenomena. There might be a fundamental blunder in there. Keep in mind that experience constitutes everything you recognize as life and reality. That's what your mind and attention will be focused on. That's probably the genesis of the "baseline state of consciousness" narrative. You're literally denigrating truth into a drug high. You really think the Absolute can be accessed through a change in physiology. You know, Ralston, Ramana, Meher Baba, Adi Da - they might have a point. When you asked Ralston about the impossibility of him being in "constant" Satori, you were still holding direct consciousness as a state that one has. And he told you it wasn't an experience - that you were looking at something other than direct consciousness. Something like that. This is a segment of his response: Obviously, with such a question, the nonsensical nature of it is precisely the point. Getting discouraged with the direct approach can be a common trap.

You keep resorting to that when it suits you.

I don't think that. What I'm saying is that the way enlightenment is used refers to becoming absolutely conscious. So there's really no "greater," "weaker," or "beyond" as far as the absolute goes, because it isn't relative. Those terms describe relative distinctions that don't apply to the absolute - even though one might be more deeply conscious of it, it's still absolutely true. So again, in the way I use the word, it's a matter of semantics. Swap the term enlightenment for God-realization, and it's no different. Ramana was "God-realized."

Well, consider Brendan's point. Again, his position is based on direct consciousness, not on his experience with the substances. I think he actually tried 5Meo and said something along the lines of: "it's not it." And how could it be it?

For example, Shulgin, McKenna, and Leary all experimented with drugs to varying degrees. None of them became any more awake than they had been prior to that process. Leary earnestly tried to achieve God-realization by taking several of them in high doses, but without success. The point is that he was barking up the wrong tree: he hoped to change his physiology and, as a result, produce an absolute outcome - which is based on a false premise. When I had my 5-MeO breakthroughs, I could've come here and fooled you into believing I had gone through a God-realization or Awakening - and most of you would've eaten it up. But I passionately avoid doing that. I know the kinds of things you guys like to hear; it would just be a matter of adopting that mental framework, position, and terminology - acting in a way consistent with that image. But I'd be describing an experience, and it wouldn't be "true." It would have started with me fooling myself about what actually happened while high. Then again, one could have had an enlightenment irrespective of the circumstances, but not as a result of a relative process.

Pay attention, Leo. It's a different one.

You said it was correct to claim that infinity is everywhere, as if it were an infinite object, but OK.

When you say that, you're holding infinity as something subject to space - a "limitless" location. Accordingly, it isn't anywhere, because it isn't just another 'item' among other items. In short, it cannot be thought. Whatever comes to mind in relation to it will miss the mark and be incorrect. Notice that this is very likely everything you have regarding it - notions about infinity: a mentally apprehensible form of knowing. This is not infinity.

Weak relative to what? Are you sure you're not referring to a state? Again, Maharshi was "enlightened."

The point is that if it isn't "true," then don't call it enlightenment (or anything similar) in the first place. Then again, the trueness isn't found in what is said, or even in what is gotten across. So it was already the case that, even if you were the only one who is conscious of God, what you said about it wouldn't be accurate either, because this matter is by nature "un-conveyable." So, you are (or may be, for all we know) "enlightened."

What about those who think they're "God-realized"? This is what I mean - it may well be a matter of semantics. And in either case, it is not a domain or just another distinction. That's the point. If it is an "enlightenment," by definition it is authentic, in the way the term is often used. Otherwise, if it's just an experience, don't call it that. If the trueness of direct knowledge sits atop your thinking, you may in fact be self-deceived, whether you label it God-realization, kenshō, or walnuts.