Forestluv

It depends on how one defines "cold" and "dangerous". The coronavirus is the causative agent of the condition covid-19, which can be described as a disease and the coronavirus could be described as one of the most dangerous diseases humans have confronted for many reasons. The coronavirus R0 (contiguous factor) is extremely high - about 20X as high as a common flu virus. This is for several reasons: A) There is a long median incubation period in which the virus can spread. The median incubation period is 5 days - meaning 50% of infected people will show symptoms by five days. This means that 50% of infected people have no symptoms and spreading the virus up to 5 days and the other 50% of infected people have no symptoms while they spread the virus for up to 12 days. This is a very potent spreading factor that blows away a common virus. B) Nobody has any immunity to coronavirus and 100% of people are vulnerable and defenseless. With a common virus, there are immunities within a population. In a population, some people will be partially immune, others fully immune due to past exposures and flu shots. Yet nobody has any defense to the coronavirus. Zero. C) The coronavirus ranges from mild symptoms to severe symptoms, with a relatively high lethality. Very few viruses can claim mild, severe and lethal symptoms. About 20% of persons effected will have severe symptoms requiring medical attention and the letality frequency is about 3.4%. A common virus is much much lower. For example, the common flu virus has about a 0.1% lethality frequency, which is 34X lower than the coronavirus. D) The coronavirus can survive on nonhuman surfaces for 2+ days. The reasons the numbers don't seem that dramatic is because the world is not treating the coronavirus like a common flu virus. If the world treated the coronavirus like a common flu virus and let it run it's course, conservative estimates is that 70% of people will get infected. That means about 20% of the world's population (1.5 billion) would have severe symptoms needing medical care. And 3.4% (255 million people) would die of coronavirus exposure - and that is based on a 3.4% estimate in which hospitals are not beyond capacity. Once hospitals max out capacity, the lethality rate will climb much higher than 3.4% (as seen in the 9% death rate in Italy). Even a conservative estimate is 4X higher than all the casualties in WW2 (both military and civilian deaths). Four world wars 2s. . . As well, many many people would also die of comorbidity or other illness since medical care is unavailable. We are looking at 500+ million deaths. . . This blows away numbers from a common flu virus. Allowing a full surge would drastically overwhelm health care systems and people needing care for other illnesses and diseases would not have access to care. There would be many indirect coronavirus deaths. As well, this widespread severe illness and death (20% of worlds population) and considerable illness (about 50% of worlds population) would dramatically decrease productivity due to loss of work and a massive hysteria and panic would arise that is much much worse than current measures (lockdowns, social distancing). Comparing the current state of the coronavirus with strong quarantine efforts to a common flu without quarantine efforts is comparing apples to oranges. In the U.S. all common flu viruses together cause about 40 thousand deaths annually. (That is all common flu viruses combined). If we treat the corona virus like a common flu, models predict roughly 10 million people would die in the U.S. And that is only due directly to the corona virus. Many more people would die due to other illness because hospitals are overwhelmed. Based on this, the coronavirus would be considered orders of magnitude more dangerous than a common flu virus. The coronavirus ranks among the most dangerous in history, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/iOMarZz9BXgwquIn0fCryQSJW8Y=/0x0:1941x1941/920x0/filters:focal(0x0:1941x1941):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/19816388/flu_covid_comparison_1_high_res.jpg

The relativity of strangeness is intriguing to me. . . . It's like an Icelander asking an Australian to explain the strangeness of kangaroos.

You are asking for actualization of that which is unactualized. If I ask someone to help me understand the direct experience of "fligev", it would be very difficult because I haven't yet realized the direct experience of "fligev". What they describe has been contextualized through a filter and would not be "fligev" itself. It is a contextualized image. As well the person receiving has their own filter of contextualization. If I told you what 100+ trips is like, I would need to create a story what it is like (filter # 1) and then you would interpret this and create your won throught story what it is like (filter #2). This is why direct experience is king - there are no filters. If I were to explain my own experience as a human, it would be that 100+ trips has dramatically altered my perception and relationship with reality. There is an appearance of awareness transcendent to "me". This opens up a whole new world of trans-personal exploration, yet it comes at a price - the death of identification/attachment to self. This is not what the self desires - the self wants to survive and asks "how could 100+ trips help me?". However, this "me" is surrendered. . . It would be like being afraid of a dangerous snake about to bite you and seeking help from the snake. The health care provider points and says "That's not a snake, that is actually a rope". . . And then the patient asks "Yea but how would that help me from the snake?". . . 1-5 trips can give some glimpses of the actuality of the rope, yet it often doesn't "stick" due to prior conditioning and desire for self survival. Ime, after 50+ trips it began to "stick" even during sober states. This open up a whole new world of exploration "meta" to the self construct. From a "trans-personal" perspective, psychedelics are the master exploratory tool, ime. Psychedelics are like an airplane - it is a valuable tool for exploration. Ime, after many trips - the duality between what is "real" and what is "imagined" dissolves. This is a "game-changer" yet the "myself" is no longer the center of The Game. Appearances of "the character" may appear and "trans-character" awareness may indirectly "help" the character - yet the character is no longer in charge or center stage. For example, if "me" is an illusory thought story, how could can anyone harm "me"? If I create an imaginary friend called "GabaLuv" and someone rejects "GabaLuv" by saying "GabaLuv is ugly and stupid" would this harm our imaginary friend "GabaLuv"? . . . This realization can indirectly reduce anxiety within the mind and body. If the mind and body is anxious that "I" will be rejected and it is revealed "I" is illusory, there will likely be a reduction of anxiety in the mind and body - not because "I" is becoming empowered. Rather because the illusory nature of "I" is revealed. . . Similarly, if awareness that a snake is actually is rope, anxiety about the snake will decrease. Not because the snake has been subdued. Rather because the snake is revealed to be a rope. . . Yet this can be extremely difficult to realize due to deep attachment/identification to the snake. It can be extraordinarily difficult to let go of and the vast majority of beings will hold tightly to the snake because that means "I" am still in the game. This is simply my contextualization that will be contextualized by the reader. This is two steps away from the actuality. Other beings will have other contextualizations. There are an infinite number available.

This can be a challenging thing to face, since fear triggers maximum resistance to observing. If I am feeling blissful laying on a beach in Belize, there is very little resistance of being now. Since I'm blissful, I don't want to change my conditions - I like the conditions of Now. So it is much easier to relax the mind and ask "who or what is experiencing bliss?". It would be lovely to lay on the beach feeling blissful and contemplate the nature of bliss. . . .Sign me up! Yet it is a very different scenario if I am chained up in a dungeon and a man enters with knives and a bottle of Hydrochloric Acid. Here the mind and body is flooded with fear. The is an intense desire to change one's conditions. The mind and body will strongly resist observing the fear and contemplating "who or what is experiencing fear?". When the mind and body is not directly experiencing fear, it is much easier to contemplate fear - yet there is a limitation. The tendency is for the mind to create all sorts of thought theories about fear. This can have some practical value, yet it will be at a surface level - unless it is coupled to extra-ordinary imagination - which most beings lack. One can practice to develop this skill or psychedelics can breakthrough this barrier. For example, I recently watched prisoners describe their experience in solitary confinement. At the start of the video, I didn't feel any fear or discomfort. I let my mind and body relax and allow space. What is "real" vs "imagined" began to dissolve. With time, intense fear arose to the point of insanity and panic. . . There were very energetic dynamics at play in which we could roughly describe in two categories. There was identification to the fear and panic. There was a sense that "I" was experiencing fear and panic. There was a strong desire to stop the video and do something else. As well, there was a "meta awareness" observing the fear and panic. To this awareness, it is not something to avoid. Through this observation, deep insights may arise - yet it's challenging to do because it's the last thing the mind and body wants to do. It is much easier to observe bliss when one is blissful because it's the first thing the mind and body wants to do.

By adding in an "IF", an assumption is created which sets the narrative. This is a major block toward deepening and expanding understanding. If we want to deepen/expand your understanding and transcend the question itself, we would need to inquire prior to those assumptions? This would include contemplation of: What does "flawed" mean? What is "accurate" and "what is inaccurate"? What is "reality"? Proper contemplation would be "meta" to theoretical constructs which can cause a feeling of groundlessness, which the mind and body often resists. The tendency for the mind is to make assumptions, which provide a sense of grounding. If the mind can assume meanings for things like "flawed", "accurate" and "reality" it gives a sense of concrete grounding. However, the grounding is not concrete - it is shifting sand. The direction one proceeds is related to their energetic orientation. Is there a desire to create sandcastles, believing they are concrete castles? Or is there desire to realize the actual substance of sandcastles?

If one is aware of unconditional love, how can anyone love unconditionally? That is putting a condition on love. Unconditional Love has no conditions. Unconditional Love is Everything. How can another being not express love if love is unconditional? Anything they do is unconditional love, because they are unconditional love itself. Let's say someone tells me "You are a bastard!!" and punches me in the face. I am being unconditionally loved. For me to interpret it otherwise, I need to add in conditions. I could say "That person doesn't love me unconditionally because he called me a bastard and punched me in the face". Yet in doing so, I've added a condition to what "unconditional love" is. I've stated that unconditional love is not calling someone a bastard and punching them. <= That is a condition.

What is trust and truth? How do you know if you can trust a birdsong? How do you know if the taste of an apple is true? All the models I create are like sandcastles. They have what some call "relative truth", yet ultimately they all wash back into the ocean. A wonderful interplay between form and formless. I would consider Leo's videos to be movies, just a different form of movie. That type of expression can be effective. Perhaps your mode of expression is similar, or you could create your own novel form of expression. You could integrate what you like about Leo's form with other forms of you like. Is not creativity a transformation of previous form into novel form? I'm a sucker for anything integrated. It's how my mind works. If I could only pack four items for a journey, curiosity would be one of them.

Any thought constructs will be circular. I would find it more insightful to contemplate "what is seeking?" and "who is the seeker?". From a human perspective, growth is within infinity. Growth is infinite. It never ends (and never began). In terms of seeking an illusory "it" to make "me" whole, I would say seeking energy is transformed into exploration energy. They are two different energetic orientations. A voyager who seeks to find "x" has a different orientation than a voyager who is simply exploring. If the journey is the destination, there is no "seeking" energy. The seeking energy gets transformed toward Beingness and exploration.

It's not a somewhere you go.

@Prevailer I’m pointing to something else that you don’t seem to be interested in - which is totally fine.

@billiesimon That's cool too. I'd probably use the term "observing' or "being", yet "inquiring" can work too.

If the mind goes into theoretical mode, let it go. For example, we could ask "what is real and imagined?". If the mind starts thinking like "Real would be things that I can touch. Real is physical things. Real is things I can perceive. Stuff there is evidence for". . . Then stop. Why? Because we just introduced about six new self-inquiry questions: "What is a thing?", "What is physical?", "What is perception?", "What is evidence?". Thus, we are moving in the opposite direction. . . I ask the inquiry question and just observe. If nothing arises, fine. If something arises, fine. Sometimes I let the question go and two days later I will be in nature and an insight arises "oh, so that's it". Or a few days later, I may have a dream about it. To me, an inquiry is like planting a seed. I think inquiry is great for allowing space for implicit understanding, as described in Leo's video. When this arises, it can be tempting to explicitly describe it through words and images. Trying to explicitly describe implicit understanding is a very different orientation from explicitly trying to figure out the implicit. As well, there can also be a form of "thought" that arises, yet it's not a regular thought. For example, I may be laying under a tree for hours, observing. A few thoughts may arise, yet there is no "me" thinking or attachment to it. The thoughts are like background sounds and don't have regular "thought power". It's all One. A thought would be the same as a frog croaking, a leaf falling or a feeling. It's all hallucinations. There is no grasping or pushing away of anything. This is a very different relationship with thoughts. It's not really a "thought", yet I don't know what else to call it.

I like the phrasing of "grounded on an illusion", since it includes the both sides of the paradox. .. . We could also say "groundless on reality". For me, it gets tricky. . . If I tell myself "This is an illusion", it doesn't honor the realness of it. If I tell myself "This is real", it doesn't honor the imaginary-ness of it.

What I'm pointing at has nothing to do with the view. It's more about the "ownership" of the view. There is no "my view" and "your view" there are simply views. If we were standing on a mountain top admiring views, would we say "the view to the west is my view and the view to the east is your view". Of course not, there are simply views that are free to all. There is noone taking ownership of any view. That is part of the pointer. Thinking too deep. We could also rephrase it as getting too immersed in thinking or believing thinking is true. It is more about the attachment/identification to thoughts as "my thoughts, my view etc." that is the contraction. Or getting lulled into believing that thoughts are true. Who/what is this "self"? How can one dismantle an illusion? If I am walking in a desert and see a mirage, how could I dismantle that mirage?

@Prevailer If you are interested, it's possible to dissolve attachment and identification to belief such that beliefs are no longer held. There are simply appearances of thoughts, images, concepts without holding onto it as a "belief". Similar to how bird chirps may appear in the mind without any attachment or identification. . . I've found this very liberating and allows for clearer observation and freedom to explore, without being encumbered by holding onto beliefs. . . This doesn't resonate with everyone, yet it is available to those with interest. (btw, I find appearances of ideas about different states of consciousness to be interesting and fascinating. Yet holding onto those appearances as beliefs is a drag.)

It depends on what you mean by "twice as strong". In terms of weight, 30mg plugged is a breaktrhough experience. I can't imagine trying to vape 15mg. I only vape around 3mg. In terms of intensity, plugging gives an overpowering "wave" effect into "breakthrough". Vaping is more like an intensity dial in which I have more control over intensity. As well, the various vaping temperatures will have different effects and smoking have different effects. It's not a simple as "plugging is twice as strong as vaped".

I’m moving this to the health section because it is more about the use of drugs relative to one’s health, rather than the use of substances for spiritual realizations. As well, the term “drugs use” generally has a negative connotation in society (e.g. heroine, methamphetamine etc.). In a spiritual / personal development context terms such as “substance”, “tool” or “medicine” would be more accurate.

Then rest in the awareness.

Consciousness includes both physical and non-physical. The mind is creating distinctions called “physical” and “non-physical”. The term “1st order” or “prior” is often used because the mind is well-equipped for linear concepts. What would be “prior” to your ideas of physical on non-physical?

What you describe is attachment, identification and survival of the mind, body and self construct. Appearances still appear. What appears as a personal me are just appearances. They may continue. What dissolves is the attachment and identification to those a personal appearances. One thing I found helpful is to allow awareness of an “observer”. You can do this right now. There is awareness of “my” thoughts. There is awareness of thoughts that say “this is me”. Once this awareness is aware of itself, it can observe the mind and body. Keep this awareness alive. When you walk, observe the body walk itself. When you eat, observe the body eat itself. When you feel, observe the body feel itself. When you are thinking of yourself, observe the mind think of itself.

@TheAvatarState I’ve enjoyed reading your posts in this thread. It opened up some new views for me?

@Forrest Adkins I’d say it depends on one’s orientation. If I am traveling through South America and want to explore and learn broadly as much as possible, then I would visit many different cities, rural areas, various people, cuisines, cultural events etc. If I wanted to explore deeply, I may stay the whole time in on South American village for months and get to know them deeply. . . , Yet if my orientation is to answer the question “What is South America?”, it would be silly for me to seek a thing within South America, since it’s all South American!

@thibault Sure. Just like with everything else, there is a loss of attachment to rigid definitions and identity. Attachment / identification can be difficult to let go of, yet when it is - there is expansion and new realms to explore. If I identify myself as an “alpha male that must be masculine, have sex 3+ times per week, be in control while in the missionary position in a bedroom”, it would be a very contracted identity. There is nothing wrong with that type of sex, it’s just very contracted and doesn’t give much space to explore and expand. However, openness doesn’t necessary mean every possibility will actualized. For example, as a guy expands he will be more open to various sexual expressions. He won’t judge others or himself for being sexually weird or immoral. He will come to understand the relativity of various sexual orientations. He may get curious and experiment, or maybe not. A guy that prefers heterosexual monogamy might start forming deeper heterosexual monogamous relationships as he becomes more conscious. Another guy might expand and try out bisexuality or polyamory as he becomes more conscious. Another guy could get into nondual sex in which gender is irrelevant. Another guy could lose interest in sex as being a lower level pleasure. It just depends on the person. There is no sexual rule that one needs to follow.

@Rodrigo SIlva There can be anxiety when the mind and body feel like it is losing control over defining reality. A loss of control over how things are perceived and the mental narrative in the mind. For me, this is mostly a survival instinct to protect the survival of the mind, body and self construct. What I’ve found is that with more experience in which nothing “bad” happens, the anxiety and resistance can decrease. I’ve had trips in which I felt anxiety as I lost control over the mental narrative. “Omigosh, my thoughts don’t make sense. What is happening? I don’t know what is real. What if I harm myself or someone else? I want this to stop, but I can’t make it stop”. . . During the comedown, I may realize “Oh, it wasn’t dangerous. Actually things look quite beautiful. I think I’ll go for a walk and admire the beauty of nature”. . . After going through this many times, the mind can adapt a during trips and more easily let go. The mind-body knows it doesn’t have to go into fight or flight mode. . . Yet the opposite can also occur. If I tripped in a crowded train station, list control over reality perception, got anxious, freaked out, put into a straight jacket and sent to a jail cell - that would be traumatic to the mind and body which could increase anxiety / panic on the next trip. . . For this reason, I try to choose a safe, simple, peaceful setting. Usually a place we’re I don’t have to interact with a lot of people. For me, that adds in variables. What I found over time is that with enough exposure to this unknown, anxiety transformed into curiosity and fascination. For example, the first time I lost sense of “me” in a cafe was very frightening. The “me” dissolved and I lost control of perceiving “me” relative to everything else. It was like I was becoming the entire cafe and it was scary. I didn’t know what would happen. . . Yet after this happened about 10 times and nothing bad happened, I started getting curious when it happened. It was like being a kid exploring new terrain. Now, I’m learning how to actually turn it on while sober. Yet I also respect psychedelics and I try to be cautious at 40ug and above, especially if I’m in public.

@Prevailer I’m not saying the state you propose is good or bad. It sounds like you’ve found a mind state that is good for you and works for you. That’s awesome. And I’ve experienced thoughtless states that are wonderful. What I’m referring to is the creation of “problems”, avoiding those “problems” that one just created, and seeking states free of that “problem”. If I define thoughts as a “problem”, I would then reject and avoid thoughts. I would try not to engage with them. I would seek states free of thought. I’m not saying those thoughtless spaces are bad. I’m pointing to the energetic orientation of believing what is happening now is a problem to be avoided and seeking a “better” space free of that problem. Of course this can have relative practical value to one’s sense of personal welfare. If I accidentally cut my finger off, I would consider this a problem. I would avoid making it worse and I would seek to make it better. That has value. Yet there is also an unconditional state in which there are no “problems”. It’s a paradox. There is no problem in the midst of a problem. If the mind focuses and believes on the problem it will not be able to simultaneously see it is also not a problem. A mind filled with thinking is both a problem and not a problem. A mind filled with the sounds of bird chirps is both a problem and not a problem. I find it helpful not to judge thoughts, yet rather to observe the mind-bodies relationship to thoughts. And I’m not saying this is universally true for everyone. If someone finds this helpful, great. If not, great. It seems like you have had some insights and developed understanding that is working for you. Perhaps what you’ve found might be helpful to others. If so, that’s great too.