Forestluv

Super. It doesn't look like I'm of any help here. Best of luck along your path.

Ime, psychedelics alters energetic systems. At the human level, I think we should be careful not to overtax the mind and body. There is only so much the mind and body can handle (yet it can handle a lot). I've had trips that altered my energetics such that I needed to take a break for months to acclimate.

@Lento I’m not saying you are wrong. From a certain perspective, you are correct. I’m saying you are missing something. If this doesn’t resinate with you, free to internally debate or dismiss it if you like. Take away everything you have read, heard, and thought about psychedelics. How much do you know? . . . Zero. . . Everything you are reading and thinking about psychedelics aint it - but that's all you've got because you don't have any direct experience. You can create as many stories you want about psychedelics and it will get you zero steps closer to direct experience understanding. You are contracted without the direct experience, yet you are not aware of this contraction because you lack the direct experience. I'm not talking about our conversation. I'm talking about the internal narrative in your mind. This has nothing to do with me or anyone else. It has to do with wanting to control the inner dialog in one’s own mind. To me, it appears there are levels of surrender you are not aware of. With zero trips and zero direct experience, opinions about the existential limitations of psychedelics don’t carry a lot of weight. Again, you are free to dismiss all this as my delusion. From a perspective it is.

There are different meanings based on context. An artist saying he is manipulating a mound of clay as he creates a statue is not the same thing as a scammer manipulating elderly people out of their money. Context matters. If two people go on a date and one person smiles and the other person lies about still being married, that is not two people manipulating each other (by conventional use of the word).

That's fine and I'm not arguing against it. Yet it is a contracted human construct. Why does your "sober" mind get to create the narrative? Why does your "sober" mind carry more relevance? Your "sober" mind is creating constructs of: freedom of choice, destinations, egos, awareness, psychedelics, tools, truth, god, false gods, what we need and don't need, meditation, liberation etc. It's extremely difficult for a human mind to transcend the constructs it itself is creating. Of course the human mind may contextualize trips - those can be helpful insights and have practical value. This is why direct experience is so important. All the reports and contextualizations of psychedelic trips are just that - contextualizations of a human mind. I would not have been able to imagine the direct experience of psychedelics. What I've read about other people's experience of psychedelics is less that 0.0000000001% of my understanding of psychedelics. 99.9999999999% of my understanding is direct experience of extensive psychedelics experience. Yet someone without psychedelic experience will need to rely on other people's accounts of psychedelics. This is so minuscule compared to the direct experience that it can't even be compared. It would be like me asking you to describe "hafligen". The trick is that everything you've read about hafligen is not hafligen. Now describe it to me. You wouldn't be able to. . . The mind trying to control the internal narrative. . .

I wrote that we can create destinations. I did not write that there is an inherent destination.

Perfect. This is the pivot point for an awakening. For me, it was helpful to self-inquire "what is a fact?". Yet be careful not to go into a thinking analysis and more theorizing of "what a fact is". That is fine in one context. Yet it is in the opposite direction of this particular realization. If thinking/analysis takes control of the narrative, let it go or take a break and come back to the inquiry at a later time.

I'm not disagreeing with you. Context is dependent. I said I can see how psychedelics can be a performance enhancing substance in certain contexts. For example, take my friend who works in Silicon Valley. His job is dependent on creative production. Let's say that microdosing increases creative production by 30%. That is a "performance enhancing" substance. It is the definition. In the example you gave of the rocket ship and sedan - there are two different goals - it is comparing apples and oranges. In the context of performance enhancement, the goal needs to be the same. If we say one person has a goal of being more alert at work and another person has a goal of falling asleep easier - adderall would only be a performance enhancer for one of the people. . . In the case of a car, if the goal is to travel across the country, an airplane would be a performance enhancer over a sedan. . . Yet like I said, this assumes there is a specific goal - a specific destination or thing to attain. Adding in "cheating" would bring in the dynamic of interpersonal competition toward a limited goal and reward. . . For example, using a dishwasher rather than handwashing would not be considered "cheating" because there is not a goal with a reward people are competing for.

And that is a thought theory. It could be a practical theory that helps one function in life. Yet it is still a creation of thoughts and theory. Nothing wrong with that, yet there is something more fundamental underlying all theory.

I find the idea that "psychedelics are cheating" to be interesting. From one perspective, they are a "performance enhancing substance". In terms of experiencing higher states of consciousness, they are performance enhancing. For me, this is important for me to consider. In a way, it's like taking epo, running a 4 minute mile and then thinking "it's pretty easy to run a 4 minute mile". Insights revealed through psychedelics can be very difficult to be revealed through standard meditation. . . As well, psychedelic microdosing has become fairly common in areas that involve high creativity. For example, microdosing is fairly common is Silicon Valley. In this context, I can see how psychedelics can be perceived as cheating and a performance-enhancing substance. Yet from another perspective, it's nonsensical. The concept of "cheating" involves competition toward an outcome of reward. This reward is limited and those that take the substance have a competitive advantage. For example, an Olympic gold medal in the marathon is a limited reward and athletes taking epo wold have an advantage toward winning the reward. This would seem unfair. . . . Yet what would be the limited "reward" that people are competing for that psychedelics give an advantage? In terms of career, we might say that psychedelics give a creative advantage - for example, those microdosing in Silicon Valley have a creative advantage, which can translate into higher productivity and promotions. I met a fellow who worked in Silicon Valley who had this perspective. He was considering starting to microdose because he felt like he was at a competitive disadvantage. . . In this context, I can see how it is unfair since everyone doesn't have equal access to psychedelics (I would not factor in a "harm" aspect since microdosing is not associated with mental/physical harm). . . Consider something like caffeine. This substance can give a productive boost, yet most people wouldn't consider drinking coffee because it's easily accessible to everyone. However, it is slightly/moderately addictive and unhealthy. Would it be valid for someone to say that drinking coffee is "cheating" because they choose not to drink coffee? Yet there is also a non-competitive and unlimited reward aspect of psychedelics. For example, these substances can help heal people's trauma. If someone was cured of PTSD of two MDMA sessions, I think it's absurd to say this is "cheating" and someone with PTSD should have to go through 20 years of inefficient talk therapy. Healing from PTSD is not a competition and it is not a limited limited reward. . . . Similarly, psychedelics can help transcend an egoic construct. I don't see this as a competition (although many people do). As well, I don't see this as a limited reward. For some people, a year's worth of tripping and integration could be worth 20 years of inefficient meditation for egoic transcendence (as was my experience). In this context, calling it "cheating" sounds absurd to me. My guess is that people that have invested 20+ years of hardcore meditation to reach transcendent states may see psychedelics as "cheating". As well, people that believe transcendence "should be" attained only through "natural" means like meditation and yoga, may see psychedelics as cheating. Yet to me, that would be like someone spending 20 years inching their way up a mountain on their belly. They finally make it to the top and see someone riding a bicycle up. I can see how someone would be attached/identified to the belly inching method and see a bicycle as cheating. Yet this would be a self-biased view. In particular, there is no limited reward at the top of the mountain we are competing for. The "reward" is the beautiful meta view. Yet this view is unlimited and free.

At a Bernie Sanders rally in Austin Tx yesterday, Marianne Williamson endorsed Bernie Sanders. Marianne has various qualities of Turquoise - she has written many books, served as a spiritual adviser and was a presidential candidate this cycle. She often talks about transcendent love and collective consciousness. As a presidential candidate, she was dismissed by the mainstream (such as late night talk shows and cable news) as being "wacky", "woo woo" and delusional. For example, during one Democratic debate she spoke of how there is a "dark psychic force" permeating through America. The mainstream marginalized and ridiculed her for this. When I saw she was endorsing Bernie and speaking at a Bernie rally, I was curious if she would go into Turquoise-level meta views - what would be perceived by the mainstream as "paranormal" stuff. Which could then be used by the mainstream to label Sanders supporters as "wacky" and "airy fairy", . . Yet that's not what happened. I am very impressed that Marianne was able to enter full-on green. Imo, this shows Marianne has a meta awareness of stage green and can communicate and resonate with that. As well, she wasn't just going through the motions throwing out some "lower level" green platitudes. This is some brilliant and inspiring green level perspectives that integrate a variety of points including the values of Americans (the American pledge of allegiance, liberty and justice), childhood conditioning, history, culture and social evolution. . . She is a very good speaker. . . To me, she shows a high level of maturity and development. Quite often, when a human being first dabbles in Turquoise, it can become very ungrounded and difficult to communicate with others. As well, it was nice to see some Marianne sprinkled on Bernie. Later in the rally, Bernie goes into a LOA realm. He talked about how our greatest limitations are not external to us - the greatest limitation is the limitation of our own imagination - and that this prevents attraction and manifestation. . . As well, Bernie spoke about how "impossible" is impossible until it happens. I think Bernie was still grounded in Green with this, yet the realization of possibilities and happenings go quite deep into post-rational Tier2 realms.

Yes, she gave a great message and planted some seeds. . . Along those lines, Marianne supported Yang in Iowa. Not because she was endorsing him as the best candidate. Rather, because she thought Yang and some important points and wanted him to stay in the race longer. I think that's awesome.

@billiesimon When a person is conditioned to perceive and identify to only one side of a duality, the awakening comes from realization of the other side of the duality (and then realization both sides are the same). For example, if someone believed waking life is "real" and dreams are "imagined". It would be most helpful to show them that waking life is "imagined". They already have the "real" part down - they don't need any help realizing waking life is "real". That would actually be counter-productive since it would re-enforce their attachment/identification to that side of the duality. For them, the awakening comes from realizing waking life is "imagined". On the flip side, the person is already aware that dreams are "imagined" - the awakening comes with seeing that dreams are also "real". With this awareness, the duality between "real vs imagined" can dissolve. 99.999% of humans are programmed that "sober" waking life is "real" and "altered" mindstates like dreams and psychedelics are "imagined". Very few people are programmed for the opposite orientation. Just look on this forum: how many people believe that psychedelic states are "real" and the sober state is "imagined"? I would say noone. The vast majority of people are questioning how "real" psychedelic states are. I've only met two people in my life with a nearly reverse orientation - and both are getting re-conditioned to believe waking life is "real". The first is my niece. She is a master dreamer and has created a dream reality that is more real than her waking life. While awake, this has caused all sorts of problems. She has various anxiety disorders and various psycho-somatic issues including recurring migraine headaches, nausea and vomiting. She has received years of therapy trying to get her grounded that waking life is "real". . . . The second person was a non-speaking autistic whose default state was nonduality. It took him 10+ years of practice and training to awaken to duality. . . Both cases are the opposite orientation of 99.999% of people. . . I've also met several people that are natural hybrids - the have an ability to "flip" back and forth, yet preferences one side. I think they would have an advantage in that they 90% of the way there starting off.

Here is a recent clinical / observational study with ibogaine treatment of opioid addiction and withdrawal. Impressive results. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5996271/

Pyschedelics have been shown to help with drug addictions, especially cigarette/nicotine addiction. There may be some physical benefits of the psychedelics - yet my guess is it is mostly metaphysical - as one gets a transcendent view/experience. At a physical level, opioid addiction/dependency is deep and broad. It screws up dopamine pathways, nociceptive (pain pathways), the endocrine system and the autonomic nervous system (homeostasis stuff like digestion, breathing, heart rate, blood pressure etc) and more. The body creates a new homeostasis dependent on the opioids and withdrawal will be physically and mentally horrendous. Shrooms may help with that attachment/identification to the physical/mental suffering - yet it's not going to re-establish healthy homeostasis of dopamine, nociceptive, endocrine and ANS systems. That will take time. In my pov, psychedelics could help with the relationship with the withdrawal pain - for example, they may get a tanscendent experience beyond self and have a new relationship with the pain occurring in the mind and body such that its not bothersome - it could also allow for a meta view of how she is living her life, the nature of her addiction and how to better love her mind and body - this could have a lot of value and help one to overcome an addiction and transform their life. As well, shrooms could help with anxiety. Yet I doubt it would have much impact on the biological physiology of the withdrawal pain. If I went in this direction, I would be careful with intention, mindset and expectations. I would not set up hope and expectations that the shrooms will significantly reduce or eliminate the withdrawal pain. Rather, I would frame it more like shrooms could help such that the withdrawal pain may not bother her so much and help to break the addiction. Edit: as others have written below, ibogaine is a better option than shrooms.

@Derek White I understand you are trying to use a more nuanced usage of the term "manipulation". You can use whatever non-conventional definition you want to create, yet don't be surprised if there is confusion - as is happening in this thread. . . . If we are having a discussion on domestic violence and my definition includes things like showering and cooking (violence against microorganisms) - it will cause confusion, because that's not what people mean by the term "domestic violence". We could have a conversation contemplating "what is manipulation?". We could have a conversation about the duality between "manipulation vs. non-manipulation". We could discuss degrees, interconnections and the deconstruction of the duality. That's a great discussion, yet not the context of this discussion, imo. Yes, there are grey areas, yet there is a general agreed-upon meaning of the word, as I cited from the dictionary above. In this context, bringing up nuances and subtle forms of "manipulation" is a distraction, misleading and can be used to justify and rationalize certain behaviors. For example, if I'm on a date with someone and she smiles at me, I might think "Ah ha, she is trying to manipulate me. It's ok if I do the same. I can lie about my job. It's all manipulation of each other". This is a sneaky way for the ego to obfurscate manipulation and rationalize/justify it's self-serving behavior at the expense of another. This is hyper-focused on "me" and "you". That is certainly a dynamic. Yet there is a "higher" dynamic at play as well. An energetic orientation is not simply mindset. That is too far into a thinking rationality. Direct experience is more important that analysis. One way to think about it would be "calculating". A person is a hyper-self-serving orientation will be calculating during a date. For example, "Did she like what I said? Is she showing interest, or am I losing her? She twirled her hair, that's a sign I am moving forward. She said she like to travel, if I tell her I visited Europe, she will be impressed with me and think I am a world traveler. If I tell her I like her necklace, she might feel good and like me". That is a self-serving filter. That is one orientation. . . There is another orientation that is not calculating like this, yet based on your responses in this thread it doesn't seem like you have direct experience with this other orientation. You keep defaulting back to a "me" and "her" dynamic that is calculating to reach a self-serving objective. . . There is another orientation available. That will contract a mind into a "me" and "her" transactional mindset. In SD, this would be considered Orange. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, yet it will inherently have quite a bit of interpersonal conflict due to two separate people each focused on meeting their own needs. I've been in many of these relationships. There is nothing inherently wrong with it, yet when one gets into higher-level relationships, these orange-level dynamics are very unsatisfying. It would be like the difference between drinking pure mountain spring water or junky tap water. It is not about two separate people each growing. I said mutual learning, mutual growth, mutual support and mutual bonding. There is a mutual that is transcendent to the orange-level self-centered transactions. I'm not saying personal identities and desires are eliminated, I'm saying that a new mutual dynamic appears. Almost like a "third person" entering. There is "me", "you" and a mutual "us". Yet this "us" is not some line to help meet one's selfish needs. This essence of "us" is a tangible thing and ime is much higher essence/meaning/pleasure than orange-level "me / you" binary transactional interactions. And it's not even close. We are not disagreeing. I'm not saying relationships should be transactional or post-transactional. That would be like saying math should be algebra or calculus. It would be more accurate to say that there are different levels/maturity/depth/resonance within relationships. In terms of not understanding how it can be otherwise, I would say the biggest factors include prior programming from family and culture of what relationships "should be". As well, the re-enforcement of this programming through cyclical thought stories, rationalizing and defending the programming. To expand and deepen, a mind would need to let go of the attachment/identification of the programming. This isn't easy to do and is a luxury in a sense. Most people don't have this opportunity. They live their whole life immersed within prior programming and never transcend it. This is often due to survival needs. Not just the survival of the body, yet also survival of the self construct (which is mostly prior programming). Letting go of this and allowing space for expansion and growth can feel insecure and threatening to a self construct.

I hear ya on the instant gratification, dopamine impulses and adhd. Learning to be ok with boredom can be helpful and I'm not discouraging that. Many spiritual practices like meditation involve periods of boredom. At a deeper level, I would consider why boredom is so uncomfortable. I would drop the idea of dopamine deficiency for a bit. . . If I just sit her and stare at a wall why is that boredom so uncomfortable? If I go and sit in nature, why is that boredom so uncomfortable? . . . One thing I've learned about myself is that simply sitting Now, without any distractions, is uncomfortable. It was uncomfortable for me for many years and still is at times. At first, just being present Now is boring and uncomfortable, yet with practice and time - being Now can get very interesting, regardless of what is happening. This is a freedom. You mentioned the joy you had as a child. Right now I am reflecting on the joy of a child. Was not this joy being free in Now? As a child, my two greatest joys were climbing trees and going to the creek to catch turtles, fish, dragonflies etc. It was pure prescence in the moment. It was pure curiosity and engaging with the moment. It was freedom. I didn't care about what people thought of me. I wasn't worried about whether I was good enough. I wasn't worried about getting a girlfriend, making my parents proud, being successful etc. . . .Then, the programming started. . . my grades weren't good enough, I was a disappointment, on this track I wouldn't get a good job. Lots of religious dogma. Who the good and bad people are. What is moral and immoral. What I should do. Who I should be. . . . Then the story of "me" was created and I got deeper and deeper immersed into that story. Part of the solution may be learning to be ok with boredom. Yet for me, a big part of the story is to deprogram all that programming I got. In doing so, I can return Home to Now. And that's been my deepest true desire since I was a kid. To just be Here Now, engaging in the moment. To be ok with whatever is happening Now.

@Derek White Of course there are degrees of manipulation, just as their are degrees of lying. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. The issue with using degrees is when a mind tries to use a subtle form as being representative as moderate forms to justify it's own manipulation. My working definition is the standard definition: "controlling someone to your own advantage, often unfairly or dishonestly:" Are there different degrees of controlling someone to your own advantage? Of course. Are there different degrees of treating someone unfairly or dishonestly of course. Yet diluting the meaning down too much loses the original meaning. You are recontextualizing the term "manipulation" to a point I wouldn't use the term "manipulation" because it is not the agreed-upon usage of the term and would cause a lot of confusion. When my body is hungry and I eat, I wouldn't use the term "manipulation" and I don't know anyone that would use that term. It is nowhere near the standard definition of the term. I suppose we could have a nuanced discussion about desire and seeking, yet that is a very different context, imo. It would be like having a discussion about "violence" to others and someone saying "taking a shower is violent because it kills microorganisms on the body". Technically yes, but that is a very different context. The problem I see with diluting down a term is that the ego can then use that to justify poor behavior by creating false equivalencies. "She is wearing makeup to manipulate me, so it's ok if I lie to her about my job in an effort to have sex with her". That is a false equivalency. I am using the term "manipulation" with a minimum threshold level based on the definition above. One of the main energetics with manipulation is that it is self serving. I am trying to serve my needs even if that involves manipulating and being dishonest with you. And I will protect myself from being manipulated by you. If the other person has the same orientation, there will be interpersonal conflict. The relationship will be very transcactional and their won't be a sense of "we". Rather than splitting hairs about what counts as manipulation and what doesn't, the whole energetic orientation can be transcended such that it isn't the main energy of the relationship. Desire and motivation does not need to be oriented toward satisfying self-centered needs. For example, someone who was highly involved in spirituality and yoga may have slacked off on this. Perhaps they get busy at work for six months. They go on a date with someone who is active in spirituality and yoga. One energetic orientation is to fake like I am spiritual and into yoga so she will like me (manipulation). Another energetic orientation is to be inspired and ignite one's inner energetic system. The person may get back into spirituality and yoga because that is their natural inclination. The couple may connect and do yoga together. They may go on a yoga retreat together, they may go to Sedona, AZ together to deepen their spirituality. This is mutual learning, growth, support and bonding. There is a sense of "us" together. To call this "manipulation" is highly misleading because the energetic orientation leading to self-centered manipulation of others is a very different energetic orientation. And I’m not suggesting only men manipulate women. The last gal I dated. . . it turns out she was still married and didn’t tell me ?. She had some manipulative chops.

I hope Marianne continues to be outspoken for Bernie. She connects to a subculture that might not be engaged in politics. I have a couple spiritually-centered friends that are not engaged with politics at all - whom have asked me what I thought about Marianne for president. This is what a "movement" is about. It keeps bringing in new people and the movement keeps expanding and growing. In terms of expanding the movement, I would put Marianne's endorsement higher than any congressperson not named AOC.

This sounds like self rationalization to me. . . Manipulation is a "deep spiritual thing"? . . . C'mon. The definition of manipulation is "controlling someone or something to your own advantage, often unfairly or dishonestly:" It is a self-centered practice to meet ones self desires regardless of the impact on another - often treating others unfairly / dishonestly which can cause harm. The spiritualization of "manipulation" from a self-centered perspective is rationalization, imo. At high green and above, it's no longer the same energetics and the term "manipulation" doesn't apply well. A green-level couple wouldn't say "Let's manipulate our mutual connection to reach deeper levels of spiritual resonance together". The term "manipulate" doesn't fit well in this context. Let's use the smiling as an example in the context of manipulation on a date. A grumpy guy who is over-serious reads online that smiling is attractive to women on first dates. So they guy thinks "So if I smile on the date, it will seem like I'm not a grumpy over-serious guy and my chances with her will increase!!". So he goes on the date and tries to hide his grumpiness and over-seriousness by smiling. Let's say he successfully manipulates a woman into thinking he is an easy-going guy that smiles and is happy. She agrees to go on a second date and perhaps third. . . What do you think will eventually happen? This guy is not being genuine and he won't be able to maintain the charade with fakeness. It will actually be a mess for both of them and it won't go well for either person. A much better approach would be for the guy to introspect and ask "what is it about me that is repelling women?". When he realizes his grumpiness, complaining, negativity, neediness, seriousness etc. is unattractive - trying to cover that up with fake smiles to manipulate a women isn't going to work. A better approach would be for him to actually work on himself and grow - to develop into a person that is genuinely happy, positive, friendly and smiling. Now it's natural and he doesn't have to try to manipulate with fakeness. Actually being it naturally and genuinely is what is attractive - fakes are unattractive and will eventually be exposed.

Sometimes it seems superstition is random, magical thinking. Yet sometimes might there be something to it. Consider that hundreds of years ago, people that went to hospitals often died of infections they got in the hospitals. People back then didn't know about microbes like bacteria and viruses. They didn't even know what "infections" were. So, the hospitals were very unsanitary. . . Then along comes Ignaz Semmelweis, a doctor in Vienna, Austria. In 1847, he started washing his hands in chlorinated lime water. He believed this helped save lives. At the time, the mainstream view was that evil spirits where causing the mortality. Semmelweis's hand washing was the superstition of the time. He was the one that appeared to have magical, random behavior of hand washing. Interestingly, microorganisms were discovered 200 years earlier in 1665 by Robert Hooke and Antoni van Leeuwenhoek. However, it wasn't until the 1860s in which Louis Pasteur developed the germ theory of disease. So in 1847, Semmelweis's handwashing appeared to be superstition. Sometimes I ponder. . . what are the "superstitions" of today that will be revealed to have underlying truth in the future? . . . And are there things discovered 200 years ago in the early 1800s that we haven't fully realized today?

A few things I learned about my first float: 1. Once you are in the tank, do not touch your face. The salt concentration is extremely high. I scratched my cheek and my eyes burned for the first 15min. 2. Pay attention to the instructions beforehand. In particular how to shut off the light in the tank and music. I spent too much time trying to figure out how to turn off the darn light and annoying spa music. 3. Bring high quality earplugs if you use them. Most places will give you earplugs, yet they are low quality. 4. Get a head pillow as an option. A lot of people experience neck pain during the float and the pillow helps a lot. 5. Don't expect 100% sensory deprivation. It's more like major sensory reduction, perhaps 90%. You need to let go of the last 10%. 6. Set the tone early. It will be a new environment and it will be natural for the mind to start thinking like "This feels weird. What's supposed to happen next? Am I doing this right?". Get in there and get straight to business, like you have done this 100 times before. Get into a relaxed meditative place and let go. Then let go of letting go. Don't fidget around. Relax deeper and deeper and allow space for what may arise. You can relax and let go into deep meditative spaces. 7. I've know people that got relaxed like being on a beach. I'm more into entering realms and for me, a tank is a great place to enter lucid states. In a way, the relaxation and letting go is entering a dream-like state with awareness. I've never had issues with actually falling asleep in a tank. I guess some effort of attention is needed, yet for me it's sorta like being in a movie theater. Some effort is needed to pay attention and get immersed into the movie, yet it's not like I'm trying to stay awake. . . In a lucid state, there is an interplay of being the observer, at times it was like I was observing the structure of my mind and how it works. Other times, it was like I was allowed to ask questions like "what is genuine?", and then nonverbal phenomenon appeared. 8. Bodily sensations can be amplified and/or a sense of OBE. For example, I was able to feel and experience my heart beating like I never have before and I went back to the womb in a sense. 9. If you resonate with cannabis, a small amount of edible cannabis can help ime.

In that context, we could say there are "holy grails". For example, in Leo's video on facets of awakening, we could consider those facets as holy grails. . . This context has separation of time and space - i.e. there is a thing (holy grail) that I don't currently have, yet would like to attain in the future. This would involve practice and growth over time. From this view, growth is infinite - there are always more holy grails available. In another context, there is a realization that cannot be found in the timeline. It cannot be found "out there". It can only be realized Here and Now. In this context, the journey is the destination.

@Applegarden Rather than trying to decide whether it is objectively real or not, I tend to go with what I resonate with. For me, if someone tells be about a realm and how to get there - it doesn't resonate with me. That could be invoking spirits, crystals, astral projection etc. For me, I've found it much better to go clear / empty and allow whatever may arise and go with it. . . One time I was out in nature and layed out for hours and drifted into another realm. I noticed stones nearby me and knew that they were part of the invocation. They would appear as regular stones to anyone, yet to me they resonated. I picked a few up to take home with me, in hopes I could do it again at home. Yet as soon as a picked them up, it was like the stones became alive and there was a strong energetic message to put them back down and leave them alone. Now, if someone had some stones and told me they would help invoke passage into another realm, it just wouldn't resonate with me. That's just how I'm oriented. Others seem to be oriented differently. . . If you have direct experience with these realms, that resonates with you and is true for you. I would trust your intuition. Perhaps these items may help grant you further access. If possible, I would physically hold the items and see if there is resonance. . . Also, rather than focusing on whether these realms are real, I would pay more attention to the vibe of the seller. There are legit psychics, mystics, paranormal, occult etc. and there are charlatans.