Forestluv

The deeper question is "what is existence?". This can lead to the collapse of an existence vs. nonexistence duality. One exercise to start blurring the lines of the duality. Start seeing the nonexistence in existence and the existence in nonexistence. Contemplate things that "sorta exist and sorta don't exist". For example, does the color red exist? Sorta. . . Our visual cortex hallucinates a wavelength of light as red. Yet a dog will not hallucinate that red color. So, does the color red actually "exist". Kinda. . . Super common. I can't tell you how many times a phenomena appears and as soon as I start thinking about it. . . it vanishes.

You seem really close to another realization. . .The mind is assuming that objects exist. There are different routes - the mind can create thoughts stories to figure out how it's possible for objects to exist. Or the realization that it's impossible for objects to exist.

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. . .