Forestluv

That is a major realization. I would integrate that. It is the groundless within groundless grounding. You go on to create constructs for grounding - such as constructs of Mazes, enlightenment, intellect etc. Such construction is great, yet the realization above is a key realization Ime.

No, Chomsky said there was probably interference. And Chomsky isn’t even an authority on this matter. He is not even a national intelligence agent or a diplomat to Russia. Notice how your lens and projections are working. It’s like Neil Armstrong and NASA officials telling you that there was a moon landing and you saying “yea, but some guy did a mashup of movie producers who create outer space movies. And this guy says the moon landing was fake. Have you watched his YT video?”. There is indisputable evidence of Russian interference. All the top U.S. intelligence agencies and all the top U.S. national security officials have stated there was Russian interference. There is no dispute. You projecting a stick as snake and immersed in the content that you are projecting. Creating thought stories about what snakes eat and if snakes exist in Iceland are distractions that will keep a mind mesmerized/attached/identified by projections. The mind will be unaware that a projector is projecting sticks as snakes. The deeper realization here is the structure of the projector, not the content of snakes. Yet you are more interested in engaging in content.

Terms like “no self” are pointers, they are maps. They can be true/helpful in one context and false/unhelpful in another context. The mind likes to see things in opposites and wants true vs. false and does not like paradoxes. There are many different images we can create with “no self”. For example, we could say “self” is a movie in which a person is immersed within. They are attached/identified as being a character within that movie. One could say that “no self” means the character disappears and the movie ends. Or one could say “no self” means there is omniscient awareness - the movie continues, yet there is no more attachment/identification. As well, we can create different maps of “awakening” that are tru/false and helpful/unhelpful expending on context. For example, one may say that awakening is the cessation of ego. One may say awakening is transcendent awareness of ego. Each has true/false and is helpful/unhelpful. In the context of what you wrote above, I agree. A mind can create a nonduality story and become attached to that story. Yet what happens if we become attached to the opposite story? There is truth to what is written above, yet by thinking “that is the opposite of what they should do”, there is now attachment/identification to the opposite side of the story. In doing so, one will only see the falsity in killing the self and will not see the truth in killing the self. It is two sides of the same coin. You are making complete sense and it’s true. It’s beautiful. Rupert Spira uses similar imagery. I think what you are pointing at is a transcendent awakening. It is a rooftop with a meta view. It can take years of work to build a ladder and climb up to the rooftop. Yet we don’t want to become become Quasimodo. An enlightenment experience is described as “where separation and duality cease to exist and Oneness is regained”. That is true and not not saying it’s false. This isn’t is true vs false dynamic. . . separation and duality can cease to exist and Oneness is regained. That’s true. It’s also false. How can separation and duality cease to exist in Oneness? How can duality not be Oneness? To say duality isn’t Oneness is a duality. Oneness includes both duality and nonduality. (And the opposite is also true).

You are projecting through a lens. Noam Chomsky did not say Russian interference is a hoax in that video. You are projecting that. Chomsky said Russian interference probably occurred and then he took a meta view of election interference. Chomsky’s meta view will get distorted by a lens immersed in content that Russian interference was a hoax. You seem to be attached and identified to that content. Here, the bigger issue is the structure of perception rather than the content of perception. If one doesn’t examine the structure, they can spend years arguing to defend the story they are immersed in. Everything you are projecting is true relative to the projector. Chomsky really did say that Russia is a hoax in that video because that is what the projector in your mind projected. . . I was hiking with a friend that has a fear of snakes. She often sees snakes out in nature. She saw a snake on the side of the trail and got scared. It was actually a stick, yet her mind projected a snake and relative to that projector, it was a snake.

I agree, from that point of view.

What is described of the West Bank in that video is stage Red / Blue. @Focus Shift Spreading awareness on this is awesome. It looks like many Americans are waking up. When the topic of Palestine comes up, I'm seeing more and more Americans respond "Yea, I heard about Palestinian treatment - that's not right". I think Bernie, AOC, Thalib and Omar have done a lot to raise awareness over the last year.

Just a few ideas. . . The concept that consciousness is a subjective experience is already fairly advanced. It is on the level of relativity. I would put that more advanced than an objective consciousness. . . I would create three "levels" and not argue against any level. I think this is a big trap. The human mind thinks in opposites. I wouldn't frame it as who is right and wrong. I'd frame it more like Paris is in France and France is in Europe. There is no opposites to argue here. Contrasting objective and subjective is pretty straightforward. There are many examples one could give. For example, an objectivist might say that the color red exists and this is objectively true for everyone. A relativist might say that everyone's subjective experience of red is different and we have no idea if everyone perceives red the same. . . A second example would be that an objectivist may say that sex/gender is determined physically by genitalia, hormones and neurotransmitters. A relativist may state that gender is determined by one's subjective experience and personal identity. Going up to absolute is much more challenging imo. I think social fields of conspicuousness would be good as well. For example, bird murmurations, wolf packs, fish, etc. A social field of consciousness is a level higher than an individual consciousness and I think some people at least partially get it. You could also go up a level with nonduality. Yet this is more challenging imo. I have tried to explain it to freshman and a few "get it" but not all.

All U.S. agencies have concluded that Russia interfered with the U.S. election - including the Mueller Report, Mueller's testimony (linked below, first question), and Fiona Hill's testimony. ALL the top security officials have stated this. These are the highest authorities on the matter. Russian interference is not in dispute. If you want to learn about the mechanisms of the interference, you will need to do research and educate yourself. . . Or you can stay immersed in a False Narrative.

Fiona Hill is the top national security diplomat to Russia / Ukraine. In the video she briefly states all the agencies that have concluded Russia interfered with the U.S. election, including the U.S. intelligence agency. She states there is absolutely no dispute among any U.S. agency that the Russian government interfered with the U.S. election. All U.S. agency are in complete agreement. There is a distinction between Russian Interference in the U.S. election vs. Trump conspiring with Russia in the Interference. These are two different issues. All U.S. agencies have concluded that the Russian government interfered with the U.S. elections, yet did not make conclusions about Trump's involvement. Importantly, "conspiracy" is a very high bar. There can be evidence of conspiracy without meeting the threshold of conspiracy. . . For example, there can be evidence someone committed murder, yet the evidence does not meet the high standard of convicting a person of murder. Fiona Hill is the top authority on this matter. She is like Stephen Spielberg talking about Raider's of The Lost Ark. There is no higher authority on the matter. Dismissing her is foolish.

For sure. If we create a thing called "an individual" that is separate from other "things" we create, then it is separate. If I say my pinky finger is separate from my ring finger, then it is separate. I just made it so! A fun magic trick. If there is one mind, who is this "we" that shares it? . . .We would need to create separation. We would need to create a "me" that is separate from "you" and say "me and you" share the One mind. . . .That is a fine metaphor. The problem comes when there is attachment/identification with "me" as being separate from One. This attachment/identification creates fear and anxiety. This type of theory is great as a framework, yet the direct experience is really important. For example, a nondual experience with no self. . . Yet afterwards, the psychological self may try to take ownership and create a thought story about "an experience I had". Also, the framework of unity vs individual can have value - yet that framework can collapse in to unity = individual.

A mind immersed in content. . .

Yes. Unity consciousness is completely fearless. One doesn't experience unity consciousness, one IS unity consciousness. There is no separation between the one who experiences unity consciousness and unity consciousness. It seems like you answered your own question. Separation consciousness = fear and anxiety. Unity consciousness = No fear and no anxiety. The next realization is Separation consciousness = Unity consciousness. The mind is creating these distinctions.

To me it sounds like he has existential anxiety related meaning, survival and identity. My advise would depend on his orientation. Is he oriented toward personal development or awakening? If he is oriented toward personal development, I would recommend practices that reduce mind and body anxiety and introspection of personality dynamics. If he is oriented toward awakening, then improving his personal situation will not be top priority. To transcend the person, he could do strong doses of psychedelics, a meditation retreat, solo retreat etc. Based on what you wrote, it sounds like underlying existential fears are arising yet he is still mostly oriented to seeking relief of the anxiety. To see if he resonates with seeking existential answers and transcendence, he could watch some nonduality videos. If his reaction is "That is interesting, yet how will it help me reduce my anxiety and improve my work habits?" - then he is more oriented toward PD. . . .If he resonates with nonduality he may have glimpses of deeper realizations he is attracted to. For example, a realization that he is identified with a personal story.

@Dumuzzi You are within the personal story that a "me" exists. . . "How can someone have an unshakable self esteem and be completely fearless?" The terms "unshakable" and "completely" are absolute and involve transcendence of the self (death). You are asking "How can someone have relatively stable self esteem and be relatively fearless". This is a different context that involves personal development.

You are conflating *you and You* as well as *consciousness and Consciousness*. The term "conscious" is often used in the context of personal awareness. For example, "I am conscious of the pain in my shoulder, yet I am not conscious of what Vladimir Putin is thinking". This is the common usage we are all conditioned with. Consciousness is a term to point to the transcendent You that is Everything. So your question becomes "Why am i not conscious of Consciousness?". . . Because you have not awakened to You. . .

I like this frame. We need to construct a thing called a "belief" and a thing called "nothing" to believe in. Yet we can deconstruct this to Nothing. What comes prior to the construct of belief of Nothing? Poof! Nothing. As well, we can construct to Everything. We can construct an infinite number of connections between things that there are no longer things. One Everything. Through full deconstruction or construction we arrive at Nothing = Everything. . . We are in a balance of deconstruction and construction. Two sides of the same coin. For me, the subjective experience of deconstruction and construction has similar, yet also distinct feelings. For example, imagine we have an idea we are very attached and identified with. Something like "I am a human being". We could ask "what is a human being". We can further create complex structures of human-ness. For example, we could and nuances of human-ness or see inter-connections between humans and other life forms. Or we could deconstruct and examine the idea of human-ness itself. We might ask "What was I before I thought I was a human. Where did the idea of "human" come from?" In terms of transcending the personal construct, I've found deconstruction to be key. In terms of existential questions like "what is intelligence", I've found both deconstruction and construction to be of value. And there is also re-construction. Formless can have an infinite number of forms such that Formless = Form.

"How to stop being the ‘nice guy’?" Perhaps re-frame this question. . . . What is the underlying energy and motivation?. . . So the goal here is to get laid. To me, this doesn't sound like genuine nice. It sounds more like "Pretending to be nice so I can get laid isn't working for me. What other tricks are there that work better". If your aim is to get laid, it's best to take a look at your behavior from an objective view. For example, you may be acting nice in an effort to get a woman's attention in hopes of getting laid. This sets up expectations and a vibe to it. Thinking things like "I'm such a nice guy - I bought her lunch and she won't even return my text". If I buy her lunch with hope and expectation of sex, that isn't being "nice". Falling into nice guy syndrome is a trap. If the aim is to get sex, I think it's much better to say "I've tried acting nice to women to have sex and it isn't working". . The underlying intention and desire is a big factor. There is an energetic dynamic at play. . . You aren't asking "Im such a nice guy, why don't fish like me?".

@capriciousduck You may want to check out iTalki. There are tons of native English speakers there you can chat with on skype.

There will be serious trust issues in the relationship. Without trust, sour will overwhelm sweet.

Ime. . . San Pedro, AL-LAD and 4-ho-met are the most gentle. Yet, the OP asked "most gentle and most clarifying". I'd consider these to be the most gentle, yet not necessarily the most clarifying. For example, 4-ho-met is very gentle yet also has visuals (the CEVs are off the chart amazing). I wouldn't consider it very "clarifying". Similarly, San Pedro is a gentle mystical experience and is somewhat clarifying. Ime, 5-meo is by far the most clarifying. Yet for many it's not very gentle. As well, I don't know how clarifying 5-meo would be for beginners that have a lot of karma to work through. I started using 5-meo after about 30 trips of standard psychedelics - so I had already cleared away a lot. I'm not sure how it would be for a newbie - for all I know, it could create all sorts of issues and complexities. Now that I think about it, the "clarity" part is much more nuanced and has more variables than the "gentle" part. Therefore, I would recommend going with the "gentle part". Something like San Pedro, AL-LAD, or 4-ho-met. Or a low dose of LSD. Alternatively, a cannabis edible can give a gentle quasi-psychedelic experience.

It looks like you are reaching deep levels and developing mastery in this technique. It clearly has a lot of value - both spiritually and practically. I think it's super cool you are sharing your insights with the forum. Very few people have reached these "realms", partially because not everyone is willing or able to do the intense amount of practice required. Would you say that you have some predisposition abilities (genetics, childhood conditioning, ability to concentrate, mind structure) that may have allowed you to progress as efficiently as you have? Or do you think everyone has roughly the same ability/potential and it's just a matter of doing the work and having a good teacher? You are creating a construct of joy/happiness, neutrality and negativity. I'm totally into that. I find as much value in construction as deconstruction. Here, there are three categories: joy/happiness, neutrality and negativity. I like how you used this framework to describe aspects of attention, craving and awakening. It's a really nice framework. I'm referring to something different, yet I don't mean to suggest this idea is better, deeper or truer than what you offered above. And I don't want to distract from its value, so I'll be brief. We can use the categories of joy/happiness, neutrality and negativity as framework to construct - which you have done very nicely above. We can also deconstruct - which would take us to a different dimension. This dimension isn't better, worse or more awakened. It's just another form of ISness. . . The categories of joy/happiness, neutrality and negativity can be deconstructed down to one category : absolute Happiness. Here, there are no conditions or categories. So, the category of neutrality is absolute Happiness. The category of negativity is absolute Happiness. All conditions and mind states are absolute Happiness. This is just one of many "awakenings". As you have described, this absolute Happiness does not have much utility for spiritual awakenings, concentration, well-being, fulfillment in life etc. . . So it is equally valuable to construct. From absolute Happiness, we can create three relative categories: happiness, neutrality and negativity. With this framework, we can further create things that will bring spiritual awakening, meta awareness, well-being, attention, mindfulness and skills. It's beautiful. And I think what you are describing is beautiful. . . And quite advanced.

@Nickyy I appreciate your feedback. Neither of us is wrong. . . We are just not on the same frequency. That is ok. It happens sometimes. Let's end our discussion here. Do not try to engage with me on this matter anymore in this thread. Let's allow the thread to return to the original topic. If you would like to continue the discussion with me, feel free to PM me. Yet don't do it here or a warning may be issued. Thank you.

@Nickyy Sometimes these types of side-tracks can be helpful in threads - and I'd like to add one more point before I leave - especially since Leo recently made a video on this and it is super cool when we can apply new learning. Here, it's not the content I don't want to engage in, it's the structure of the dialog I don't want to engage in. I am super interested in the content of Spiral Dynamics - I created a University course on it. I love hearing about different perspectives on Spiral Dynamics. It helps me identify my own blind spots and to deepen and expand my understanding. So it's not the SD content. It is the structure of this dialog that doesn't resonate with me. The structure of the dialog is that there are two personalities - each with their own perspective - and each personality tries to defend their position through arguing. To me, this structure is like chewing on tinfoil. It's like you are asking me to discuss SD while chewing on tin foil. No thanks, I'll pass. Another example to highlight this without all the personality dynamics. Imagine two people are about to converse about the coral reef in Australia. They are both super interested in it. There is so much juicy content!! All the amazing creatures, scuba diving - so much to explore. So the content is amazing. However. . . the structure of the conversation is that we cannot use any words that start with the letters "p" or "r". Each sentence must have the word "shark" in it, no words can have more than three syllables and every 7th word must rhyme with "salt". . . As much as I love the content of the Australian coral reef, the structure is awful to me. The structure of the conversation takes all the fun out of the discussion. No thanks, I'll pass. In my view, you are so immersed in content that you can't see structure. Some people may love this structure, I do not. To each their own. I'll move on now and let the thread go back to the original topic.

You keep creating "me vs you" and "right vs wrong" dualisms. We can't explore together with that dualism. It's too bad. I thought you offered some good ideas. But oh well, it happens sometimes. Have fun.