Forestluv

A beautiful ad that captures human experience. Bernie is a special politician that cares more about helping people than playing politics.

@Identity Your post brings to mind the idea of choice. . . Imagine a person is offered a pill that would allow awakening. The person gets nervous and resists. The person then goes back and forth wether to take the pill or not. Finally, the person chooses to surrender and take the pill. Was there a choice to surrender and take the pill? Or was it all just happenings?. . . Is choice a thought story in the mind? . . Or is there a chooser? If yes, how much of this chooser is the external world and how much is the internal world?

Multiple personalities is intriguing to me. There are some good documentaries. We all have multiple personalities along a spectrum, yet most of us aren’t aware of it. Once a meta awareness to the personality structure appears, the mechanisms can be observed. Yet this transcendence is a form of “ego death”, even though the personality doesn’t die - transcendence can feel like death. There is a strong survival instinct for the continuation of Immersion, identification and attachment to the personality as “me” continuing through time. The mind is amazingly good at assembling self-referential thoughts into a “me” that is continuous through time. At a physical level, this is the function of the brain’s default mode network. This allows the human to make sense of its reality and function/survive within that reality. Questioning the illusion of a singular personality can lead to an existential crisis, feelings of insanity, anxiety and panic - which I’ve had more of my share of. Yet with meta awareness of personality, things get very interesting. . . Each of our minds have many appearances of self-referencing that goes under one category of “me”. We might be indecisive about a decision and have conflicting thoughts about what to do. We often have debates and arguments for n our own minds causing inner turmoil - similar to debates with “other” people. There are also “other people” in the mind, yet we don’t categorize it like this. A person would say “*I’ve* been debating what to do”, not “three personalities in my mind have been debating what to do”. We could easily categorize like this. Yet there is pressure not to do so. We are conditioned to group all self referentIal thoughts and feelings into one “me”. This allows easier functioning in society in some respect and allows one to be perceived as “normal” by their peers. Yet its harder to function in other respects. Trying to maintain a single illusory “me” through time causes an immense amount of pressure, stress and turmoil on the mind and body.

I would say it depends on who decides what is “more legit”. There are a few neuroscientists researching psychedelics that understand psychedelics from a certain perspective, yet they have never tried them. I would say their opinions are legit and have value within that context. Yet, would they make a good trip sitter? Perhaps not. . . As well, I know psychologists that are interested in utilizing psychedelic therapy, yet have concerns. Even though they haven’t tripped, I think their opinions have value and should be integrated into the conversation about psychedelic therapy. . . . As well, Ram Dass tripped many times and later spoke of psychedelic traps, such as chasing experiences and escape. This is certainly one dynamic with psychedelics that I think has value at the personal level. Can a being can trip once and be exposed to expansive, extraordinary revelations worth multiple lifetimes - I would say yes. Ime, these spaces are beyond my finite mind and I would consider psychedelics to be a much more expansive teacher than I. For example, I can easily imagine someone tripping once and learning more in a way that I couldn’t teach in an entire lifetime. My question would be more about how much can be “captured”, integrated and embodied by the being. Ime, the “ISness” of a trip is way beyond my mind’s ability to capture it all. The mind often wants to contextualize it into an “experience” and make sense of it. So, the question for me is not so much wether multiple lifetimes worth of “ISness” can be revealed, it is more about how is it contextualized. Ime, I tripped twice when I was 21y.o. Then I was sober and practiced meditation for 20+ years, with zero substances. I think this provided a deep, sturdy foundation. My next trip wasn’t until I was 45 y.o. . . . 24 years of sober meditation, personal development and growth. This trip was very very different than from when I was 21y.o, and it had a very different impact on the mind and body. For a couple days, I was dumbfounded - I couldn’t put it into words - even the term “I” no longer made sense. Yet underlying this, there was an understanding of egoic structure that had eluded me for 24 years of meditation, Buddhist sanghas, darma talks and retreats. This understanding has not wavered since the trip five years ago. So yes, Ime a person can trip once and have an understanding of psychedelics. Yet how a trip is contextualized is related to the person - the person’s filters, karma, prior conditioning etc. I see lots of trip reports from newbies that seem to be contextualized in a whacky and immature way. Regarding Sadhguru, I don’t get the sense he has a good understanding of psychedelics. It’s not so much about the number of trips, it’s more about how he contextualizes them. In the video above, a woman asked about microdosing in the context of clarity and performance. Sadhguru goes into a dialog about the desire to enhance through drugs, legalization of drugs, he mixes together psychedelics with caffeine, cocaine and marijuana in the context that these are unnatural chemicals that cause cloudiness, an escape from what is here and now, and a work productivity boost. And drug dependency. . . . These are certainly dynamics with chemicals, yet this is only one dynamic - the dynamic that is aligned with his lifetime of meditation and teachings. To me, he is contextualizing chemicals together through his filter. I’m not saying this is wrong. It is limited. He doesn’t seem aware of other distinctions and nuances - and doesn’t understand other components of psychedelics. From other perspectives, psychedelics open doors to creativity and insight. And they are just as “now” as being sober. Chemicals like alcohol cause cloudiness away from here and now. Psychedelics can cause hyper-awareness to here and now. . . As well, there are many different relationships with psychedelics. For many, psychedelics are not a blissful escape from an uncomfortable now. Many people feel trepidation before their next trip. It is the opposite of wanting to escape. Yet this doesn’t mean that I think people who haven’t done psychedelics, or have only tripped a couple times, don’t have valid views on psychedelics. I think various views have value in different contexts. For example, suppose someone had their first trip and was working with a psychologist who had recently tripped her first time. They may resonate and connect together in trying to make sense of the trip. I may come in and forget what it’s like trying to acclimate from a first trip. In this context, my views could be counter-productive.

Heehee, there’s that too. ?

The statement “I am God” will be interpreted as a self claiming it is god by 99.999% of people. In this self-centered context, the statement is delusional. I’ve found it help to provide context such as “I am God. You are God. We are all God. Yet some beings are unaware of this”. This sets a very different context than simply claiming “I am God”. Another approach is to show, not tell.

A few more: For: The cable news media wants a horse race for ratings. They favor Biden, yet want Bernie in it for a while longer and will have some fair/positive coverage of Bernie. . . Also, Biden has dementia and it isn’t easy for him and others to hide it. Against: Bernie claims the establishment is an existential threat, yet he keeps praising the establishment (Joe is a good guy, a good friend). . . . The “anti-women” image of Bernie and his supporters is sticking - women’s groups that supported Warren are asking Warren not to endorse Bernie. My sense is that Warren will remain on the sidelines until there is a presumptive nominee. I find this disappointing. There are much higher stakes here than some insensitive internet posters. Another 4 years of Trump is on a whole mother level than some rude posts online. Yet unfortunately, people hyper-personalize these things, get personally offended and vote against their greater interest.

Similar for me and those I’ve tripped with - it’s generally a humbling experience to the ego. One that dissolves the ego, rather than empower it.

Link no longer working.

@Beginner Mind Those glimpses of causeless joy and true nature are wonderful. ?

@zeroISinfinity The Cosmic Joke

@zeroISinfinity This is it, baby!

@Annoynymous Bernie’s kind words for Warren may not mean a pact. From a political position, of corse Bernie will praise Warren - it helps that progressive movement and attracts her supporters. If Warren wants to make a difference, she needs to endorse Bernie at his Michigan rally this Friday or Sunday. Michigan is an important midwest swing state. If Biden wins Michigan it may be the end of the Bern.

Those are images and thoughts of Jesus, Buddha etc. Any image or thought isn't “it”. Its more radical than that.

What I wrote about unconditional happiness is very radical. It is not dependent on any conditions. It is a happiness of what is happening now, regardless of what is happening. “Well” and “not well” are relative add-ons. (Yet are very important relative to the human). Well or not well is irrelevant in this context. I’m not talking about the happiness of a silver lining during times of pain, anxiety and distress. I’m saying the pain, anxiety and distress itself is happiness since unconditional happiness has zero conditions. Unhappiness is also Happiness. A relative happiness is quite different and what 99.99999% of people mean when they say “happiness”. If unconditional happiness is the goal of the search, don’t waste time seeking happy feelings. That’s the easy part. Seek the unconditional happiness of Now - even while experiencing unhappy feelings like pain and anxiety - such that the pain and anxiety itself is happiness. The happiness of whatever is happening now. That is a deep break through. And it is always freely available, because it is always present Now.

I’m not sure if you are using the term happiness in a relative or absolute context. How would perma-happy look to you?. . . If someone was volunteering to help starving children and felt a sense of empathy and sorrow, does that mean they lost their awakening in that moment because they aren’t experiencing happiness? What if they shed a tear? Does this non-happy state disqualify one from awakened? If so, this would place a happiness condition on awakened. Do awakened beings no longer cry? Or, could there be an unconditional happiness? A happiness that is always present - regardless of wether the human is experincing joy, fear, sorrow, love etc.? Imagine a happiness with whatever is happening right now. No strings attached.

@Beginner Mind If we add on “happiness” onto awakening, it becomes conditional and restricted. There is nothing wrong with an abiding state of happiness, yet having the condition of happiness is a limitation. Happiness-related truths would be included in awakening and non-happiness related truths would be excluded as awakening. This hinders the realization of unconditional, absolute awakening.

Aspects will not make logical sense. The desire to have everything make sense in thought constructs is a contraction. These thought constructs can have practical value for the human and person, yet it is also a limitation if one restricts themself within that contraction. One thing I try to be aware of is the nature of my resistance. If someone told me I would awaken by drinking 4 Pumpkin Spice Lattes at Starbucks and then singing Taylor Swift’s “The Man” while urinating in the parking lot. . . there would be an intuitive sense that this was nonsense. I would probably start laughing. I certainly wouldn’t spend any time debating this silly method of awakening. Yet if I was with a Reiki Master that told me releasing energetic blocks could help release my chronic headaches, it is a very different dynamic. My mind may resist and think “That Reiki stuff is a bunch of woo-woo nonsense. There is no scientific proof for it”. Yet, I may get a sense that there is “something here” I don’t know about. This is a very different dynamic. I could dismiss it or ague against it, or I could get curious an explore. These are very different orientations. . . . To add in another layer, if I got the sense that trying Reiki would change or dissolve my sense of self - that throws a cog in the wheel. Now, all sorts of self-protective mechanisms will arise. Sometimes, it’s best for me to work through that resistance to grow and expand. As well, there are times in which there is an intuitive sense of “No, not now”. Or “This just isn’t right”. For example, one meditation teacher encouraged me to have extended sitting sessions and sit through the pain. Sitting through the pain would somehow help me transcend attachment/identification to the body and allow me to awaken. Sitting through the pain started harming my body and the only thing I was more awake to was the pain and harm to my body. There came a point, in which it just didn’t feel right. I then transitioned to another teacher with a different approach, yet the first teacher still had a lot I learned from. Rather than seeing this as an “either / or” path, you can see this as an integrative path. You don’t need to accept 100% of everything Leo says and you don’t need to reject 100% of what Leo says. Trust your resonance. Perhaps have several different teachers you resonate with. I listen to several different speakers that have different approaches and I resonate with each of them differently. If the stuff about 5-Meo isn’t resonating with you, put it aside. Perhaps other teachings from Leo will resonate. As well, connect with other spiritual beings you resonate with. I know spiritual beings involved in Yoga, Reiki, nonduality, meditation, nature etc.

Of course meditation has benefits in lessening anger issues.

This video brings me to the space of my 24 day 5-meo solo retreat. ? Best wishes on your solo retreat Leo.

Trump did get impeached. He didn’t get convicted. Yet no one thought Trump would get convicted because it would require a 2/3 majority in a republican-led senate.

Warren endorsed Clinton on June 9th, weeks before Bernie dropped out. Warren’s endorsement of Clinton was one of the nails in Bernie’s coffin. She did not take a “neutral” position. She endorsed Clinton at a time when it still mattered and served as leverage against Bernie. She took a calculated position. If she wanted to take a “neutral” position, she could have waited until Bernie dropped out and then endorsed Clinton. Yet she didn’t because she saw the tea leaves and wanted to benefit by endorsing Clinton when it still mattered. Currently, I could see Warren going to the sidelines and not endorsing for a while. Yet Warren fought Biden for a decade over bankruptcy reform and Biden voted for the bankruptcy bill. This goes against the heart of Warren’s fight.

Warren endorsed Clinton over Bernie in 2016. I don’t think staying neutral is tenable for Warren. If she doesn’t take a stand, she will look weak and unprincipled. @Annoynymous I think Bernie is the underdog now and something big needs to change so the media narrative changes and he expands his coalition. I don’t think he can bring in enough young people and new voters at this time. Imo, if Warren comes to Michigan and endorses Bernie - the narrative and momentum changes. Yet that is a big IF. . . And Joe will be Joe. He looks confused as he wanders and stumbles around. There is a reason his campaign has not made him very visible. Now he is in the limelight and people will seen that the Biden of 2008 is not the Biden of 2020. He is past his prime. However, a lot of people may give him a pass because he is a nice guy that they like.

@Annoynymous Warren’s spokesperson said they are “re-evaluating” their campaign today, which means she will likely drop out tomorrow. Warren has a huge bet to make in terms of her career. If she endorses Biden, she will do irreparable damage to her progressive credibility. She might even get primaried by a progressive for her Senate seat. If she endorses Bernie, she will be marginalized by centrist democrats. If Biden wins, she would lose out on a lot of opportunity. Yet, if she endorses Bernie and comes to the Midwest this week to campaign for him, she will restore her bone fides as a true progressive, fighting for progressive issues. This would also change the narrative and energize the base - enough so that I think Bernie becomes the favorite again. I live in Michigan and Bernie is having two rallies in Detroit and Grand Rapids this week. If Warren came to one of those rallies and endorsed Bernie, it would ignite enormous energy. And Warren has it in her. She is highly skilled in some areas and had been one of the leading progressive voices. She was the democratic front runner last October when she was a progressive lioness - back in her M4A and “big structural change” days. Then she hired a bunch of centrist consultants and imploded. . . Personally, I think deep down she is a progressive - yet she also believes in institutions and doesn’t want to deconstruct institutions. If she endorses Biden, she will be a puppet chasing personal ambition. If she endorses Bernie, she will be free to follow her heart and true nature. Most people are saying she goes with Biden. Yet I think she is more likely to go with Bernie. To me, Warren is very motivated to attain her goal to be president. When this is no longer an option, I think she will default back to what originally motivated her. To fight for working families getting screwed over by toxic capitalism. She spent years of thankless work researching and fighting toxic banks. And guess who is closely tied to banks and the credit card industry? Yep. Joe Biden. And Joe even tried to take credit for Warren’s success in establishing a credit protection agency. If Warren endorses Bernie in Michigan this week, it’s a game changer. And remember. . . Joe is Joe. He can barely hold things together due to his cognitive decline and now that he is the front runner, he will have a lot of attention. As well, if semi-progressives coalesce- like Tulsi, Steyer, Booker, Castro - to endorse and support Bernie - it would change momentum and the narrative. Yet Warren is the big one.

Many people will support the highest conscious person they think has a real chance at beating a lower conscious person. If I believed that Bernie had a 20% chance of beating Trump and Biden had a 60% chance of beating Trump, I would choose Biden. Electability ranks as the highest priority for democratic voters and a lot of voters are voting for the highest conscious person they think is electable, even if that means dropping down from green to orange - if this allows beating red. I would take an orange candidate over red in a heartbeat. This is why Biden won Massachusetts - one of the most progressive states in the country. Biden didn’t even campaign there and it’s Warren’s home state. Biden won Massachusetts on electability. I think Krystal makes some good points in the below video. In particular, progressive (green) policies are very popular with democratic voters - even in traditionally red states. Support for M4A has huge margins of support of +40 and +28 in Texas and North Carolina, respectively. I think some voters are getting turned off by talk of a “revolution” and “berning the system”. This makes a lot of green people unsettled. I have many solid green friends that are favoring Biden over Bernie for electability. These are people that donate and volunteer for various green issues - such as advocating for the homeless, LGBTQ rights, the environment, M4A etc. They are aligned more toward Bernie’s progressive policies, yet think he is a risk to lose in the general election. There are a lot of people with Trump PTSD that would gladly take a “safer” choice like Biden and incrementalism if it meant beating Trump. Many people will accept a lower conscious candidate, like orange-level Biden, if they believe he has the best chance to beat red/blue level Trump. Beating Trump is the #1 factor for most democrats - especially voters over 40, that vote in the highest percentages. . . . Yesterday, I was with a solid Green progressive friend who is voting for Biden. She is a poc and a social advocate for poc - she is terrified of another four years of Trump and sees Biden as a safer, return to normalcy, option. She sees Bernie as a risky option because he is an independent that wants to take over the Democratic Party and promote a “revolution” that will divide the party. For many progressive issues, the majority of people support. Progressive issues like banning assault weapons and legalizing marijuana nationally could be considered the “moderate” position in the sense that the majority of Americans support it. If someone goes to online democratic forums, there will be support for progressive policies - the criticism Bernie gets is that he is too divisive, will fracture the Democratic Party and lead to four more years of Trump. The status quo - in particular the pharmaceutical industry, fossil fuel industry, gun lobby, health insurance industry and military industrial complex - have enormous power in shaping public opinions and policy toward their self-serving agenda. There is an inter-relationship between what people want and what they are fed. . . Products are produced both by what people desire AND what producers tell people they should desire. If Bernie wants to win, I think he needs to change the media narrative quickly to address this. His coalition is not broad enough to win. He isn’t going to get enough young people to vote or convince enough older voters to “join a political revolution”.