Forestluv

That is a common view by many. There is a path of personal renunciation. It is an essence of zen buddhism. There is certainly something beneficial of isolating oneself from wordly desires and distractions and practicing all day every day. If someone is living in a hectic environment it can be much harder to quiet the mind and body. It is much easier to quiet the mind-body in peaceful nature than it is in a busy train station. Rather than saying "it's impossible", observe what is happening without any judgement or identification. When you spend time with your friends, your mind becomes highly active with thoughts. There is a desire to calm the mind and do self enquiry, yet are unable to meet that desire. There is frustration and a thought story that the only way to reach a calm mind is to live in a monastery. . . . Rather than engage in the story, you can deconstruct it, observe it and create a new story. . . First, self enquiry is an advanced practice. Generally it is not ideal for beginners because the mind will want to think, analyze and figure stuff out. You seem to have a desire to calm the mind. I would work on that. What types of activities help calm the mind? . . . Perhaps set aside 30min. each day to calm the mind. Sit and meditate. Do yoga. Walk in nature. Take a bath. Create a calm, peaceful setting. . . This is "calm mind" time. If the mind gets busy, just tell it that we are doing a "calm mind workout", there will be plenty of time for thought stories after our "calm mind workout". . . With practice, you will likely notice small "gaps" between thoughts. Those are golden. . . . I remember thinking "It's impossible to stop thinking. It can't be done". Yet then I was aware of a small empty "gap", between thoughts. That was the first indicator that stillness in the mind was possible. Then the gaps between thoughts got longer and I realized the mind was "slowing down". Sometimes there were 5 seconds between thoughts - enough time that I was experiencing reality without thoughts. Then the thoughts became less powerful. I didn't sit down and have tea with my thoughts. . . One can also try to do a solo retreat. If possible, get away from it all for a full day or weekend. Go camping in the woods for a couple days solo. As well, reducing phone and internet time can be helpful - and engaging in what is happening Now.

By this logic, when you are sleeping you are not perceiving reality, your body doesn't exist and there is no you.

@Sidi It can be really challenging to develop a platonic relationship with a gal when there is romantic attraction. One thing I've done to reduce the amount of desire is to cut-off the option of dating, sex, relationship with her. A major source of desire energy is potential, fantasy and anticipation. If she was 100% unavailable the attraction would likely be knocked down considerably. For example, if she was a lesbian, married, had two children and moving to another country next month - a lot of romantic attraction would be sucked away like a vacuum cleaner. For me, one thing that has helped is to shut the door on the possibility of dating, sex and a relationship with her. I would pick a time that felt right and say something like "I really like spending time together and I value our friendship a lot. Sometimes I wonder what it would be like to date, yet I don't want to do that because it would alter our friendship and the friendship comes first for me". I've done this with several woman and it always goes over well. Women are used to being viewed and treated as a sexual object and for a guy to say that they like her so much as a person that they don't want to get sexual can be really meaningful to her. It's counter-intuitive. Once the dating/sex door is shut, a lot of the sexual energy can dissolve. As well, a lot of the sexual energy may be contracted because she doesn't know. Once it's out in the open, it can partially dissolve. It can open up doors to deeper friendship. . . I've found it best to say it indirectly like "sometimes I wonder what it would be like to date", rather than "I feel so much sexual energy for you that I often fantasize about us having sex". . . A subtle, indirect statement is more than enough since there is so much leverage with sexuality. Don't make it a big deal. This is something that has helped me with female friends where there is some sexual energy. It may not be helpful for others though. I've had three cases in which this allowed for a better friendship and reduced the sexual energy. Yet I've also had one case in which once I became unavailable, she became sexually attracted to me - which complicated things. Every dynamic is different.

There are many threads on "nice guy syndrome". Below are several examples. It's something a lot of guys go through.

Within the context of a physical body, mind and personal consciousness - there is a lot of mystery about life, death, after-life, re-incarnation etc.

It's fine to explore human imaginations about physical bodies and death. I'm not disagreeing with anything you are saying. There are some beautiful stories and profound contemplations about life and death. . . I'm saying that there is something else. If you want to imagine and conceptualize death within human cognition, that is great. . . Yet if you want to get to the deeper levels, this won't cut it. You are trying to dig through concrete with a spoon. . . To dig deeper, I would drop the spoon and start using a bulldozer Yet there will be tremendous resistance to this since the ego mind will not like what is revealed at the deeper levels. To reach the deeper levels, there are sacrifices.

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.