Forestluv

Notice how the mind is trying to make it possible. There is another space to explore. . . Let go and see the impossible.

The integration of PUA, nonduality, Freddie Mercury and Miss Piggy. Only on actualized.org. . .

Is not your "sober mind" trying to make sense of it all by rationalizing that an "ego mind" is making sense of a "psychedelic mind"? Have you tripped sober?

@Forrest Adkins I'm curious what your energetic orientation is here. Do you desire to intellectually determine if channeling is "real" and figure out the mechanism? Or do you actually want to experience channeling?

A Cosmic Joke. . . Tears. . . Laughter

The insight didn't arise through meditation or reading books. It arose from curiosity and openness. One of my major nondual realizations of "IS" came a couple years ago. Below is a conversation I had with Leo on this forum. My mind was in a curious, open state that allowed space and invited the insight to arise through direct experience. At the time of this writing, I had never heard of the nondual term "ISness". September 28th, 2017 Serotoninluv: "Leo, since the traditional "you" is an illusion and does not exist, why use the traditional "you" while communicating on this forum as if that "you" does exist? Doesn't that give comfort and validation to the illusory "you" that it really does exist? Leo: A) Because it's ingrained in our language. All language is inherently dualistic, so it can't really be avoided without talking like a robot. B) Because you still think of yourself as a you. It does little good speaking to a person stuck in duality from a nondual perspective. Whenever I speak, I like to speak as though I'm speaking directly to you, from your perspective. C) Because you do exist, as The One True Self. Existence vs non-existence is yet another duality. So anything we say on this subject is always wrong. If you say you exist, you're wrong. If you say you don't exist, you're wrong. If you say you both exist and don't exist, you're wrong. If you say you neither exist nor don't exist, you're wrong. And of course, you're also right Serotoninluv: Thank you. For the past few months, there have been some glimpses of awareness that seem nondual. Would you recommend pursuing teachings on nonduality / teachings from a nondual perspective? Or, is it more effective to continue with duality teachings with an awareness that it's from a non-dual perspective? Leo: Personally, I consume all kinds of teachings simultaneously, dual and nondual alike. The scope of life is so enormous that no one teaching, not even one category of teaching, can cover it. But if you're really focused on enlightenment, it might be a good idea to only focus on nondual teachings for a while to build your momentum and reduce distractions. October 2nd, 2017 Serotoninluv: Thank you. Perhaps your words helped me stumble into it. Yesterday I had quite the shroom trip. Everything “is”. I couldn’t change it, stop it or escape it. Any thought, action, feeling, sight, sound. All “is”. I layed on the forest floor trying to regain my sanity. I thought “the trees are beautiful”. Yet that thought and the trees were “is”. An intense feeling of being trapped, more “is”. I wanted to contact you and ask you for an easier way. Yet anything you say is “is”. As things settled down, relief is relief. Geese flying overhead is geese flying overhead. A yummy sandwich is a yummy sandwich. Leo: Indeed

I didn't mention "moral relativism" you added that part in. I offered a more meta relativistic view. In this context, a view of moral relativism is relative and a view that moral relativism is ugly is also relative. As well, the view that "some truths and morals are universal" is a relative view (as is the opposite view). I'm not saying you are "wrong", I'm saying this is all relative (including the view I offer here).

"Matters" vs "Doesn't Matter" is a relative duality of the mind. "Doesn't Matter" consciousness is a profound awakening, yet there is more. The temptation is to associate with the "Doesn't Matter" side of the duality. The transcendence of this is that Matters = Doesn't Matter. As well, absence of Matters comes prior to Doesn't Matter. . . Thinking something "doesn't matter" is second order.

Yes, in a relative context of spiritual "levels" or "stages", we could say that promiscuity and using women for sex and dumping them is low conscious behavior that would generally be a distraction/block from making spiritual progress. This may generally be true in a relative context, yet it is not objectively, universally true.

@Erixoon50 It's relative to the person. There are many factors such as prior conditioning, current stage of development, setting, mindset etc. These are generalities based on my personal experience and observations of others. -- For most people, psychedelics will be stronger. However, for some people cannabis can induce strong insights. -- Edible cannabis can produce a quasi-psychedelic experience. Vaped or smoked cannabis will be less psychedelic-like - yet can still produce insights. -- Mindset and setting is important. If someone is in a quiet internal space and a good environment, the chances of insights increase. For example, I have reached very deep states with cannabis + yin yoga. Every bit as "deep" as psychedelics, yet it has a different feel - more of a warmth. For example, I have reached cannabis + yin yoga in which I am transforming energetic flows throughout my body. Cannabis + sensory deprivation tank brought me to the "place before I was born" and allowed an awakening. -- Too much cannabis can become counter-productive. For many people, cannabis is habit forming and one can enter delusional states. Someone could be smoking every night watching videos in a brain fog, thinking they are being "spiritual".

@Dumuzzi It's relative to context, objective and person. We could say "In order to reach an objective of abc, an environment of xyz is generally best.". . . In order to run a sub 3hr marathon, running 60 miles a week with a mixture of speed intervals and endurance is best. Of course this will vary from person to person. Or, in order to learn Spanish, it is best to live in a Spanish-speaking country. Again, this is a relative generality for most people. Some people could have panic attacks traveling and it would actually make it worse to live in a foreign culture. You are also setting up a relative construct: "In order to practice spirituality, it is best to transform sexual urges to spiritual energy and to be celibate". This is relative to your definition of "spirituality". There is no objective universal thing of "spirituality". As well, whatever this relative "spirituality" thing is, the mechanism of attaining it is also relative. The dictionary defines spiritual as "relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things. One could say that sex is a "physical" thing. Thus, based on this definition - celibacy is necessary to achieve spirit, rather than soul. Alternatively, some people define "spiritual" as transcending attachment/identification to an illusory self. For some people, sex could be a deterrent to spirituality. Sex could be a distraction. Yet for others, being celibate would the distraction to objective. And for others, sex would be beneficial. I have had many mystical sexual experiences that were "spiritual" experiences. These sexual experiences were as mystical, insightful and transformative as any I have had during meditation, yoga, psychedelics etc.

I like to be balanced between spiritual progress in a timeline and Beingness of Now. What you are describing is realizations in Now. Observe and experience this. Integrate and embody it. There are times to let go of "what stage am I at? How much longer will it take?". There are times to Be Now. From one dimension, what you are seeking can only be realized Now - not in a timeline. Notice how the mind is trying to determine what counts as a "mystical experience". Notice how the mind is trying to categorize it. To me, your experience has aspects of the mystical. Some mystical experiences are mind-blowing, others are subtle. If I want to open space and allow the mystical to enter - I need to let go of defining what a mystical experience "should" be like. In the context of your current experience, your mind seems way too anchored into some future destination. To me, it seems like you are digging into something profound. I would let go of thoughts like "am I almost there yet?" and actually be fully present Here and Now. Integrate and Embody what is arising Here and Now.

Multiple threads on this have already been started. Please stop. Rationalwiki is a hyper rational delusional religion. Leo has requested that it not be cited on the forum. Yet it is ok to post it in the Orange mega thread for people to laugh at.

@Viking To me, this sounds like a great opportunity to explore dating and feelings. You two are openly communicating with each other and enjoy your time together. You can go slow and test things out. It's great that you want to genuinely express your feelings to her and you are concerned about her welfare. Yet it you want to explore possibilities with her, you will need to put yourself in positions to explore romantic intimacy. Some people do not feel sexual/romantic attraction until they get to know someone and form bonds. You may have this orientation. Once you start getting to know her, feelings of attraction may arise - or maybe not. The only way to find out is to try it and and see what happens. It's totally fine to tell her that you enjoy spending time with her, yet are unsure if you like her. You can tell her that you would like to explore that possibility with her. She now knows that romantic feelings may or may not arise - if she is interested in exploring the possibility with you, go for it! It's totally fine to test things out by holding hands or kissing and then later finding out that you just aren't feeling it and don't want to continue dating. Your first "experiment" doesn't need to be a threesome at a swinger's club. It's totally fine to start slow. Hold hands and see how it feels. Does it feel good? Do you want to pause and soak it in? Do you desire more? See how the two of you respond together. Does it seem like there is chemistry? Perhaps you get to the kissing stage. See how it feels. Perhaps bodily sensations arise that feel good. Perhaps not. . . Try it out together. You two may want to keep progressing, or you two may decide that the chemistry isn't there and a friendship would be better. You will have your own personal signs that you like her. For me, if I like a gal the day after the date I think about our time together and it feels good. I feel like sending her a positive text. Maybe something nice about our date or just to wish her a good day. Something she said may appear in my day. For example, may she said her favorite animal is koala bears and I see a koala bear in a store. I may have a desire to get it for her, because I want her to feel good. I may day dream about her. I may imagine us lying on a beach together watching a sunset. I may desire to experience that with her. I'll have a desire to see her again and get closer to her. . . These are genuine feelings of attraction for me. Of course "noise" may arise. Like I may feel fear that she won't like me. Or I may be worried that things won't work out. Yet I don't let these types of insecurities and fears stop me from moving closer to her if I have genuine interest.

Those are gaps and they are a great sign. What you wrote about the “I AM” is spot on and a good way to be grounded.

@DreamScape Empathy is a spectrum. We could say the average person (50th percentile) has a normal level of empathy. Generally, the top 20% of people are considered an "empath". I would say that the top 1-2% have empathic abilities and can enter paranormal empathic realms. It sounds like you may be in the top 20% general empath range. If you were super high up, you would know it. Psychedelics are nearly guaranteed to send an empath into paranormal empathic zones, It can be like a super-power. It can be blissful and it can also be overwhelming and very uncomfortable. As well, cannabis edibles can increase one's empathic resonance. Yes, it is possible to develop empathic abilities and there are a variety of empathic forms including: 1) Emotional empath, 2) physical/medical empath, 3) Geomantic empath, 4) Plant empath, 5) Animal empath, 6) Claircognizant/Intuitive Empath, 7) Mindspace empath My resonances are: Emotional, Geomantic, Plant and Mindspace.

My understanding is they tried to estimate death risk relative to distance traveled: "Here’s the full ranking of how much more likely you are to die, roughly, by traveling a similar distance in the U.S. on each mode of transportation" So if someone traveled 100 miles via car, they would have a 7X higher risk of death than traveling 100 miles via helicopter. This higher risk could be due to there being so many cars on the road. For example, if someone drove 100 miles in a car and they were the only car on the road, the risk of death would be much reduced. Likely below a helicopter. Is that the point?

This is a form of empathy. Since this was a new phenomena for you, it could simply be a flash in the pan. You may have entered a temporary lucid state. There is a chance there is an underlying empathic ability that hasn't yet revealed itself. . . ,. Have you done psychedelics? If you have underlying empathic abilities, psychedelics are nearly guaranteed to reveal them. If you have done psychedelics and have not been overwhelmed with empathic resonance, it's probably not a natural ability you have.

That sounds great. The "I AM" realization is a major one. As you say, most minds are attached/identified to the right side of "I AM", I am a man, I am Canadian, I am kind. I am a scientist. and on and on. Simply "I AM" is really profound. We can go further and drop the "I" part. Then there is simply "AMness". So lets say pure "AMness" reveals itself. What now? . . . Pure AMness is a great place to visit, yet there is so much to create and explore. AMness expressed as a human is beautiful. AMness expressed as a forest is also beautiful. AMness expressed as paranormal phenomena is magical. There are infinite number of AMness expressions. AMness is Everything. Once AMness is revealed and embodied, the chains come off. . .

Below are estimated death indexes for various modes of travel, with some caveats. https://thepointsguy.com/news/are-helicopters-safe-how-they-stack-up-against-planes-cars-and-trains/

You bring up another very good point. And that is the limitation of language and "the map is not the territory". As you say, the thought "Now is Now" is a rational thought. This involves a construct called "Now", which is may be interpreted as Now, relative to the past and present. I am pointing to what is prior to the rational thought of "Now is Now". That's why I said "Dont' think about it". It is ineffible. It cannot be explained because any explanation comes after the more fundamental truth. One word is too many. Yet we use words to try and communicate and "point". This is essential to realizing how important direct experience is and that "it" cannot be figured out intellectually. As well, consider the differences between maps and territory. Is the map the territory? Of course not. The map is a representation of the territory (yet the map itself is territory). . . When you say "You are the forest is irrational", you are saying a map of territory is irrational. This is focusing on the map and not the territory. The phrase "you are the forest" is not the ISness of the direct experience. It is a construct attempting to represent the ISness (which is ineffable). The reason it doesn't seem rational to you is that your mind has created a map of what a "forest" is and a map of what "I am". According to this map, the forest and me are different and to say they are I can be the forest seems irrational. You are essentially telling me "The territory you try to explain through drawing a map is not the same as the map I have drawn". I have no disagreement with that. According to the map you have drawn, the statement is irrational. According to the map, you have drawn, someone that believes they are the forest should be getting some therapy. According to your relative map of reality, I would agree that it is irrational. The contraction here is the belief in an objective, external reality. This provides the mind and body with a sense of grounding and can be very difficult to transcend. I would question what is "rational" vs "irrational". Break down this duality. See the irrational in the rational. See the rational in the irrational. See "sorta rational, sorta irrational". If you dig deep enough, the grounding of rational vs. irrational will collapse. I'll try to explain another way. Imagine being out in a "forest" and all of your mental constructs dissolve. Your construct of a "forest out there" and a "me in here" dissolves and an ineffible ISness is revealed. Just like the thought of "Now is Now" is a rational thought after the ISness, an contextualization the mind gives is a contextualization. It is a map of the ISness, not the actual ISness. Anything I write is not "it". All I write is an extremely limited representation of "it". I could write "I had an experience of being the forest" <= That aint it. . . I could write "I was the forest" <= That aint it,. . . I could write one million different descriptions and none of them is "it". . . . One of the keys is not to get attached to literal analysis of the words.

Both are fine. They are different forms of expanded awareness and will have unique essences. "I am the forest" is identification as being the forest. "I am the consciousness which experiences the forest" is a detached non-identified awareness of the forest. Both conscious states are expansive and transformative. That is one contextualization and I don't agree with it. It is helpful in certain contexts. It just depends on the context. If a mind is conflating feelings and thoughts, that is a helpful context. Yet from other perspective, the duality between feeling and thought collapse. Imo, this is one reason why resonance is so important. If a person is in tune with their resonance, they will be attracted to insights of that are in the proper context for what they need. The thinking that "I am God" makes sense, especially if God is just a label to mean consciousness is a mind trying to "make sense" of things - its' even in the phrase!! There is nothing wrong with this, yet if a mind is limited to this - it is limited to a contracted state. There is much much more than the intellectual mind trying to make sense of God. For example, if god = consciousness, then god is limited to that person's understanding of consciousness. This is ok, yet to me there is still an element of the mind trying to control perception and the internal narrative. "I am the forest" means that the personal self dies. Bye-bye personal self. . . And it will resist. To me, the above statements have subtle hints of a mind still trying to control the internal mental narrative. The self is still in the game. For example, "there's thoughts of a forest currently flowing and they are separate from I" .. . There is still an "I"!!! Who/what is that "I"??. Pull back the curtain and reveal that sneaky self. . .

This is a really important question. A rational mind will be skeptical and won't want to be duped into irrational beliefs just to make itself feel better. A rational mind wants to believe in things that are real and true. For example a rational mind may see it as irrational to believe in an external god, that is providing us support. A rational mind asks, what is the evidence and proof for this - without evidence and proof, I won't believe it. . . I know this mindset well, I am a trained scientist and spent 20+ years immersed in rational, analysis, evidence etc. There is nothing wrong with this, yet it is within something more expansive. One thing that threw me off balance was direct experience and "prior". This changed the way I related to "knowing". . . Direct experience and what lies "prior" is key to transcend rational thought. One trap my mind got into was I thought that I would have to reject rationale thought and accept some type of irrational feeling. The good news is this isn't true. We are not rejecting rational thought and replacing it with something else. This is not an "either / or" scenario in which we have to choose between rational thought or something else. We get to keep rational thought. My mind uses rational thought everyday. Rather, we are expanding beyond rational thought in which the expansion includes rational thought. As well, one cannot expand beyond rational thought through the contraction of rational thought. One of the heaviest weights that dragged me down was that I would figure out what lies beyond figuring out. It doesn't work that way. . . Direct experience is a key. Here is a simple exercise of direct experience to illustrate a "knowing" prior to rational thought. See if you can have a direct experience of "prior knowing" here. Also notice if the rational mind jumps in and starts intellectualizing. Don't go into thinking mode. There is a *knowing* prior to the thinking that is first order. Rational thoughts are second order. Look around you right now. Become aware of your environment. . . How do you *know* that this is Now? How do you know Now is not yesterday or tomorrow? . . (Don't think!!!) . . . Can you experience that *knowing* prior to thought??. . . The knowing that Now is Now is prior to evidence. Any evidence that Now is Now is second order to the first order truth that Now is Now. You don't need any evidence. You don't need to go to a physicist for evidence and proof that Now is happening Now. The truth of Now is prior to evidence that Now is Now. . . Most rational minds will try to regain control of the narrative and start making up "yea, but. . . " stories. This is a distraction from the direct experience of the truth of Now. Another key point is the mind's obsession to determine what counts as "real" and "not real". For example, the mind may think that waking life reality is "real" and things like psychedelic experiences or dreams are "not real". This gives the mind and body a sense of grounding and stability. This is really important to function in life. However this mindset is a contraction and can be expanded by digging deeply into what is "real" and what is "imagined". For example, a rational mind may believe a psychedelic experience is an "altered" state of consciousness with imaginary hallucinations. In one context this is true, in another context this is false. . . The mind wants to control what counts as "real" - that is: my normal waking life is real and psychedelic experiences are imaginary. Again, this can be helpful for a mind-body to maintain a sense of grounding and avoid going insane. . .. However, every state of consciousness is and "altered" state of consciousness. A psychedelic mindstate is as real and imaginary as a sober mindstate. Yet, a sober, rational mind will resist realizing this, because it can induce extreme groundless discomfort and is threatening to the survival of a sober, self construct. Question the minds assumption as what counts as "real" and what counts as "imagined". Start breaking that duality down. Start seeing aspects of real in imagined. See aspects of imagined in real. Observe "sorta real" and "sorta imagined".

You are immersed in a contracted form of "I". This contracted "I" is limited to a individual, separate body. You will not have direct experience of higher conscious levels if you are limited within contracted identification. As a simple exercise. . . go take a walk in the forest. Notice the subjective experience of identification. You identify as a human being walking through the forest. There is an internal "me" and an external "forest". One may think "I am walking in a forest". . . Now flip consciousness so "you" become the whole forest. This is not an intellectual thought like "I am the entire forest". . . This is a "higher" mode of being in which "you" is actually the forest. The consciousness is not contracted within a "me" human walking through the forest. "You" actually become the entire forest. If one has not had direct experience of this level of consciousness, identification is hyper contracted into an individual "me". At this level, if one asks "If I am god, then why can't I engineer sophisticated systems?". The level of "I" is too contracted. It would be like one of your skin cells asking "If I am a human being, why can't I have sex". The question becomes absurd because there is conflation of conscious "levels". Yet this is what the mind does over and over while it is immersed within a contracted self. If the direct experience of expanded consciousness has not been revealed, that is where the effort needs to go. One will not figure out expanded consciousness within constructs of contracted consciousness. . . The example of becoming the entire forest, may seem woo-woo or not real. . . The actual direct experience is extremely powerful. It can be very uncomfortable, because the contracted self is losing control of the mental narrative and identification. It can be really scary. Early on, this consciousness might reveal itself in a cafe and my mind-body became flooded with anxiety and fear. . . It is a major expansion of consciousness. . . Yet this is still just scratching the surface. There is much much more. . . The phrase "I am God" is one of the most commonly misinterpreted phrases, because the "I" is being processed through a contracted interpretive filter and the mind assumes it understands what "I" is. . . Imo, if a mind has not had direct experience of expanded identification such as "I am the forest", there is no way it will grok "I am God". It's super far away. It would be like an ant consciousness trying to figure out human consciousness. Molecules such as 5-meo-dmt can temporarily expand consciousness, yet the trick is that the contexualization into an "experience" is dependent on one's baseline conscious level. For example, a being that still identifies as a personal me human that temporarily expands with 5-meo may later contextualize it into a personal experience. This is back to the contracted "me". For example, the mind may contextualize as "Whoa, what just happened to me? I just had an amazing experience. I felt like I was everything in the room". . . This is a major realization, yet the expanded consciousness is getting contracted back into a personal "me". This is a very very small capture of what is potentially available.

@Spaceofawareness An "observer" awareness can be very profound. Rupert Spira calls it "enlightened duality". A good meditative exercise for this is "thoughts are logs". While meditating, imagine you are sitting on a river bank watching watching logs float down the river. Each thought is a log. With practice, there can be an emergent awareness that is unattached to thoughts. They are simply logs floating down the river. . . It's not just an intellectual construct. There is a direct experience essence revealed. It is a major goal of many meditations and can be very profound. With enough meditative practice, an awareness that "thoughts are logs" can arise throughout the day - while studying, on a date, while at work, playing a sport. With practice and new conditioning, the mind can "flip" into this state of consciousness and it is one of the most common states of consciousness I engage with. It can change how one perceives and relates to reality and there are many beautiful spiritual writings of this. In a state of consciousness, this "observer" is simply awareness. Yet the tendency is for the self construct to become attached/identified to the "observer". . . "I am the observer, aware of my thoughts". Over time, this can lead to a highly sneaky self-construct hiding in the shadows. The self co-opts the "observer" and is now flying under the radar in "the background". As someone said earlier in the thread, awareness of the observer entity is a very high conscious level. It's not just an intellectual concept of abstract imagery. There is a direct experience and realization - for me, the subjective experience was that I was losing my mind and going insane. . . I would go in and out of this "observer" awareness for over 20 years, until a "higher awareness" was revealed. . . About three years ago, I watched Rupert Spira explain this detached "observer" awareness and I appreciated how beautifully he explained it. Yet then he said "This is the halfway point". I thought "What, there is more?". . . I couldn't quite grok the "higher" level he spoke of. I sorta got it intellectually, yet didn't *get it*. What he said stuck with me and kept re-appearing in my mind. Every time a subjective sense of an "observer" arose, there was no an appearance of "there is more". . . One day I was hiking in nature and entered this detached "observer" state. . . Then there was an appearance of me alone in a movie theater watching a movie. There was detached awareness of this observer watching the movie. . . This sounds really simple, yet the direct experience of this was really profound. . . For the first time, there was awareness of the "observer" watching the movie (external reality). . . This is awareness aware of itself. . . Then there was an imagine of me peeking through a window observing the person watching the movie (the observer of the observer of the movie). Then an imagine of me standing on the street observing the person peeking through the window. . . Layer after layer appeared until my mind couldn't hold it anymore and it collapsed into Infinity. My mind lost control of imagery and the narrative - and then Nothing/Everything appeared. I would consider this one approach to breakthrough into nondual Nothing/Everything/Infinity. Yet it can be uncomfortable in direct experience. To me, it felt like death as I spiraled away grasping at grounding. . . Yet after "breakthrough" I started laughing. . .