Forestluv

Of course not. Why would I want to tightly hold onto an idea as being true? That would be a limitation of exploration. What is referred to as “your belief system” is partial and incomplete (as is any belief). Of course there are blind spots within any belief system. That is a main limitation of any belief system. Imagine standing on a rooftop viewing the city below. Any view is partial and incomplete. Another way to look at it. Imagine that we are sharing one connected mind. There is no “my belief system” or “your belief system”. There are merely ideas appearing in our collective mind. This recontextualization alters the energetics and relationship to ideas. A trick of the mind is to create “your belief” and “my belief”. Yes I did. I had previously written: Notice how the mind filtered this out. . . There seems to be some personalization arising. For example, the passage below is not using personal pronouns for the ease of linguistic conversation. It seems like straightforward personalization: This misses a point. You can already see how Leo is wrong and you are right. Why on earth would I point that out to you? You already have that part down. You can clearly see how Leo is wrong and you are right. What you are missing is the awareness of how Leo is right and you are wrong. Again, notice how an interpretive mind filter works. . . I’ve already said it twice and I’ll say it again a third time: I acknowledge that you are right and I am wrong. Lack of this realization is a major block and reveals the limitation of creating a “your position” and “my position”. It restricts the amount of territory that can be explored. There is understanding and misunderstanding. I don’t claim to own either. If we create two separate consciousnesses (“you” and “me”), then it is true to say that I don’t understand you if you say that I don’t understand you. You get to create that and I don’t get to override your creation since you are your own authority. You are god creating reality. You can create a reality in which “Serotoninluv doesn’t understand me and is arrogant and offensive”. Or you could create a reality in which “Serotoninluv doesn’t seem to fully understand me, yet he seems to be aware of something that intrigues me”. You have created the former, which is fine. I don’t really care either way since I am not invested into being right or wrong. This would be a waste of effort since any construct created is partially true and partially false. As well, seeing an intellectual construct does not equal the ability to utilize that construct. For example, a mind may be able to see various levels of resolution when pointed out. Yet that does not mean the mind has the ability to create various levels, the ability to zoom in and out of various levels or make connections among various levels. This is a much more advanced skill. Thank you. That allows space. Curiosity is one of the most important ingredients to consciousness exploration. I’ve found that when curiosity is expanded, space for observation and exploration is expanded. Notice how the mind can be selectively curious. . .

@Waken He is creating a dualistic construct within an infinite sea of potential creations. It would be like me holding a grain of sand and telling you it is the beach.

Part of attachment/identification is creating “my ideas” and “your ideas”. As well as creating things like “my experience”. Such personalization can lead to interpretations such as “you are arrogant”, “you don’t understand my direct experience”, “you offend me”, etc. This appears in my mind at times as well. . . These are reflections of attachment/identification to personality dynamics that relate to belief systems. In a fluid mind that holds ideas lightly, these snags don’t appear. You are missing the point that I can see that you are correct and that I am wrong. If that were true, your mind would be fluid like water and you would be able to see and understand how you are wrong and Leo is right. Claiming ownership as a “personal opinion” is one of the best indicators of contraction. Any opinion / belief held tightly by the mind is a contraction. And there is nothing wrong with contraction. Life is an interplay between expansion and contraction. Like the in-breath is expansion and the out-breath is contraction. Yet some minds get stuck in contraction as it grasps. If I tightly hold an apple in each hand, how can I play the piano? This is a good place to observe creation. You have created an idea of a love theory of which I think is more inclusive than a love theory you claim as “my personal opinion”. Yet I have not held any love theory. You are creating that. So tell me, what is this “love theory” you have assigned to me? Notice how the mind is creating a love theory that I hold to provide contrast for a love theory that it desires to hold and is attached to. Agreement and disagreement is a creation of the mind. This is necessary for contrast and ownership of a belief it holds. I’ve already acknowledged that you are right and I am wrong. And last night I had a conversation with someone in which I illustrated the same ideas you are presenting here. How can we “agree to disagree”? To do so, we need to create an idea that one person holds as true and contrast that with a different idea that another person holds as true. Notice what it’s like to hold ideas lightly without attachment, as you would the ideas within a birdsong. . . Imagine a discussion about geography in which one person only sees a map of France. When the conversation involves Europe, the person says “France is Europe”. Is that correct or incorrect? In a way, it’s correct, yet in another way it’s incorrect since it is contracts Europe within France. From this mindset, someone that claims “Madrid is Europe” will seem like an opposing view. As well, someone saying “All of these cities are Europe” will seem like an opposing view. It’s not that France is technically wrong, it’s just contracted. One would need to hold their map of France lightly to see other maps of Europe and start connecting dots. Yet the mind often thinks “My belief is that France is Europe. This is obviously true. I’m not willing to reject my opinion that France is Europe and accept your opinion that France is not Europe. Let’s agree to disagree”. Yet it’s not about rejecting one view and accepting another. It’s about zooming out and seeing the big picture. When we zoom out and see the big picture of Europe, we are still holding an image of France in our mind, yet we do so loosely - then we can see how France fits into the bigger picture. I’m not disagreeing with you that France is Europe. From one perspective, it is correct. From another perspective it is incorrect. A fluid mind holds these ideas lightly and can see how they are all connected within a bigger picture. France, Madrid, Big Ben, Poland etc. are all Europe.

You are aware of it within the construct you reside. You are creating that “it”. You are not aware of something outside your construct. Again, this is not to say that any awakenings you have had are Illegitimate. Yet you are clearly not fluent in another area. When someone can speak Chinese fluently, it’s totally obvious when someone cannot speak Chinese fluently. Yet this does not suggest that English is “wrong” or has no value. Creating a being called “Serotoninluv” that is making assumptions and trapped within his construct maintains contraction within that construct. It creates a dynamic of “my idea” vs “his idea”. This is the contraction that is being pointing to. To say an expansive view is less inclusive than a contracted view is the silliness. You are creating and attributing an idea of “love” as “Serotoninluv’s” idea that is contrary to your idea. This is your creation. What is pointed at says your idea of love is correct AND there is a more expansive understanding that INCLUDES your idea (as true) within a larger truth. However, if one extrapolates a contracted truth into a broader truth, it becomes a falsehood within the larger truth. This is part of contraction maintenance. The mind creates competing theories of love in which one is true. The mind double downs on this by deferring to “evidence” as the arbiter of truth. Two points you are missing is that I am saying you are right and that I’m wrong. Yet to see this, you would need to let go of your creation of opposing love theories and your attachment to one of those theories. Importantly, letting go does not mean rejecting.

I understand you meant mapping reality. If you cannot see and observe the relationship between the explanation and the explained, you will have a distorted view. You like to use science as some type of authority. How well do you actually understand science? How many hours have you actually been in a lab conducting science? How many hours have you spent interpreting your empirical data, modifying your hypothesis, re-designing experiments, and creating and presenting your models and getting feedback on your models? I am a science professor and have spent about 60,000 hours immersed in actually conducting science. To me, you have a very surface level understanding of what science is and massively over-estimate your understanding. It’s like you’ve taken two hours of Chinese language instruction and you now think you can speak Chinese, understand Chinese history and culture and know what it’s like to live in China and be a Chinese person.

The problem is not confusion. The problem is that you are pointing within a construct you have created. You will not be able to see clearly and be qualified to point beyond your construct until you expand beyond your construct. Further, you will not be able to understand the pointers you interpret as confusing within your construct until you expand beyond that construct. For example, your mind seems to be hyper immersed into a logical framework and will not be able to see, understand or embody that which is meta-logical to your framework. There are awakenings you haven’t had yet. Yet this is no way diminishes, tarnishes or de-legitimizes awakenings you have had. If you have an incomplete understanding and embodiment of Love, how can you judge the merit of pointers that exist in your gaps of understanding and embodiment?

You are not seeing the relationship between explanation and that which is explained.

@Bodigger Dang, you create some hyper binary constructs. Notice how tightly the mind is attached and identified to the constructs it is creating.

The mind is creating constructs of “right” and “wrong”. Within a construct the mind creates and calls “right”, it is right. Within the construct you have created and shared on the forum, it is right (within that construct). It’s not the ideas themselves, no more than it is about bird chirps that pass by. Mind expansion involves holding ideas loosely and letting go of attachment and identification to ideas as being right. Yet this doesn’t mean a mind needs to reject the ideas it holds tightly to as wrong and then switch over and accept the counter idea as right. This is merely trading attachment/identification of one belief system toward attachment/identification to another belief system. This will keep a mind contracted. Expansion simply involves letting go of attachment, ownership and identification of ideas. Notice how the mind tries to maintain continuity of right-ness to ideas it is attached and identified with. Everyday, it re-enforces and solidifies the ideas it is attached and identified to. Expansion is not a rejection of those ideas, rather letting go of attachment and identification to those ideas. The problem is that you are trying to extrapolate a truth within the construct you create as a broader truth beyond your construct.

There is another way to look at it. It can be perceived as closing or opening a door. Opening a door to story creation can be seen as a beginning that allows one to tap into creative potential.

Your thread title is “can we explain psychedelics under the materialist paradigm”. To have “materialist”, there must be “immaterialist” as contrast. You are creating this. And like I said, I think it’s a fun construct to create and play with. I spend a lot of time exploring this area. What you are asking about is prior to what you are observing. Try some psychedelics and find out directly what you are missing.

This is a story you are creating. Albeit a fun story.

“Injecting”? C’mon, it’s not heroin for goodness sake. ? And yes, neuroscientists and health care provides will want to manipulate brain activity to induce psychedelic-like mind states. There will be all sorts of varieties in the future. Both medical and recreational forms. It doesn’t matter if it’s induced neurologically through a chemical substance, ultrasonic waves, magnetics, meditation, whatever. You are creating a categorical duality of “material” and “immaterial”. Yet within that duality construct, it’s a fun question to explore.

You have enough experience to guide yourself (unless you resonate with needing a shaman as a facilitator and a community to be tripping with). I would mostly be concerned about proper preparation and dosage.

In a formal speech, a U.S. president just threatened to supersede state governors and use the U.S. military against it’s own citizens. That is new.

@OBEler Let go of fear and truth will appear. So simple and clear.

@Jordan94 Yin yoga has been good ‘training’ for me in this area. The poses are held static for 4-8min. and involve both physical and mental discomfort. It is a good opportunity to observe mind and body activity as well as to let go and release both mental and physical contractions/tensions. I prefer it to sds because extended sits in one position doesn’t feel healthy for my body.

@The observer @Nahm @Serotoninluv ♥️ ?

This here points to the contraction. Notice how the mind thinks “I will change my mind if something makes me do so”. The mind has taken a position and is reluctant to ‘change’ positions. This is attachment to beliefs and it is limiting your potential. You do not need to reject a belief and ‘change’ to a different belief. This is a trick of the mind to stay immersed within one belief system. It will create opposites and put itself in a position in which it must accept and hold a belief. As well, the “if something makes me do so” creates a highly contracted mindset that puts the burden on external input. This allows the mind to maintain narrative control within it’s belief system. It can analyze the “somethings” as if it is analyzing evidence. I know this mindset well as I was contracted within a scientific-based network of ideas for 25 years of my adult life. In hindsight, one of the most important realizations is that I do not need to reject any beliefs and ‘change’ to new beliefs. It is not about ‘changing’ one belief for another belief. It is about letting go of ALL beliefs and transcending them. For example, a transcendent view does not reject science for non-science. A transcendent view is not beholden to ANY belief. It is free to hold ideas loosely and let go of ideas. It can see how science, creativity, intuition, energetics and art are all inter-connected. It can see the science in art and the art in science. Imagine two people are hiking in nature and one person says “The trees are nature”. The other person says “The river is nature”. They debate about wether nature is the trees or the river. The first person says “I am open minded to change my position that the trees are nature to the belief that the river is nature if something makes me do so. I want to see some evidence that the river is nature before I change my mind”. This is a highly contracted, limited mindset. It’s not about rejecting the trees as nature and accepting the river as nature. It is about letting go of attachment to the contraction that trees are nature without rejecting that trees are nature. In doing so, there is a meta awareness that is revealed that can now see how both the trees and the river are nature. This opens up new avenues of exploration and expansion. Being free of the limiting idea that “the trees are nature”, we can now see how the trees and the river interact within nature. This also allows space for new expansion - we can realize that insects, birds, rocks and wind are also nature. Yet it goes far beyond beliefs into ISness in which beliefs are absent. Various forms of creativity, energetics, vibrations, intuition etc. There are many rooms to explore. I think it can be helpful to make a distinction between ‘direct experience’ and ‘contextualized experience’. What you are describing is a contextualized experience that has filters. All contextualized experience has filters. Without any filters, there is infinity. Go prior to the contextualization of experience. Prior to thoughts of “this is my direct experience”. Prior to thoughts of “this is what my direct experience is”.

@Someone here “Again in my direct experience there is only this limited awareness via my body and mind and nothing else. And any other knowledge has to be derived from that. I can't go meta my awareness “ Claiming ownership of awareness will limit potential. Imagine a Grand Hotel with many rooms. Each room is totally unique and all the rooms are inter-connected. Imagine you are in Room 227, which is a room for intellectual exploration. It is a fascinating room worthy of exploration. However, you have now encountered people that have explored other rooms that you are unaware of and have not explored. The problem is that you are trying to contextualize other rooms within Room 227. It doesn’t work this way and is usually counter-productive. You can go meta awareness through realization of other rooms. So far all you are doing is asking others about other rooms, yet you think those other rooms are within Room 227. You would need to leave Room 227 and explore. Yet the mind gets conditioned, attached and identified to *my* room (a.ka. *my* awareness). For those contracted within Room 227, this often is expressed by debating and arguing for *my* intellectual constructs and beliefs. There is a tendency of wanting to ‘be right’. For those not contracted within Room 227, there is much more fluidity because they are aware of other rooms and are not attached/identified to Room 227. They are free to explore various rooms without attachment / identification. Not only can they explore within various rooms, they can enter meta vision and see how the rooms are inter-connected to each other as well as how all the rooms are inter-connected in One Grand Hotel. Yet this is not possible if we contract ourselves into Room 227 since this limits our potential.

By Shambhala, are you referring to the spiritual organization founded by Chogyam Trungpa? I don’t know about Sophia’s book, yet I participated with a Shambhala group for many years and could help if you wanted to explore that area.

@The observer You are trying to figure love out intellectually, which will limit your potential. There are heart awakenings just as important as mind awakenings.

@OBEler Love awaits you on the other side. There is nothing to fear. Just let go and surrender to it.

Heart’s Mystery When you let go of fear The truth will appear So simple and clear There's a feeling inside So deep and so wide So open and free When love is revealed All beings are healed So naturally Let your heart show the way Forever to stay In this circle of friends Let your heart be your guide To lead you inside Where love never ends And when love overflows You can only let go And be swept out to sea This journey will end Where it started, my friend In the heart's mystery

@meow_meow When my mind and body felt ungrounded and anxious, I found it helpful to relax the mind with grounding practices like yoga. Some forms of yoga like kriya and yin yoga are centered on relaxation of mind and body. As well, I found nonduality speakers that spoke of both the person and nonduality - for example Adyashanti and Lisa Cairns.