Forestluv

A couple suggestions. . . Ime, psychedelics like Ayahuasca have a lot of visuals and can be a complex "experience". There is "ego death" due to deconstruction of the personality construct, yet there is also reconstructions that can get later get contextualized as "realms", "dimensions", "lessons", "insights", "spirit guides" etc. These can be very insightful and amazing. . . In terms of "death", I would consider this a form of death in terms of ego death - yet there are still appearances. That's fine, yet a couple days later the mind will want to contextualize into an "experience" and try to "make sense of it". This type of integration can be great. . . Deconstruction and Reconstruction has immense value. Yet for me, deconstruction to pure clarity without reconstruction also has immense value. Imo, the purest deconstruction is a psychedelic without any visuals - without any "bells and whistles". Simply pure deconstruction to Nothing. To the purity of Now. Singular. One. Clear. . . I've done about 12 different psychedelics and 5-meo is the crown jewel for this - hands down. Yet that's not to say other psychedelics don't have deep value as well. If you are questioning whether or not you experienced "ego death", you haven't. The dose isn't high enough. It's great to be cautious and work your way up, yet ime I would be mindful of a "sub-ego-death" zone in which the ego is dying, yet the dose wasn't quite high enough to finish the ego off. Once one crosses over to the "other side", there is no more distress because there is no longer anyone to be distressed and there is nothing to be distressed about. Yet just below this breakthrough, there can be distress ime. For some people it's no big deal, they can surrender to anything. But if an ego wants to control the narrative and reality, it can get thorny.

Ime. . . Nothing.

Correct. This is the key. To observe this attachment and identification. It's not the story itself, it is the attachment/identification to the story. If you stay within the story, you stay within the story. . . Nothing wrong with that. Yet there is also transcendence of the story available. The problem is that you are creating a duality and assuming one side of the duality must be true and the other side false. I'm not disagreeing with you and nobody is denying death of the body. You are missing the point. You are immersed in "body vs no body" and "death vs alive" dualities. You've set up an argument of opposition in which one or the other must be true. Either there is a body that dies or there is no body that dies. I am not grasping either side. You are projecting that. . . There is a "prior" to the duality that can be transcended. . . If you don't want to explore that, it's fine. Don't explore it. Yet understand that you do not need to choose between death of the body OR no death of no body. You are creating that duality and choice.

If one creates a construct that there is a "body" that "dies" and believes it cannot be denied, then of course it cannot be denied. If a mind creates a construct that "A equals B" and believes it cannot be denied - then of course "A equals B" cannot be denied. The deeper realization is not whether "A equals B" or "A does not equal B". The deeper realization is the transcendence of A and B.

With 100% death, there is no longer the duality of dead vs. alive. Dead = Alive. You are both Dead and Alive right now.

@Identity We can create frameworks in which identity death is a process. We can create frameworks in which death is an "all or nothing" point. Each framework has relative value. Yet to become attached to death as being one or the other is to become attached to a duality. This can have practical value, yet can also be transcended. In your experience death seems to be like a series of deepening layers. For sure. We could say that an early stage of death is the death of attachment/identification to the "person". The next stage of death is the death of attachment/identification of being a "human". The next stage may be the death of attachment/identification of being a "biological organism". The next stage is the death of attachment/identification to being alive. . . This construct can have relative value at the human level. . . We could also create a construct in which there are different degrees within each stage. For example, during the death of the "person", we could create five stages involved in death of the "personality construct". This can have relative value as well. Yet at the end of the day, these are all constructions of the mind. All thought stories. There is transcendence of it all. ALL of it. A return to Nothing and Everything. "Prior" to all the construction and thought stories. We could call this full transcendence a "point". This construct also has relative value and can also be transcended.

You are creating a construct of a thing called "physical". From the human perspective, this is a useful construct. If I am crossing the street and a speeding car is approaching me, a construct of "physical" comes in handy. A big physical thing is speeding toward me, I better get out of the way. Yet this construct can be transcended. The transcendence does not invalidate the construct of "physical". The transcendence is prior (or above) the construct. Does a dead person have a construct of "physical"? Of course not, because a dead person consiousness is prior to the construction of "physical". Does a worm have a construct of "physical". Of course not, because worm consciousness is prior to the construct of "physical". . . When you were a baby, was there "physical"? Of course not, because baby consciousness is prior to the construct of "physical". The key to transcending "physical" is not to reject "physical" and embrace "non-physical". This is still within the duality game. . . They key is to go "prior" to both "physical" and "non-physical" constructs. Here, there is no "physical" or "non-physical". Here, there is both "physical" and "non-physical". Prior to construction, there are no constructs and all constructs are possible. Here, there is Nothing and Everything. If you create a construct of "Physical is a thing we can touch and feel", then that becomes physical. Creating a construct and trying to prove the opposite of the construct is a circle and a waste of time. If you say a door is physical, then it is physical Defining a door as physical and asking for evidence that it is nonphysical is a waste of time, imo. . . That would be like saying "A roglif is a ferocious predator that eats chickens". Then asking "If a roglif is a ferocious predator that eats chickens, then how can a roglif be a vegetarian?". A roglif can't be vegetarian because we just created a construct that a roglif is a carnivore that eats chickens!". The key is not to get into a circlular theoretical trap trying to figure out if a roglif is a carnivore or a vegetarian. The key is to deconstruct the roglif construct and realize that prior to the roglif construct, a roglif doesn't exist! We just made up the construct. Prior to the construct, a roglif is Nothing and Everything.

@Raptorsin7 If we are to assume a "self" is alive, the "self" is a deeply ingrained and complex construct. As well, it is evolved and conditioned itself to survive. Full transcendence = death. What self wants to die? For a self to exist, it must be alive. Now consider it from the perspective that the self is dead. There is no self. It doesn't exist. If one goes the full monty, all these questions about what is "self", what is "true self", what is "higher self and lower self" don't exist. . . This is hard to imagine due to attachment/identification of a "self". The human mind is conditioned to be attached and identify as a person in a human body. It doesn't identify as a rock or a tree. . . Completely remove the attachment/identification and see what happnens. . . For example, let's recontextualize your questions removing attachment/identification. "How Do I Find crorjun?" "When we look for crorjun we will find that pain and resistance stands between false crorjun and true crorjun. When we find our crorjun we will realize it was never there to begin with." These statements are meaningless. Wtf is "crorjun"? It's nothing. I just made it up. Just like we make up a "self". Notice how there is no attachment/identification to "crorjun". There is no desire to protect "crojun" so it can survive. There is no obsession about making "crojun" happy. There is no obsession with protecting "crorjun" from suffering. . . However, the dynamics of "crorjun" will dramatically change when we create a contruct in which "crorjun" is a "me" that was born and will die. There is deep desire to protect "crorjun" from harm and death. An elaborate story of "crorjun" is created. . . Crorjun is a male that was born in Australia in 1994. Crorjun had a difficult upbringing and has ADHD. Crorjun is afraid of heights, likes vanilla ice cream and plays tennis. Crorjun hopes to transcend the false Crorjun to find his true Crorjun. . . This seems absurd because I just made Crorjun up and nobody has attachment/identification to Crorjun. . . Yet when we replace "Crorjun" with "me". . . millions of years of evolution arises and years of conditioning arises that has created immense attachment/identification to "me". . . It's the biggest lie ever told. A lie so big that 99.9999% of beings live life immersed in a story of Crorjun that is just made up.

There is a series of dis-identification that goes deeper and deeper. . . If you want to fast forward to deeper levels. . . If your identity dies, how can there by an "I"? An "I" is an identity. How could God relate to itself? That would need an identity of "God" that is a "God self" relative to a non-god self. In the absolute in which Everything is One, there is no "thing" to relate to another "thing". . . Imagine Absolute Blue, in which Everything is Blue. There is no Blue to contrast with non-blue. We can no longer ask "What's it like being Blue?" because Everything is Blue. We can no longer ask "How do you relate to your Blue-ness?", because Everything is Blue. There is no "Blue-ness" relative to "Non-Blue-ness".

@erik8lrl Beautiful. Thank you for sharing with us. One simple message from my early trips was "Just Be", so it warms my heart to see this expressed from your Aya experience.

I think this will be the future of psychedelics. Currently, we don't know much about how they affect the brain. We have a very crude map. Most of what we know is based on anecdotal, personal trip reports. . . For example, we know that Ayahuasca has much stronger visuals than 5-meo-dmt. Yet this is pretty crude. You are asking about high resolution stuff, like "how can we design a molecule to allow access to a certain dimension". This is incredibly complex because there are so many variables. There are genetic variables of the person, there are life history variables. There also may be variables like what the person ate that morning and the microbiome composition in their gut. Then variables of the trip setting. It becomes super complex. Yet as we do more pyshcedelic research, the map resolution will get better and better. . . Imagine a camera from the year 1900. Cameras were humongous and had terrible resolution. You could barely tell what was in the photo: "It sorta looks like a building in the photo, but maybe it's an animal . Or maybe a train?". The resolution was awful. Today, we have micro-cameras with amazing resolution. . . Similarly, I can see the resolution of psychedelics getting much better such that someone can better design an individual trip.

Hmmm, that is a bit odd. If I went on a "date" with a former co-worker and she started talking about the health of her breasts, it could mean different things. There are other variables involved. If she is talking matter-of-fact about the results of a breast exam, she might just be worried about her condition and wants to share it with a friend. If she is flirting and being playful while she talks about her breasts, she could have sexual undertones. . . I would just get a feel for the situation. If I suspected she was flirting and I was interested in her sexually, I may escalate a bit with a suggestion. . . For example, if she seemed flirty while talking about the health status of her breasts, I could playfully say something like "Perhaps we can play doctor and have an exam". . . Then see how she responds. If she smiles and says "Oooohhh, I like a guy in a lab coat. . ", then we know there is mutual interest. If she responds by being annoyed, rolls her eyes and changes the topic to the weather - that is a good indicator she was was being sexually suggestive and was just speaking as a friend.

@Arcangelo Have you tried something like meetup groups for singles? It seems like women that attend those would be open to dating.

@Sombra If the pua community/websites are toxic, are there any healthy resources for young men to learn how to approach women in a healthy way to nitrate dating/relationship?

@Sombra Yea, young guys don’t have it easy either. We could also have a conversation about challenges of being male. And cool avatar. It reminds me of Day of the Dead memorials I’ve seen.

I think the term “stalker” is too strong here. I think a guy would need to escalate another level for stalking. For example, following a woman around the supermarket and out to her car. Yet I can easily see how this situation could be perceived as a relatively mild form of harassment.

This is part of the problem. You are seeing a woman as a number within a game. Of course you would be upset if someone called you out for simply approaching #17 within the supermarket game. Start seeing women not as a number or sexual object within a game, but as an actual human being that has an actual life history and actual emotions. Try to see things through her perspective. There are hundreds of men that visit that supermarket each week without incident. Yet you are the one that has a reputation and is being confronted by security guards. It’s not them, it’s you. You are the common denominator.

@Arcangelo You are not considering context and the experience/perspective of the woman. . . . Imagine being a woman that has to deal with multiple unwanted sexual advances from men everyday - some of these are creepy weirdos. It gets old and tiresome. Now imagine wherever you go, you never know when the unwanted advance will come. At the movies, taking a walk in the park, waiting for a bus, ordering a coffee. It’s all over. Yuck. Just leave me alone. I just want to order a cup of freaking coffee without getting hit on. . . Now you go food shopping. It’s been a long day at work and you want to go home and rest. But you need to get some milk and cereal for breakfast. . . . In the supermarket some guy with lots of cologne on approaches you and tries to pick you up - asking you out for a drink. He is trying to be smooth, yet it is totally obvious he is trying to pick you up and get laid because you have to deal with this everyday. Ughh. . . no, stop, go away. . . I can easily see how this would be annoying and borderline harassing to a female. You are just seeing this from the lens of your own selfish desires.

I would draw a distinction between exploration and debate.. The definition of debate is: A formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward. The keys of debate are opposition and argumentation. As well, there is generally attachment/identification to one’s own argument. And each side wants to “win” the debate. . . These energetics are very different than exploring ideas and perspectives that have no personal attachment/identification.

You are missing the point. Sadhguru is Turquoise trying to reach out to an upper Orange / lower green audience. The “debate” is an act for the audience. It is like giving children cand or having a game show. Sadhguru is playing a character in an effort to connect with an Orange/green audience. Orange/low green resonates with debates and finds it entertaining. It is an act of love by sadghguru. . . . If it was a yellow/turquoise level audience they would not have a “debating” act, because it doesn’t resonate with yellow/turquoise. . . . .

@Arcangelo It’s rare for someone to be randomly under ongoing security surveillance for sexual harassment and to receive a warning from security. This type of thing doesn’t just pop out of the blue. I would take the focus off of blaming e thermal circumstances and turn toward introspection. Rather than blaming “society” and being a victim, I would go internal and ask things like “What is it about me that is being perceived as sexual harassment by women and security guards?”, “How can I grow toward becoming a healthier male?”. . . . It is also helpful to try and see things from the woman’s perspective. Her perspective and experience is very different than yours. If I was a woman trying to do my food shopping in a supermarket and some guy with a bunch of cologne approached me and hit on me, I would find it kinda creepy. I can see how a woman could perceive it as harassment. There is more to it than just the words. As well, when someone is externally focused it is common for them to filter out some informatio:n: “I just said hi to a gal and out of the blue security guards were harassing me for nothing”. Although it’s possible they were over-zealous security guards, I have a hunch that if the women and security guards told their side of the story, more would be revealed.

That’s not my point. The point is the energetics and intentions of the debate? Compare a Sadhguru “debate” with a real debate between Blue/Orange people like William Craig, Shermer, D’Souza and Hitchens. The energetics is completely different. Sadguru is dropping down and having a publicity stunt “debate” to reach out to upper Orange / lower green. And there are plenty of blue level Buddhists, sI ts no surprise to see debates there. Higher conscious beings aren’t into debates because attachment/identification has dissolved. There is no ownership of ideas/perspectives. There is no “my perspective” vs “your perspective”. At tier2, debating is like chewing on tin foil.

In terms of SD, debate is a hallmark of stage Orange. Debate can be effective up to stage Orange, yet then becomes an inefficient method of consciousness development - due to personality dynamics. By stage yellow, there is very little expansion via debate. Most expansion comes through exploration, observation, discovery and integration. I used the child example to illustrate that a high conscious teacher could have a “debates” as games/toys to reach out to “children”. Sadhguru does not have a debtor mentality. He is just being playful with the kids. If you want to see real debates, look at debates between blue level religious vs Orange level atheist.

@Nak Khid If we wanted to teach math to children, would we explain things seriously with examples of actuarial science in health care? Of corse not. We would use games and toys to illustrate math to children. . .

I wouldn’t call that a selfish agenda since God is those hairless chimps.