Forestluv

@Liam Johnson Thanks for that insight. I hadn’t thought of it as playing from heart or ego. Could you link me to a sweet guitar that you’d consider played from the heart?

@Liam Johnson I thought you might appreciate this guitar from 4:21 - 6:25. It was played live in concert during an unrehearsed improvisation. I find it beautiful and I’m curious about any impressions you may have.

That’s some hardcore dualistic pre/trans fallacy. A great example of stage Orange.

A mind contracted within “evidence”, “proof”, “definitions”, “agreement/disagreement” and “argumentation” is imprisoned. And the mind keeps itself imprisoned as it insists that itself defines what counts as “evidence” and “proof”. This will allow the mind to control an internal thought narrative and provide a sense of stability. Yet the mind does so at the cost of sitting within a prison. I know this mindset well. I spent 25 years immersed in it as a career scientist. You won’t realize what you are missing through thought stories. If you desire realization, I would suggest actual practice, self experimentation and direct experience.

@actualizing25 If you are oriented toward exploring psychedelics, all this mind chatter is background noise. It’s like a kid standing on the high dive feeling anxious as all sorts of “what ifs?” enter his mind. You don’t need to worry about hallucinating a hammer during a trip that reappears later, hits you on the head and gives you concussions. . . However, your sense of what is ‘real’ and ‘imagined’ may change after tripping. Right now, when you say “All of life is imagined”, it is at a surface level of thought theory. Psychedelics can give you actual direct experience. Yet rather than having harm anxiety, I would prepare with correct mindset, dosage and setting - then let go. Imagine being a kid entering a new realm of magic and wonder. . .

Also be mindful of the counter-trap of being wrong. Right-ness and wrong-ness are mirror images of each other.

That’s a peak at flow state and it’s awesome. I’ve been working on entering those states. I’ve found various forms of meditation help.

Here is a quote from the main forum that caught my attention and imagination. . . Who said life is Dream? You only realize a dream is a Dream after you wake up from it and compare it to real life. This is such a juicy statement. Notice the part “compare it to real life”. Here, there is an assumption that we already know what is real as a standard for comparison. If we are trying to determine what is real and imagined, we can’t start off with an assumption of what real is. That is what we are looking to discover!. . . What if “real life” was actually the dream? What if ‘sleeping dreams’ and ‘real life’ both have aspects of dream-ness and real-ness? How can we start off our exploration of what is real and what is dream, if we start off with the mindset that waking life is real and sleeping is dream? . . . There is no exploration. . . . Stop packing your bags. Trip canceled. . . Yet this also brings up how challenging this process is. For the mind to hold any thought or image, there must be contrast of ‘not that thought’ or ‘not that image’ for contrast. . . So, if there is no starting point, how can we begin? . . . What if the mind held thoughts and images very loosely. . . That may be a good place to start. . . Have you ever woke up from this life and found yourself in a bigger reality to contrast them? This question can have many different orientations. For example, if we held the position that sleeping time counts as dreams and waking time counts as real, this question Is now rhetorical and serves to defend our position. . . . Of course, we have never awoken from real life. It’s real life!! Again, this is rigging the game by making an underlying assumption that waking life is already real and therefore no more to awaken to. There would need to be a new real real life, yet this redundancy re-contextualizes the original intent of ‘real’ and the mind will not tolerate that. . . ? What we have here is a limited, contracted view. How are we going to experiment, explore and expand with such a limited view? I spent last summer working on lucid dreaming and I can tell you. . .with the above mindset, I would not have made 1% of the progress I did. For example, at times I can now enter lucid dreaming while awake. If I was limited to the above framework, this would not be possible. This also brings up the groundless nature of realization. If we already had the contrast, we would already be realized. . . Realization involves a groundlessness without contrast. A formlessness from which form arises. . . It doesn’t work if we start with form because we already have form! As well, one thing I’ve learned is that just because I can’t imagine it, doesn’t mean it is unimaginable and nonexistent. Time and time again, the unimaginable arises into existence. Hmmm, I hadn’t imagined it like that before. It opens a door. . . “Transpersonal curiosity” was an attempt to capture the essence of genuine curiosity of the magnificence of reality (without the “me” part). I’ve never considered the idea of “Collective curiosity”. It has a different feel to it. . . Aspects of collective consciousness are super interesting to me and I’ve barely scratched the surface. . . I’ve now put out the question “What is collective curiosity?”. I have a vague idea, yet I don’t really know. Now that the question is floating out there with curiosity, the LOA can do it’s work. My hunch is that during the next few days, more will be revealed. . . I’ve experienced this mental dynamic many times and I think you describe it quite well. I would just add that the sneakiest judgements are the ones that are subconscious. They can be tough to identify and purify. The dynamic of being trapped has been a re-curing dynamic for me. This includes times being trapped in thoughts. I agree that awareness and letting go are keys to clarifying it away. Like all avatars, it seems each of us has assets and deficiencies for spiritual growth. If the environment is fertile, such assets and deficiencies can be revealed, utilized and developed. Personally, I would score high on curiosity and empathy, yet would score low on focus and consistency. I haven’t considered curiosity in this context. I just realized that I’ve been subconsciously assuming my sense of curiosity was the same for everyone. It’s super interesting to me that people have different relationships with it. Thank you. Hmmm. . . A transpersonal space to explore ideas, imagery, feelings, insights and energetics sounds wonderful. @Zigzag Idiot ❤️ ?

@assx95 The way you create what counts as dream’ and what counts as ‘real’ is so dreamy.

?

You’ve already got the physical part down. You’ve spent four days in this thread showing how well you can see the physical aspects of reality. You don’t need any help in this area. What you cannot see is that you are locked in a dualistic paradigm of a physical vs. non-physical reality. Since you are attached / identified with the physical aspect, you will not be able to see the non-physical aspect. Similarly, if someone was attached/identified to the non-physical aspect, they would not be able to see the physical aspect that you can easily see. . . Notice how easily you can see the physical aspect. It is obvious to you. Yet due to the construction of opposition, the nonphysical aspect will be equally difficult for you to see. It is unobvious to you. The title of your thread seeks clarity for confusion. . . For clarification, it is wise to observe the source of the confusion, rather than immerse the mind within the confusion. Arguing for a physical position will not expand / deepen your understanding. You already have the physical part down, it’s the nonphysical you cannot see. For example, demanding physical proof of nonphysical is a contraction. Demanding logical explanations for post-logical is a contraction. You can stay within the contraction and self-described confusion you are having. Notice how you are in the same contraction in spite of four straight days of argumentation. With your orientation, this will continue for four weeks, four years, four decades. If you want to expand / deepen, observe your orientation. You will need to shift toward an orientation of curiosity, exploration and self experimentation. This is an energetic shift, not an intellectual shift. Yet a mind contracted within intellect will resist because it wants to control the narrative. This is expressed externally through argumentation with others, yet at a deeper level it is about control of the internal narrative in one’s own mind. Realizing this takes a lot of introspection work and the intellectual tail-chasing is a distraction.

I would be mindful of desire for catharsis and releasing my unpleasant karma onto others for my own relief.

For me, getting kicked, screamed at and chased into an ocean by a group of angry men isn’t the best setting for 5-meo. I prefer solo at home or in peaceful nature.

You could also try getting pegged by a woman. Fun stuff.

Some contemplations during a nature walk: 1. When my mind is free to explore, it holds ideas so loosely that they can be lost. Almost like a dream state. Sometimes when I dream, I can’t quite hold on to the dream and recall it later when I wake up. It helps to write it down in a journal asap before it is lost. Some of my waking states are like this as well. They are dreamlike insights that appear, yet are often lost. Perhaps I should carry a small notebook with me in nature as to write them down. 2. I often point out to others how their attachments and identifications are limiting and prevent more holistic understanding. My mind generally holds ideas loosely, yet sometimes snags appear and I need to go through the process myself. It can be messy at times. Here is an example of my own process. . . Over the last week, I’ve been listening to Ayahuasca music from a community in Peru. A few years ago I did an Aya retreat with this community and have very fond memories. Each night as I’m doing yoga, I listen to the music and can get back to that essence of the retreat. This had led to a desire to return. A few days ago, I went online to check out how this community is doing. I discovered that the lead facilitator had recently passed away. A sadness arose. There was now a deeper resonance when I listened to him sing. I went online to learn more about him, his essence and teachings. I watched videos and read through his blog. . . Then I came across a blog that was very critical of him. This wasn’t just a disgruntled tourist. This woman had lived in Peru and done many Ayahuasca ceremonies with indigenous people. She also met the man in question. She definitely had a hard edge to her as she described how this man was not a shaman, Shipibo or Ayahuasquero Coronado. He was a city realtor who bought a lot of sacred land cheaply, appropriated culture and mistreated indigenous people. She met the man in question many times and lived with village folk. . . . Here is the process I went through. At first, there was dismissal. My mind created a binary construct in which the man was either a beloved spiritual teacher or a nefarious manipulator. There was attachment to my relationship with him as a beloved spiritual teacher. So my mind looked for ways to discredit her essay. For example, she mentioned that mother Aya strickened him with cancer for his deeds and took his life to remove his influence. This I could discredit, yet I wasn’t able to entirely discredit her. . . . Then there was a shift. . . I had been blind and did not see how this man was actually self-centered and harmed indigenous people and their culture. This recontextualized my entire experience and memories. I had been duped by this community. I never had an authentic Aya ceremony led by a true Shaman. I was taken as a sucker. I couldn’t even listen to the Aya music anymore. I couldn’t bear to hear the voice that I once thought was a door to spirituality, yet now know was a voice of trickery. . . Notice how my mind was attached/identified to one side of the duality and flipped to being attached/identified to the.other side of the duality. . . Yet this could not be maintained either. I re-read her blog post and read the comments. There was another woman that gave a very different account of this man and challenged the author. The two went back and forth - they each seemed to make good points. And I went back and forth with believing one or the other. . . Then while walking in nature yesterday, there was a letting go and a transcendent view emerged. This view was not attached/identified to any view. It was simply observing without any “either / or” constructs. And there was realization that both views are true. I could see how he was a genuine wise spiritual being and I could see how he behaved in ways that culturally appropriated and harmed indigenous people. And many new views arose as well. This wasn’t simply considering other points of view from my point of view. It was deeper. It was understanding various points of view as if each was ‘my’ point of view. With this is freedom. 3. Also during the nature walk, the idea of energy transformation arose. This is a skill I would like to develop. Let’s say I take a position and I’m debating/arguing with someone. There is an energy associated with ‘my’ view and wanting to get my view across as being right. If this energy wasn’t there, I wouldn’t care and would have no interest in debating and protecting the view. This same energy can be transformed. The first law of thermodynamics states that energy is neither created or destroyed - it is only transformed from one form to another. For example, it energy to protect a view can be transformed into energy of curiosity or energy of creativity. It isn’t easy to transform, yet now that I’ve realized this, I can now start working with it. 4. Memories of intellect, feelings and body.. . . Most of my memories arise as thoughts and images. For example, during my nature walk, I remembered a trip to Arizona. There were thoughts and images about the trip. The intellect in my mind is often dominant and creates and controls a narrative. Yet there are also feeling memories. These are harder for me to purely access. For example, there was remembering the feeling of climbing trees when I was a boy. There were no thoughts or images from when I was a boy. There was the remembrance of joy and freedom of climbing trees. I was feeling it right then. There was no construct of past and present. One reason fond memories are so cherished is because of how they make us feel. Yet unfortunately, most of the memory is taken and controlled by thoughts and images. At the expense of feelings memories occurring Now. I would like to develop this relationship with reality. 5. Our environment can be experienced through feelings, energetics, imagination and thinking. These are not mutually exclusive, yet the categories have value. For example, my mind is dominant on experiencing through the lens of thoughts and concepts. It misses out on a lot of what is actually happening Now. One of my current practices is to reduce the extent my mind becomes immersed in thought and concepts. To experience and perceive more through intuition, feeling and energetics. This can be very simple. For example, I was laying in a forest a few days ago. After an hour or so, there was a very subtle feeling of chill. It was like a breeze was gently tickling me with a brush of chill. I immersed myself into it and observed. Occasionally a breeze would pass by and the chill would appear. It was a pleasant feeling. I layed there for about another hour and observed my body gradually becoming cold. There was a desire to respond and start moving, yet I let go and got curious and observed. I observed how the body gradually gets cold and how it responds. I watched how my mind and body related to the process of gradually getting cold. Over a 1hr. period. It was fascinating. . . Yet I would not have noticed/experienced this if my mind was immersed in worrisome thoughts, stories, concepts etc. 6. Transpersonal curiosity can lead to anxiety. Yesterday, I was driving down an old country road and saw a woman jogging on the shoulder. A thought arose “What would it be like to run over that woman? What would it feel like to experience that?”. There was then an impulse just to try it and see what happens. . . This is “transpersonal” in the sense that it was not placing personal value on myself or the woman. It would be like asking “What wold it would feel like to jump into that lake”. There is no concern for the welfare of my body or the welfare of the lake. This was a similar dynamic with the woman jogger. It was a transpersonal curiosity. Yet then the personal entered and induced a lot of internal tension. There was a thought of “OMG, that is awful!!! What if I actually did it?”. Then there was anxiety that re-enforced the thoughts. “OMG, I’m feeling anxious. I might actually do it. What if I can’t control myself”. Then anxiety transformed into panic. . . I ended up driving past the woman, yet it was a very uncomfortable moment being trapped at the interface between personal and transpersonal.

It is easy for the mind to get immersed in a binary mindset in which “person X” is either an authoritarian with nefarious intent OR a well-intentioned altruist genuinely trying to increase the welfare of society. It’s not always this simple. You mention that for weeks you have been “openly considering the possibility” of altruistic intent. A few weeks is a long time to explore and investigate. A mind that is genuinely open would find many instances after several weeks of exploration. It would explore areas of “pure altruistic”, “mostly altruistic” and “partially altruistic”. . . Yet you return to double down on the exact same position you had a few weeks ago. This suggests that you did not have a genuine open mind to learn, discover and expand. Rather that you have doubled-down on pre-conceived beliefs you had prior to weeks of “exploration”. I’m not saying this person is a nefarious autocrat or an altruistic saint. He likely has mixtures of both. People are complex beings. . . Rather, I’m pointing toward attachment to a pre-conceived belief system. To protect this belief system, notice how the mind creates self delusion of open-mindedness. “I just spent a few weeks researching with an open mind and nothing has changed - my initial belief system was completely accurate and has been reinforced. Now I will show all my critics how wrong they were and how right I am”. Do you really think people will think “Omigosh. I had thought that Tobia’s ideas had aspects of conspiracy. Yet he says that he openly explored outside his perspective for a few weeks and now he returns to say his original perspective is completely accurate and 100% conspiracy-free.” If you feel the need to write in bold “This is not a conspiracy theory and there is no speculation”, you probably shouldn’t post it here.

I’d be careful here. One defense of the mind is to focus on one belief. This can be helpful in some contexts, yet can also be a strategy to maintain a belief network. . . The limiting belief itself is secondary, the underlying energetic orientation is more important. For example, imagine the mind thinks that “Psychedelic experiences are hallucinations”. Now imagine this is a strongly-held belief. This mind has been conditioned to think that psychedelics only induce temporary hallucinations that aren’t real. How will this mind respond when given the opportunity to expand? This mind will defend it’s contraction because it isn’t oriented toward exploration and expansion. We could say that aspects of psychedelics are hallucinations, yet so are aspects of a sober mind. The contracted mind may think “Show me the evidence that psychedelic experiences are real. Show me someone that can make a hallucination of a unicorn real”. This is a contracted mindset limited to a belief. . . What would an exploratory mind that holds ideas loosely be like?. . . More like “Interesting, I hadn’t thought about it like that. What is the imagined in realness and what is the realness in imagined? What are areas that are sorta real, sorta imagined? How can I access this through direct experience? I don’t have access to psychedelics, or there other ways to explore these realms”. (Yes, there is). It depends on intention. If the intention is to explore and expand, then yes - limiting beliefs would be bad. However, belief structures provide stability and security, so holding beliefs loosely (or letting go of beliefs) can feel unstable and insecure. Yet that is the nature of exploration. There are times there is nothing to grab hold of. It’s not so much wether limiting beliefs are “false”. It’s more about the limitation. Asking whether a belief is true or false is a dualism of opposites. For example, if we tightly believe “Psychedelics only produce hallucinations”, how can we explore beyond this belief? What if psychedelics are hallucinations from one perspective, yet not hallucinations from another perspective? What if both are true, depending on the perspective? However. . . If a mind tightly holds onto the truth that “psychedelics only produce hallucinations”, it will not be able to see the truth that “psychedelics don’t only produce hallucinations”. As well, the balancing belief would be “a sober mind does not produce hallucinations”. When locked into this truth, the mind will not be able to see sober hallucinations. Ime, psychedelics are extremely powerful for exploring this area - yet there are also traps, several of which you have indicated. There are also other methods. If you genuinely want to explore realness and imagination, I would shift toward direct experience. This doesn’t mean to reject intellectual concepts. It just means holding them loosely or setting them aside for a bit. For example, when we watch a movie, we don’t have a mindset of “this isn’t real. These are just actors pretending. The setting isn’t even real. It’s just a pretend set in Hollywood”. This is true from one perspective, yet it limits us from exploring, experiencing the characters and the essence of the story. There are a lot of insights here. There are many ways to explore realness and imagination through direct experience (that don’t involve psychedelics). Ime, I’ve explored real and imagined through lucid dreaming, sensory deprivation tanks, yin yoga, edible cannabis, shamanic breathing and being isolated in nature. This is a great introspective question. Notice if the mind tries to defend *my perspective* of being real. Or if it is willing to let go of *my perspective* to gain a more holistic view of being both real and unreal. Imagine a perspective that appears without ownership. It is merely an appearance without “mine” or “yours”.

Fine, then try other methods. The key here is whether there is genuine curiosity to explore and expand. With that orientation, you will be open, allow space and a way will arise. Yet if your orientation is to protect a pre-conceived belief structure, you will be chained down and will not be able to venture and explore. Notice here: This is a limiting belief structure. It is a burden and chaining you down. To expand, either let go of the limiting beliefs and try something else or take a meta view of the belief structure. Staying immersed within beliefs will limit your mind to those beliefs. The question comes down to whether you genuinely desire to expand in this area. From my POV, you have a moderate amount of desire, yet it is not strong enough to break the chains that bind you. You will not be able to explore the forest if you sit chained to fence in the parking lot.

This is the lock and key right here. . . . To me, this sounds genuine. Notice the feeling of this orientation. Cultivate the curiosity to explore. Also notice the feeling of contraction. The feeling of “yea buts. . . “ and the desire for mental narrative control. Leo gives several great exercises in his recent Open-mindedness video. If you want to expand. . .curiosity, letting go, openness and observation will need to win out over the desire for security and maintenance of pre-conceived belief structures. You are asking questions that involve both material and immaterial. If your mind stays within a material realm and logic, it will be limited. One doesn’t need to reject material and logic, however this will not shed light on immaterial and post-logic. I’m a trained scientist and can relate to being immersed within an objective, external reality. One thing that helped me was relaxing the mind, allowing space and observing. As well, setting can be important. This can allow for realizations to appear in direct experience. For example, I spent time practicing lucid dreaming, both while asleep and awake. This led to an exploration of what is real and imagined. This exploration, included thoughts and concepts - yet much more. Another way to look at it. Imagine wanting to explore languages, yet then asking that everyone only communicate in English. This may have some practical value, yet it is very limited. For example: below is a contracted mindset to protect the security of an underlying belief system. It is not a mindset that is exploring new territory with curiosity and desire to expand. This orientation would be more like “How can I better engage within the interface of what my mind believes is real and imagined? How can I go prior to my thought stories of what is real and imagined?”

I didn’t say that mind filters, analysis and concepts are “bad”. You created that (through a filter). Observe. Mind filters, analysis and concepts have contextual value. Yet this can also be a contracted mind state. If you want to expand your understanding of what is real and imagined, analysis and concepts are just a portion of what is available. You can stay contracted within that portion if you like, or you can expand beyond it. . . Right now, your orientation and energetics are toward maintaining contraction through thought constructs and debate. The mind is filled with “yea but”, “evidence”, “then how come. . . “, “I disagree”, “right vs wrong” and on and on. This is a mindset that maintains contraction through the creation of opposites and conflict. This is a mind that desires narrative control. . . A mind that expands has space to explore. It is curious, fluid and holds ideas lightly.

@Someone here I would observe the meaning you give to “exist”, “real” and “imagined. Not a thought analysis. Simply observing - as if you were observing cells divide under a microscope. . . . I could give an explanation, yet it would likely go through a mind filter analyzing and deciding what counts as “exists”, “real”, “imagined”.

This assumes what we have today is too far. I’m pointing prior to that assumption. If we assume that what we have is not too far, then what it “should be” takes on a new context. As would the assumption that what we hav today is not far enough. That’s the tricky part. There is no external, objective measure of what is “too far”. I’ve noticed this type of deconstruction can be helpful for holistic views, yet its annoying when the mind is constructing within a view. And it can be impractical.

Different people would fill in the above blanks similar or very different than you. It’s a tricky issue since each person wants “free speech” through their lens of what they believe in, what they perceive as problematic, what they perceive the issue is and what they perceive as good and bad things. There are many filters that shapes where one believes lines should be drawn. It’s very difficult a mind to put down it’s own view and hold another view as if it were it’s own. That would feel very ungrounded to the mind. As you suggest, who/what decides where lines should be drawn? Who/what decides what is inappropriate, dangerous and harmful? A god? you? me? the majority of society? A president? Billionaires? Scientists? Mystics? ISIS soldiers? Priests? Felons? . . . If there is no external, universal, objective reality, it becomes very tricky.

@DivineSoda Just curious: are you advocating for free speech without any restrictions or consequences?

@Shmurda I’ve found it helpful to explore quasi dream/wake mixed states. For me, having two distinct states of either dream or wake was a restriction.