Forestluv

I would consider setting a genuine, humble intention and having it be the theme of the week prior to the trip.

Thank you all for the kind words ? ❤️

Fun imaginations ☺️

Yes. ? A gift from a loving being. ❤️

What is the common denominator to which all the no’s point? ?

To me, it sounds like you are getting glimpses of personal transcendence, yet desire personal development and wellbeing. They are not mutually exclusive, yet it’s tricky to explore transcendence when a mind is immersed in personal constructs. . . . How can one immerse themself as being a movie character while simultaneously observing how movies are created? In terms of SD, for someone centered at Orange, Turquoise-level revelations will get contextualized at their baseline Orange and might not be want they want.

Consider it as two separate, independent events. There is the theft of $100, followed by a regular purchase of $70. Imagine the thief stole $100 and left the store. An hour later, a regular customer enters the store and makes a purchase. How much did the storeowner lose? . . . $100. The purchase after the theft is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter who made the purchase. The trick of the riddle is that the mind wants to mix the two events together. The riddle re-enforces this tendency of the mind by saying that the thief paid for the goods with the same $100 bill that he stole.

This assumes that the $70 of merchandise would have eventually been sold. If the thief bought $70 of perishable items that no one else would have bought and the storeowner had to discard the items, his net loss would be less than $100.

Imagine the thief stole $100 and left the store. Then someone else entered, bought $70 of merchandise and paid with a $100 bill.

Assuming no opportunity profit for the storeowner, he lost $100. For example, let’s say the guy bought $70 of vegetables, that nobody else would have bought and the storeowner had to discard them. If he paid $50 for those vegetables, he would have had to take that loss if the thief didn’t buy them. In this scenario, the storeowner’s net loss would be $50 ($30 if we factor in opportunity loss of the $20 profit).

It depends on how “lose” is defined.

‘You’ won’t have a firsthand experience of Nothingness or God, because ‘you’ does not ‘exist’ like ‘you’ think it does. And ‘you’ certainly can’t think your way there, since it is ‘transcendent’ of thought. It involves letting go / surrendering ‘you’ which not many ‘yous’ are willing to do because it is a form of dissolution. It’s all fun and games until someone loses an “i”. . . . This is a great question that can arise from a place of direct experience or that can arise from a mind trying to figure it out. Let’s take a peak and see what we’ve got. . . Looks like the orientation is a mind trying to figure stuff out by constructing sandcastles of speculation in the hope of creating a concrete structure. There is nothing wrong with building conceptual sandcastles to explain reality. The problem comes when the mind doesn’t realize it’s shifting sand and that form = formless. There is a realization of the substance of sand itself and that realization doesn’t arise when the mind is captivated by efforts to create stable form. There is no instruction manual with steps to take. There are many variables involved. I could tell you what works for me, yet I’ve discovered this through many years of practice and self experimentation. I don’t know if what works for me would work for you. I would suggest engaging in various practices and start paying attention. Let go of “what’s supposed to happen?”, “is this it?”, “what does xyz guru say about it?” type of mind activity. Engage in a practice and learn how to observe deeply. In particular, observe what resonates with you. You could explore practices like lucid dreaming, yoga, group meditation retreats, solo retreats, sensory deprivation tanks, psychedelics, self inquiry and on and on. Yet none will be effective if the mind is attached/identified. Insights arise when there is openness and space in the mind. We could create two forms of “knowing”. There is a “knowing” that assumes an external stable reality. For example, how do I know a foreign language? Well, I could study it, practice and learn it. Yet we could also create a different type of knowing. For example, how do you know that Now is Now? Do you wake up each morning wondering if Now is Now? Do you need to consult a physicist to provide you evidence that it is Now? Do you need to read theories to show you Now? Would engaging in thought stories reveal Now to you? Do you need a guru to verify to you that Now is Now? Of course not, because the knowing of Now comes *prior* to evidence and theory. This knowing is an implicit. One could try to describe it explicitly in linguistic thought constructs, yet this is not the ineffable actuality of Now.

@VeganAwake I’m not disagreeing with your theoretical constructs. They are quite helpful and profound in a context. It is a view from a rooftop - and there are many other rooftops to climb, explore and embody. For example, your theoretical construct includes a thing you created that you call “illusion”. I’m not saying your construct is wrong, yet there are other ways of understanding so-called “illusion” that are also quite enlightening. However, to venture here one would need to let go of their rooftop view to explore another rooftop view.

You don’t know that. You are creating a story. If you keep telling yourself a made-up story and believe it, it will likely be a self-fulfilling prophecy. . .

This is all theory and not actuality. The experience I’m referring to was what is referred to as a “breakthrough experience”. Yet the term “breakthrough experience” is relative. We use this term in an effort to communicate with each other, yet there is no objective, universal “breakthrough experience”. . . I’ve done 5-Meo dozens of times, with including sub-“breakthrough” doses and high doses that caused a blackout. I’m not talking about sub-breakthrough doses that causes mental instability at the personal level. I’m talking about trips so deep it takes months to integrate and process at the human level. Imagine being blind in a world in which everyone is blind. Then you can see and are the only one that can see. Integrating this at the level of human life will take some time. Imo/Ime, creating constructs and rules about how 5-Meo is at the level of personal/human cognition, which is a limitation that would need to get surrendered to reach deeper levels. Incorrect. I would recommend less theorizing / speculating and obtaining more direct experience. That will give you a deeper level of understanding. For me, 35mg or greater causes a blackout with zero recall.

@Nivsch I wouldn’t use the term “cognitively superior”. I think a better term would be “cognitive development”. For example, we wouldn’t say a professor that understands calculus is “cognitively superior” to a 12 y.o. student learning algebra. The professor has a higher level of cognitive development, yet I wouldn’t call him “superior”.

Breakthrough dose varies, based on an person’s sensitivity level. About 30mg is a breakthrough dose for most people (but not all). For most people, a 90mg dose would be an extremely high dose. It could send a person into a blackout, be counter-productive and cause unwanted side effects. It could be that your breakthrough dose is 90mg, yet that is an extremely high dose and I would recommend starting at lower doses and work your way up until you find your breakthrough dose. I had a 30mg trip so strong that it took me months to re-acclimate. As well, I would not initially assume that you will have the same breakthrough dose for all batches of 5-Meo you acquire.

@arlin I had a similar experience. It was very unsettling for a while. The mind tries to re-establish grounding. Yet, the underlying issue was anxiety and fear of losing control and uncertainty of what might happen. . . . At the time, one thing that helped me was that if there was no me with free will, it’s been like that my whole life and I did ok. It’s not like I lost something. One cannot lose what they never had.

There are assumptions in the construct that you have created. Imo, it would be more insightful to inquire about the assumptions themselves and then to go prior to the assumptions.

The transcendence doesn’t necessarily mean you stop caring about the welfare of fellow humans. It doesn’t mean one needs to pretend they are fine with human suffering. Rather, the love expands. For example, a person may care about the suffering of victims and dislike the abusers. The transcendence doesn’t mean one has to stop caring about and loving the victims. The transcendence can be an expansion in which there is caring and love for both victims and abusers. One of my good friends is a nurse who is now working overtime in a covid unit. She is immersed in human suffering and she herself is suffering. I feel for her and we skype several times a day. I try to be supportive and helpful.

@arlin The question of evil and suffering is the classic dilemma of an external god. If this external god is all powerful, how could it allow evil and suffering? Many religious folk claim that an external god allows humans free will to choose weather to act in evil ways. Yet this still doesn’t explain the presence of suffering. If this external god is all-powerful and loving, how can it allow suffering? If you stay immersed within the constructs of an external hod and universal good vs bad, you will be a n a cyclic trap. There is another way, which is to transcend the human constructs that one is attached to and identified with. Yet most people are unwilling to do this because it entails letting go of things held dearly as a person and human. As a pointer. . . notice how concerned you are about the plight of humans. Your concern seems very human-centric. For example, you write alot about the suffering of humans, yet nothing about the suffering of earthworms. Creating a god that cares more about humans than earthworms is a human-centric view. Regarding the question “why would god choose to live a life of suffering”? - this is at the personal/human level. Humans don’t want to suffer, so it doesn’t make sense that a “higher” being would choose a life of human suffering. How many humans would choose a life of suffering? Not many. From a human perspective, it doesn’t make sense. Within the mindspace a person/human it won’t make rational sense. It hasn’t made rational sense for thousands of years and it doesn’t now. As a metaphor. . . From a child’s perspective, there are a lot of things adults do that doesn’t make sense. From the child’s view it is nonsensical and they won’t figure it out using a child’s level of awareness and thinking. They would need to transcend that level as they grow into an adult. And I’m not disagreeing with you. From a relative human perspective, suffering is awful.

You are trying to imagine trans-human using human imagination. It would be like a mouse trying to imagine being a human with it’s mouse mind imagination. You would need to transcend your current level of imagination to have a transcendent view. Thinking up concepts is an anchor. All constructs of mind are parts within a greater whole. Much is missed by a mind immersed in it’s creation of thoughts, images, concepts and stories.

There are two separate entities here and thus a little “g” god. You have created an external little g god that is separate from the people it rejects. As well, you are creating things you call “hate” and “rejection”. Prior to your creation, hate = love and rejection = acceptance. It’s not weird when one sees how they are creating it all.

On the lighter side.. .