ttm

I'm not sure what that first sentence means. And If you don't feel Martin's enlightened, then I'm not sure how do you define enlightenment, you include in it much more than direct understanding of what reality and self is? Of course his contribution to society is totally different than those who you mentioned, but I'm not sure if it's "measure of enlightenment". Martin has this straight-forward "stories and rituals are bs"-style, which may offend people who are attached to their stories about reality - which is of course almost everyone. But what I have read from him, I have no doubt that he knows what he's talking about. But yes, I can also be wrong, I don't have direct access to his experiences. And even if I wasn't wrong, he is nevertheless only person who came to mind. Yeah, whatever may be the case with Martin, I agree with your previous post.

Totally this. And it's not any different with Morning Glory seeds. Holy shit that's physical torture. Not worth it IMO. ...although I never tried any extracts, maybe it wouldn't be that bad if LSA could be extracted from seed material, but there are plenty of more usable substances. Those seeds are better used when grown to beautiful vines...

Maybe Martin W. Ball?

Conceptual learning is relative and infinite. There is only one thing to learn about what "you" and everyone else around you fundamentally is: what "you" and everyone else around you fundamentally is. And that learning is not conceptual. Within a finite reality? Do you mean that it is obvious that there is infinite number of finite realities? All in all, this kind of questioning can be fun "what-if" -kind of intellectualizing, but it feels a bit like it's founded on so many assumptions which may be false, that no matter what conclusions were drawn, there would hardly be any real benefit.

Ah, you just wanted to be funny! That was a good one, bro. Respect!

LSD is synthetic, but if it appared in nature, I'd guess that Leo's advice would be regarding to LSD, that it would be better to take LSD than to eat bunch of ergot. I don't remember what Leo actually said in that specific part, but I would imagine that it had to do with a)dosage is better known when taken pure chemical and b)there would be no additional chemicals with potentially negative effects. With LSD you just have to trust the vendor. So, it's wise to consider who shady acid selling character to trust.

I don't think that. Of course it is very possible that there could be people, who get one sided picture from comments like yours and get into trouble. Even if no one takes you seriously, your attitude to psychedelics and humanity is still naive. I find this hilarious, because you think you know better than me how much experiential knowledge I have

That is very reckless thing to suggest. Although psychedelics tend to have effects which makes it easier to take a break, you shouldn't underestimate human capability to get addicted to anything. Being analogue does not mean having same safety profile. It really doesn't.

That if didn't mean that I disagreed with it, anywhere I haven't said that there's any separation, duality or difference. You say that "To speak of Truth is to speak of Love and to speak of Love is to speak of Truth" - don't you agree also that To speak of Truth is to speak of Truth? Maybe an analogy helps: If the name of a person was John Sebastian Hancock, would it require to use word Sebastian when speaking of him? If he is referred only with his first name John, would that be somehow incomplete reference?

At some point Leo said something along the line ”if teacher doesn’t talk about love, his teachings are incomplete”. That sounded very much as coming from ego, ”finally I’m sure that my teachings are better than”. I suspect that this wasn’t a generic notion, but that Leo had a specific teacher who doesn’t talk about love in mind there.. Thoughts?

The sentence before comma was answer to the quoted text, and it was mostly agreeing with it... I was referring to anxiety/paranoia when I said psychological effects. Do you mean that anxiety/paranoia is physiological effect instead of psychological? You didn't specify what the anxiety/paranoia was exactly about and said things like "anxiety/paranoia is common with weed", so I didn't understand that you was referring with it to your peeing problem. When I used terms anxiety and paranoia, I was speaking about anxiety/paranoia in general. I did not say that it cannot be done. I meant that even with the "right psychedelics used properly" one can find himself in very difficult mental situations.

No need to get offended. The title is "weed useless for spirituality?", and I addressed that question. If you mean that your whole anxiety/paranoia was about pissing your pants, and unability to control your bladder is consistent effect, then sure, maybe you shouldn't use it. But that does not have much to do with the question, it's separate issue. Also, it isn't that common. Uh, ok. MDMA is surely different, although it has psychedelic effects, it's empathogenic properties makes it easier. It's great that you had not had any negative effects from LSD, yet. I don't think it's impossible, that if you decided to proceed to the point where you have had hundreds of trips with LSD, cannabis, mushrooms etc., the whole situation could appear to you differently. I didn't mean that specifically you shouldn't use psychedelics, I used "you" in that sentence interchangeable with "one" or "a person". But yeah, if you talked about anxiety/paranoia in general, then what I said is applicable. If you talked about anxiety caused by consistent unability to control bladder, conclusions from that is not generalizable to common folk, but you and very small minority to whom, for some reason, weed seems to cause that effect consistently. Anyhow, I didn't mean to offend you. And actually, I have myself experienced that thing, although, I don't really remember if it was just a feeling that I'm pissing, or did I actually. That has happened something like 3 times out of 10 000, and last time was ~10 years ago. If it had stuck as consistent effect, surely I would've been forced to quit using weed altogether, there's no doubt it would've been kind of a deal breaker there.. but still, it would've had nothing to do with the question about the potential of weed in spirituality.

Yes, it's of course different than classic psychedelics. It is still not uncommon to people have anxiety/paranoia in class psychedelics too. I suspect that it didn't hit you with a wave of anxiety, but that it just hit you, and you reacted with a wave of anxiety to the fact that it hit you by surprise in the public. Not to say that you couldn't have had anxiety if you had stayed home, but still the anxiety/paranoia is generated by your thoughts and responses. That is true though, that onset and duration of cannabis edibles can be more unpredictable, but that can easily be solved by "assuming the worst". And it's not like they are totally random - you didn't say where you got those candys, but that 15mg could be +/- something, for example. You said that you have experienced cannabis these 5 times by eating, but did you have smoked it before? Cannabis could have this weird thing that first time/few times do not do pretty much anything. And so first time it really hits could be very confusing. Micro-dosing could minimize the negative effects, but it also minimizes effects altogether. And so with the weed as other psychedelics, I don't necessarily think that difficult psychological effects should be classified straight away as "negative effects to be avoided". They can be really insightful if handled in safe environment. It could also be helpful to use it smoked or vaporized. Not those candys but weed in general. It is exactly same thing with other psychedelics: LSD or mushrooms can easily "cause" anxiety, and micro-dosing could help minimizing those negative effects. Classic psychedelics of course are much more to the point, but that does not mean that weed is useless. Also, if you want to avoid "negative psychological effects", you shouldn't do any psychedelics.

Someone else could easily be saying the same thing with compounds reversed. "I tried LSD 5 times, only brings up anxiety. With weed I never had bad experiences." How many times have you ridden bus on LSD, btw? There is no right answer for that, it's totally up to you. This is a bit like "I hit myself in the head with hammer. Now it hurts, should I throw my hammer away or use it to only remove nails instead of hammering them?" kind of situation.

I was after thoughts on what was going on there. But Leo's message pretty much cleared it up. Hilarious is not the word I would use, it's rather wearing, someone could even say frustrating. I mean, it's not like you couldn't verify that for yourself, my messages are still there. But, at the same time, it is very understandable why people do that. Well, it's nice that this one you put on the list without twisting it around, thank you for that! Observations may not be directed at me personally, but still you created your narrative by twisting my words. For example: "You can't tell me what's true. I'll tell you how it is" why did you have to put that there? I didn't say that, because that goes exactly against the whole point of the previous sentence. For example2: "If it's too hard for you to understand, I'll try to make it more clear for you" why did you have to put those "for you"s there? I didn't say it. How you presented it, it sounds like I'm saying that the fault was in reader. You are not going to go to the "I didn't say you said those things, these were just made up examples of my own responses in situations where I am not asking the question with a genuine desire to learn, grow and expand." road, are you? This thread has potential to be very helpful to attentive reader, let's hope it will be.

Do you twist my words intentionally? Thanks for sharing, though.

I forgot to address this in my previous reply. I’m sorry, but you really can not tell me the highest truth. And you know this. The highest truth is found from very different place than your words.

Ok, I see you avoid the question, I also understand why you do so. This was interesting nevertheless. Thank you for answering though, it’s awesome that you take part on the dialogue! And because it seems that people read a lot of things in my posts that aren’t there I want to emphasize that I’m not disrespecting you in general, in fact you are very big contributor to things that lead me to where I am now (regarding freedom from suffering and understanding reality) and I’m very grateful for your work! It’s still interesting to see how even in that ”stage” there can easily be that kind of stuff going on. I think you will be amazed when you realize how much egotistic stuff can be hidden in that kind of wording and rationalizing. The fact you are using words ”my doubts” sounds to me like you are adding quite a few things to what I was saying. Or maybe I understand the word ”doubt” differently than you, but I was asking thoughts regarding something I noticed. Nevertheless you seem to concentrate on the question whether or not the statement (word love is essential) is factual. This has nothing to do with my actual question, although it is interesting sidepoint to think about. But still, no one really answered my comments about that, so maybe it wasn’t that interesting..

@Leo Gura what’s your honest take on my original question? Did you have a specific teacher in mind? In retrospection, how do you see that comment you made in that video?

If Love and Truth are ultimately the same thing, why is it not enough to speak of Truth to speak of Truth? I think you misunderstood me, I’m not worrying about Leo’s enlightenment, nor pretty much anything else for that matter. Do you think that it’s bad to analyze what and why is being said or is it just not cool to discuss about it? It’s not worrying for me, but more of an investigation. In the end, nothing really matters, but that’s not a good reason for me to stop doing anything. Yes, that assertion was included in Leo’s claim. To me it seems unsubstantiated claim, based on that in the end, ”Love” is just a word. The reality is what it IS, and whatever word used is not that, what is. The whole point of spiritual teaching is to use words to point to the ”place” words cannot reach. Or silency.. Yes, I also feel like this is more closer to truth than ”using word love is essential”.

OK. Could you elaborate on what made you think that I thought that become conscious would mean becoming less discerning? I can’t understand how my messages could even be interpreted like that. And for clarification, by ”that’s very needed message” you mean that you also think that a teachers that don’t speak about love have incomplete teachings?

Please, read my messages again. If it is still hard to understand what is being said, I can try to be more clear.

Most, but not all. And that was precisely ”the trick”. If you consider that he was referring to a specific teacher, you could easily see how the ”better than” comes into the picture. If that was generic notion about love, there would’ve been no need to classify anyone’s teachings as incomplete.

What do you mean by that? Feminine/masculine? Their shape?

Also, I have the sense that smoking aluminium probably won't make things any better either.