Forestluv

That is like Paul the Dream Character saying "I believe a rock is dream stuff, but is not conscious like I am". This of course is true, yet is still contracted within the character Paul. A transcendent view is that the rock, Paul and Paul's ideas about consciousness are all dream stuff.

I was trippin' balls in a Colombian cafe and entered a virtual reality in which only two sentient beings existed: the waiter and myself. As we interacted the pressing question became "Does he know that I know that he knows?".

If this above is Known, the below construct of "other entity" beside "yourself" is easily transcended. The below construct is still perceiving as a character within a dream in which there is a "myself" that is conscious yet not other entities that are also conscious. Here, the "yourself" is contracted within a character distinct from other entities. This "myself" character is conscious, yet "other entities" not "myself" are not conscious. Transcendent to this is the awareness that what you call "other entities" and "yourself" are both dream stuff. In the dream, the character you identify with as "myself" is just as much dream stuff as the "other entities". They are all equally dream stuff.

One of my favorites

That's a sweet flow state of improvisation.

An Absolute of Everything cannot be "another entity" that is everything. There is no thing outside of Everything. Everything is Everything whether you believe it or not. It's not a belief, it is a realization. Of course not, there is no thing beyond Everything. The question comes down to the contraction into a "myself". The contraction into an idea of "myself" gives a sense of separation from a holistic Myself. You are in a dream, yet you are not in a lucid dream since the "me" you identify with is a character within the dream. The construct you are creating isn't wrong, per se. Yet, there is a transcendent awareness that you haven't realized.

The engineering of that 5HT2AR PshychLight biosensor is brilliant.

In addition to trippy states of consciousness, psychedelics induce neurogenesis and expand neural plasticity potential. Designing compounds that utilize this feature has value. They would essentially be powerful forms of nootropics without the trippy psychological part. And the trippy part also has value. Clinical psychologists have used the trippy features to induce transcendent insights in which people face and observe life issues in ways they have never before. This can trigger psychological breakthroughs they may have taken years of therapy. If there was a psychedelic-like substance that offered increased synaptic plasticity, without the trippy part - I'd be very interested in taking it. In particular, I'd be curious how this might enhance learning. And traditional psychedelics are still available for trippy times. As psychedelics become mainstream, many new variations will be created with higher resolution. For example, you want to enhance forming new neural circuits to learn a foreign language faster? Then take the 4-Azo-144-B2 compound.

This idea of 'enlightenment' reminds me of a dream character. During a dream, I might be a person named 'Paul'. If I awake from the dream, Paul goes *poof* and ceases to exist. Paul cannot have this type of awakening. Within the dream, he can go to meditation retreats, yoga, psychedelics, nonduality teachers, etc. Yet as long as he is Paul, he is still immersed within that dream. Yet I would say that there is also another type of 'awakening'. Transcendent awareness can arise that "I" am dreaming. Yet, here "I" don't wake up and think "Omigosh, I overslept! I'm late for work!". Rather, the dream continues with transcendent awareness of the dream. This would be lucid dreaming. This type of 'enlightenment' is also possible during 'waking' life. Essentially, lucid dreaming while awake. Here, the dream continues with the dream character, yet there is still a form of 'death' since there is awareness that what was perceived as real is also imaginary.

In some aspects it's like learning a foreign language. To learn Spanish, one would immerse themself in Spanish - watching Spanish videos and having conversations with people fluent in Spanish. After a while, the learner will be able to think / create in Spanish on their own. Similarly, it's helpful to immerse oneself into yellow-level videos and having conversations with people "fluent" in yellow. After a while, the learner will be able to think / create in yellow on their own. Yet with that said, my speculation is that some minds are more oriented toward yellow forms of relativity, integration and big picture systems. Part of learning is motivation, interest, awareness and attention. A mind that fells joy and curiosity in exploring yellow will have much higher neural plasticity potential than someone that finds yellow boring, stupid, impractical, a waste of time, something I "have to do" etc. I'm not fluent in calculus partly because I have no desire or interest in learning calculus.

As a leadership course for teenagers, I would just present the positives as different categories and take out the developmental aspect. I.e. have a purple box, red box, orange box etc. and highlight the value in each. I would also highlight that some leadership boxes are focused on one’s self (personal integrity, discipline etc) and other leadership boxes are focused on community. I would show a lot of real life concrete examples. Teenage brains haven’t developed abstract / meta cognition yet. They need straightforward concrete examples. I might add the nuance of degrees of expansiveness - e.g. from small community (purple) to more expansive community (blue) to most expansive community (green). Yet I wouldn’t present it as developmental stages - the tendency to perceive as a hierarchy and that higher is better is distracting and too personal. I would also focus on Tier 1. I’ve taught SD to freshman college students twice (18 years old). Tier 1 is accessible, yet Tier 2 is much less accessible. Its like trying to teach calculus to kids that haven't learned algebra yet. Imagine teaching a course on how to be a successful athlete to teenagers. You could have categories like “disciple”, “teamwork”, “the value of coaches”, “building strength and agility” etc. Presenting the categories as a hierarchy would be a distraction. Ultimately, the best leaders will embody the positives of EVERY stage. So just present the positives of every stage and the traps to watch out for.

You are creating a character that is "chasing psychedelic experiences that thinks some day in the future he will reach a critical point of insight and BOOM.. "enlightenment will happen". That is your character creation. As well there is creation of elaborate stories about obstacles, enlightenment, ancient wisdom, cultivation - why things take so long etc. I'm not saying that story engagement is right or wrong. Part of the human experience is to engage within stories we create. . . I'm saying it is one story book in a library of story books. If a mind wants to stay immersed within a story book, go for it. Yet a mind contracted within a story book, it often becomes overly rigid and there is a price to pay for that.

The whirlpool goes round and round. . . Some beings stay in the same whirlpool for years, even a lifetime. I prefer to jumps whirlpools.

When I mentioned your posts have a theme of being stuck in "chasing", you dove deeper into that whirlpool. I'm not saying it's wrong. If you want to spend time and effort swimming in that pool - go for it. Yet it is a whirlpool.

Attractiveness aside, most men don't broadly understand feminine nature because they won't surrender to, and become, feminine nature. They want to evaluate what they consider to be feminine nature through an external lens. This is quite limiting.

A theme of your posts seem to be stuck on an idea of "chasing".

Don't give up until you drink from the silver cup

It depends on how you define "egoic intention". In one context, there is no free will and humans are simply acting - like a dog barks, a shark eats prey and an apple falls from a tree. Yet in another context, humans have higher cognitive development. A shark cannot recognize itself in a mirror. A shark cannot introspect and consider it's impact on community. Yet the vast majority of humans can. Conflation between the two contexts causes distortion and allows for rationalization of harmful behavior within a relative human context. Consider the below statement: "Humans are simply animals like another other animal. Therefore, it is ok if I poop in public and throw my shit at people like a gorilla does". Does that sound like a high conscious human mindset to you?

Asking "Why?', pre-supposes there is a reason "why". If the mind believes there is a singular reason underlying "why", it will be perplexed since there are many forms of "Because. . . xyz" to answer "Why". Any answer is partially true and will open up new questions. A mind stuck on a singular "because" will remain unsatisfied and perplexed. For example: Question: "Why Can You Transcend Ego?" Answer: Because the Dreamer of Egos desires to recognize itself as all Egos. This is one answer of hundreds that is partially true. Yet a mind seeking a singular answer will be unsatisfied and start asking all sorts of questions that highlight it is not the one true singular answer. The closest to a singular answer would be "Because______", yet the mind won't be satisfied with that either.

Nice insight ? ❤️

It's about degree. Imagine someone saying "I don't have the genetics of a cheetah and can't run as fast as a cheetah. Why bother running?". Recognizing this limitation isn't victim mentality. A human can still run. In a human context, imagine someone saying "I don't have the genetics to break the world record in the marathon. So why bother running?". This would be setting the standard extremely high. Only about 0.001% of people have the genetics to even attempt to break the world marathon record. Yet about 98% of people have the genetics to run a marathon. Sure, they won't be breaking the world record, yet who tf cares? Running is more about the joy of running, getting in shape, striving for goals, the thrill of the race, running in social groups etc. Running fast seems easy for someone genetically gifted for running fast. I know someone who can break a 3hr. marathon with very little training. For 95% of people, a sub 3hr marathon is super hard. Yet this guy is like "All you have to do is run 60 miles a week at sub 7min. mile pace". To him, a 3hr marathon is natural and he thinks "You just do it". . . Yet it's super hard for most people. The idea is that it's similar to other things: playing basketball, playing piano, polyglot, spirituality etc. I don't have the genetics of Lebron James, yet I can still play basketball. I don't have the genetics of Mozart, yet I can still play piano. Why on earth would someone set the standard of success to be the 0.0000001 percentile?

One cannot alter their brain neurochemistry however they want to. At least not yet. We can measure this through brain scans. People that are highly expert meditation and paranormal abilities can alter their brain neurochemistry / activity relative to normies. To some extent, an expert may be able to alter their neurochemistry to induce some states. However, psychedelics induce dramatic alterations in brain neurochemistry and no one has even come close to inducing that pattern while sober. Yes, Yogi's can consciously alter their brain neurochemistry, yet not in the same ballbark as psychedelics. One might say the Yogi's can consciously alter their conscious state metaphyscially to any desirable state. yet not neurochemically. Yet the catch is you wrote that he can induce any desirable state. We could ask a Yogi to change his neurochemistry to induce a neurochemical state equivalent to 20 hits of LSD. He wouldn't be able to do it, yet he could say "I don't desire that state".

It depends on degree. Someone born genetically with three chromosome 21s will have Down Syndrome. Regardless of how hard they work, they will not learn high level calculus. This isn't merely a limiting belief. In this context, whatever the Down Syndrome person believes is irrelevant. They are not going to learn high level calculus, The range is too great. Telling a Downs person that the only reason they aren't learning high level calculus is because they aren't working hard enough isn't fair to that person. The person may say it with good intentions to empower the Downs person, yet it would be cruel to say to them. Similarly, it would be cruel to tell a paralyzed person the only reason they can't walk is because they aren't trying hard enough. However, there are many other contexts in which limiting beliefs are holding someone back from their potential. For example someone may believe "I can't learn calculus because I have ADHD or dyslexia". In this context, it is a barrier not a true limitiation. Let's consider Bashar's assertion that psychedelic-induced conscious states can be attained without the vehicle of psychedelics. In some contexts, this is true. Psychedelics may break down limiting beliefs and open doors that can be explored while sober. For example, someone may believe that they have no artistic abilities. Yet on psychedelics, they enter a world of creativity they never knew existed. They gave themself a "permission slip". This can lead to a realization of "Omg, I have creative potential. I just did that". This may shatter their limiting belief and open new doors to explore their creative side. They may be able to reach new deep states of creativity while sober and be amazed "Omg, I can do it myself! That zone of creativity was like a psychedelic trip! Yet I was sober!". . .Psychedelics alter neuronal firing patterns and Donald Hebb observed "Neurons that fire together, wire together". It's been clearly demonstrated that psychedelics can induce radical neural plasticity. When psychedelics are done with expertise, new neural wirings can be induced and maintained long-term. Yet this is different from high doses of psychedelics that are further out there. As a hyperbolic example: someone sober cannot induce the conscious state of 100 hits of acid. That range is too great. It's a matter of degree.

If one can only see that realty is real, expansion is realizing that reality is illusion. If one can only see that reality is illusion, expansion is realizing that reality is real. If one can only see that reality is either real or illusion, expansion is realizing that reality is both real and illusion. Since 99.99% of people believe what they perceive as real is real and only real, the expansion is showing them reality is an illusion. They can already see the ‘reality is real’ perspective and are contracted within that perspective.

Timing is a major factor. If everyone agreed to get vaccinated, the only limiting factor would be how fast the vaccine shots can be produced. Yet if half a population resists a vaccine, there will need to be incentives and campaigns to get people to get the vaccine. This will take much longer to vaccinate society and a considerable portion of society won’t be vaccinated. In scenario #1 everyone in society gets vaccinated ASAP. This gives the virus less time and hosts to replicate, form variants and spread variants. Perhaps 4 variants arise, yet only one is resistant to the original vaccine and its spread is moderate. Depending on its spread, a second vaccine might be needed, to which everyone agrees. The virus is under control. in scenario #2, the vaccination process is much slower and 30% of society never gets vaccinated (and don’t want to wear masks or socially distance). Here, the vaccine has more time and hosts to replicate, form variants and spread. Rather than 4 variants arising, 40 variants arise and 10 of those are resistant to the original vaccine. A send vaccine is needed, to which those 30% of people refuse to take. A new vaccine is needed every six months to try and control all the new variants arising. 30% of the people refuse to take it. The virus cannot be controlled. Some countries are shifting toward vaccine surplus as supply exceeds demand. Yet most of the world has vaccine shortages.