Forestluv

These are great questions regarding relativity, contextualization and knowing. I think you are pushing an edge of conceptualization and knowing. For me, breakthroughs occurred with psychedelics - in particular 5-meo. Tbh, 5-meo is a much much better teacher than I am. 5-meo can teach someone more in 30min. than I could in 30 years. . . Any description I give is within a human realm of contextualization - I cannot transmit more than that. Sometimes when two people are together non-conceptual realms can be transmitted and shared. Any thing I write is a contracted contextualization at the person/human level. Perhaps some may resonate with that, perhaps not. The reason I put so much effort to transmit is due to the sheer magnitude of it's magnificence. I know as a limited human I will fail, yet I will keep trying. There is nothing that has higher meaning to me than communicating facets of awakening. Regarding your observations: There is no definitions. . . Definitions are human constructs. There is something more "expansive" than all definitions. . . At the human level, the desire is not to define. . . As well, "lower" and "higher" are also human constructs. There is an awakening of singularity in which this construct dissolves. Imagine being blind in a blind world and then one day sight is revealed. It's not really about being "higher" or "lower". It's not about trying to define what sight is. It's not about "I can see and he can't". It's more about awakening to sight. There is sight. It's not mine or yours or anybody's. Nobody owns sight. Rather than saying "my definition is higher than his definition" it would simply be better to say "there is sight". Similarly, it's not my definition of "god consciousness" - it's more about the ISness of "god consciousness". There is no one to take ownership of it. Any construct of "god consciousness" is a limitation. In a human form, the mind and body has limits within infinity. As a human, the "me" is a speck of infinity. Absolute infinity can reveal itself and as a human I embody an infinitesimal amount of that infinity. Human growth is unlimited. In this context, my contextualized experience and contextualized knowing is 0.00000000000000 (add one trillion zeros) 00000000000 (add another trillion zeros) 0000001%. This rounds off to zero. This is the personal/human level. At a transcendent level, the mind and body IS infinity. Yet this cannot be captured at the personal/human level. This is a hard question to answer because of the terms "knowing" and "same". Again, these are contextualizations at the human level. There is knowing that can reveal itself. Yet it's not *me* knowing and it's not a *thing* that is known that can be compared to other things. It's more like knowing knows itself without a knower. In terms of inter-personal communication and connecting, there can be an intuitive nature of knowing. When two humans hold similar contextualized experiences that are ineffable, there can be a shared knowing. Both people may say "I can't explain it in words". They each may stumble around searching for words and say "it's sorta like this, but not really". The other person may pick up on it and say "yea, and kinda like this, but not really". The other may laugh or do something silly and the other laughs and also does something silly. There is a connected sense. It can be super rare and beautiful. . . At a transcendent level, the two people are actually the same person communicating with itself - yet the "two people" may not be aware of this. At a transcendent level, two people are actually the same transcendent entity. The two people are One YOU. So the question becomes "How do YOU know you are speaking of YOUR experience?". The transcendence knows itself. There is no person contextualizing it. . . . At the personal/human level it is a very different dynamic and a different essence of "knowing", because there is contracted contextualization. In this form, I wouldn't know. From a contextualized "me". . . of course. From a contextualized description of "God consciousness" of course. Once the "from your pov" is added in - of course it is a pov. A pov is a "somewhere". You are essentially asking "If you are somewhere, how can you be nowhere?". If you are somewhere, then you are somewhere. Every word, statement, image, concept uttered is a "somewhere". Yet all somewheres are nowhere/everywhere. There is absolute infinity. It is not mine, yours or anybody's to own. Once we add in the *your* part, of course it's your. Imagine you create a story with two different characters that get stranded on a desert island. One of the characters has a high potential and the other person has a low potential. Within this story, you just created two characters and a concept called "potential. Then I ask you "how do you know that there are two characters with different potentials?". You would respond "Because I just created it!!!!" . . . The key to transcendence is that you are not either character, YOU are both characters. YOU created both characters. . . If I asked you "How do YOU know that both characters are talking about the same experience?". . YOU would reply, "Because *I* created both characters and both experiences!!!". . . . However, at the character level - neither character would know for sure. They might stumble around trying to explain the experience. . . This is a comical feature of transcendence. The answer is in the transcendence of "you", "know", "same" and "thing". . . In the normal colloquial sense of the terms, there is no knowing. This is a very important issue at the personal level. Here, there are underlying assumptions, ownership, contextualizations, relativity that the person is unaware of. This is a very big issue indeed. A question of contemplation that may open a crack. . . "How do you know now is now?". The direct experience is more important than an intellectual answer. Is there awareness that "knowing now is now" has a different flavor than regular kind of knowing? . . Is there a knowing of now without a knower to take ownership of that knowing? Does this knowing know itself without a knower?

Regarding the things you don't like. . . people's conditioned traits tend to re-appear in patterns. It just takes a lot for people to change. For example, if someone has had a drinking problem it's more likely or not to continue to be a problem - even if they try to hide it in the beginning. Or if a person has a history of high conflict in relationships, that is more likely than not to continue. People can change, yet it takes a lot and someone needs to want to change. I've been in many relationships in which I hoped and encouraged the person to get into personal development and spirituality and they never did - their heart just wasn't into it and I couldn't make them do it. . . Yet that might not be a big deal if the negatives aren't that big, the person supports your PD/spirituality and you have common interests. I've dated gals not into PD, yet they were totally cool with me doing it and we had so much in common - watching movies, traveling, cooking dinner together, going to concerts etc. . . Yet eventually we would hit a road block. After 6 months or so, that stuff would fizzle out and we weren't growing together as a couple since she had no interest in personal growth. His statement "" you seem like a person whom I will be going forward together" can be grounded and mature. I think it's a good thing when the other person is honest and indicates that they value relationship progress. . . Buuut. . . saying "I love you" and talking about a life together and having kids together this early in a relationship sounds very immature to me. It sounds like he may be able to express his emotions, which can be a positive - yet he also sounds ungrounded and immature. Not speaking the same language well would be a concern for me because it creates so many complications. If I really liked someone, I would be willing to put in the extra patience and effort tho. Or if we were into learning languages, it would be a cool thing. For example, I am at an intermediate level of Spanish and I would love to date a native latina that doesn't speak much English. I would learn Spanish so much faster and be part of that culture. The talking loudly wouldn't be my biggest concern. If we got along well, it something we could work to improve. For example, I had a bad habit of interrupting an ex-gf while she was talking. I wasn't doing it to be rude or disrespectful. I would get excited in the conversation and just blurt out ideas. She told me how bothersome this was to her and I made an effort to improve. Over time I improved, yet she would bring it up once or twice a week for a while. If it were me, I may go into "dating mode" and explore. Yet I would establish strong personal boundaries to take care of myself.

I'm not clear on how you are using the term "limit" - could you elaborate?

Yes. "God consciousness" is a contextualization. An "experience" is a contextualization. "My" is a contextualization. All these conceptualizations come "after" ISness (this is also a contextualization). On a forum, we humans communicate through contextualizations and language. It wo't be expressed through dog barks. . . . As a bird, it would be communicated differently. . . If I was sitting with a tree it would be communicated differently. . . Yet all those differences are also the same. . . Relativity. . . The "knowing" is like prior to traditional knowing. Rather than a me/human knowing, it's more like omniscience knows itself.

@SoonHei It depends, yet it's not like a regular sleeping dream. Ime, the psychedelic state has a different type of awareness than a sleeping dream. Regarding body, I've layed down during trips, closed my eyes and entered different realities - yet it's not like a sleeping dream or astral projection. I've also had trips in which their is a sense of self that is participating in an "altered" reality. For example, during one trip I was in a computer simulated reality - that was very real. Yet there was still localized awareness that I was some type of character in this simulated reality. . . I've also had trips in which the entire story of "me" dissolves. I've had a trip in which "me" completely dissolved and the mind of a schizophrenic appeared. I was now a person with that was insane. . . As well, identification to a mind and body may dissolve. "I" might not be able to tell the difference between "me" and a vulture being observed. . . . Or all types of sensory constructs dissolve. For example, there is no space or time. . . It can get really hard to contextualize. There are so many different flavors of psychedelic trips. Just like there are many different flavors of traveling trips. There are thousands of places in the world we can visit. Each place has it's own culture, people, food, music, nature, plants, animals etc.

The words are "pointers". Similar to how a map is a pointer of the territory. It's really easy to conflate map and territory. For example, we could conceptualize things like "Everything", "Now", "God" etc. all day. We can create all sorts of constructs. Yet that aint it. When a being has direct experience with Everything/Now/God it is an experience beyond anything you can imagine. Ime, when actual God-consciousness was revealed, followed by contraction back to human consciousness - it was beyond explanation. In human form it was absolutely terrifying and overwhelming. My mind and body was terrified by the omniscience/potential/power that was revealed. Tears, shaking, insanity. I couldn't perceive reality as a human. I couldn't function for about a week and confined myself solitary. That was five months ago and I am still integrating that experience. Other mind-bodies may have a different response - yet it will be life shattering. The words and concepts are kids play. The actual direct experience is on another level. More like another million levels. Imagine going from the consciousness of an ant to a human - then going back to an ant. An ant mind trying to conceptualize human consciousness will be extremely limited. It wouldn't even capture 1 trillionth of human consciousness. Similarly, a human mind trying to conceptualize God-consciousness will not be able to capture even 1 trillionth of God-consciousness.

As long as you don't have a serious anxiety/panic condition, it's safe to trip alone the first time (with precautions). When I say serious anxiety condition, I don't mean regular nervousness/anxiety that everyone experiences during a first date, a job interview, public speaking etc. I mean a serious condition in which the person is very sensitive to anxiety and may be on medication. As well, there are medications (like SSRIs) that shouldn't be mixed with psychedelics. Otherwise, it's safe to trip solo with precautions. . . I would get enough of the psychedelic for three trips. That way, the first trip is not "all or nothing" - you can dip your toes in the water. As well, different insights might be revealed during each trip. For the first trip, I would take a light-moderate dose. Perhaps 50-75ug LSD - enough that you will feel something, yet not overpowering. For a first trip, I would much rather be underwhelmed than overwhelmed. Also, insights revealed during light-moderate trips are much easier to integrate than heavy trips. . . I would create a familiar and safe setting where you don't have to interact with people. Your apartment/house is fine. I would create a calm environment with various activity options. For example, a meditative environment with meditative music. Yet sometimes during trips, the setting we choose doesn't quite seem right, so I would have other options. For example, have a notebook ready to journal. Have a music playlist ready. For all you know, the trip may be about becoming one with music and dancing like you've never danced before. Or options for creating art. Or a yoga option. Or a video. . . I'd give myself various options and go with the flow - go with the intuition. If you start with a low/moderate dose, after an hour you may be thinking "Is this it? I sorta feel different, yet shouldn't there be more?". I wouldn't redose. It could be that the dose is subtle. In this case, there might be slight enhancement and roll with it. Use your imagination and try to enter into a new realm. For example, I had a light trip in nature one time and thought "The effects are kinda weak, I should have taken more". Yet my creativity and imagination was enhanced and I rolled with it. I started imagining myself in a jungle in a different world. I started imagining extrasensory abilities and I was able to enter a lucid-like dream. . . If you are underwhelmed, it can up the dose for the second trip. If you start with a low/moderate dose you may feel something stronger than you expected. Some people are more sensitive. In this case, I wold just relax, let go and get curious. The trip won't last forever and on a low/moderate dose, you will still have some ability to distinguish real or unreal. For example, during one trip it felt like I was in a reality within a reality within a reality. I started feeling anxious because I didn't know which was the real reality or how to return to the real reality. But there was still a faint rational voice in my head that knew this was just a temporary trip and it wasn't dangerous. Then I thought of my favorite movie: Inception. In this movie, there were different levels of dream realities the characters voyaged into. I had always thought that was so cool and wondered what it would be like to do that. Then I realized "This experience is just like Inception!!! Omg, this is so cool!!!". Then the anxiety dissolved and I become curious - like an a voyager exploring new fascinating realms.

Logic is not transcended through logic. Sense is not transcended by making sense. This is the challenge for a logical, sensible mind. I'm trying to think logically here. . . Rather than imagining Everything as a collection of all individual things, imagine One Everything. There is no thing separate from One Everything. We cannot say "All those things over there is Everything, yet this thing is separate from Everything". . . . The is no thing that is not Everything. No thing = One Everything. There is truth and knowing prior to proof. For example, imagine there was a murder. Is there truth to that murder prior to proof? What if there was no evidence/proof of the murder. Which comes first, the truth of the murder or evidence/proof of the murder? Truth is first order and evidence/proof is second order. Similarly with knowing. There is knowing that comes prior to evidence/proof. . . Imagine you have a headache. How do you know you are experiencing pain in your head? Do you need to undergo brain scans to show neural activity as evidence of your pain? Do you need a neurologist to prove to you that you are experiencing pain in your head? What if the neurologist couldn't find evidence/proof of that you have head pain? . . . The knowing of that head pain is prior to evidence/proof of that head pain. That's hard to answer because nonduality isn't really a thing. If I were to try and answer those questions, I would keep saying that the opposite is also true and that there is an infinite number of partial truths. It would be like asking "Is what is, is?" , "Is ISness theism or atheism?", "Is the term 'God' the term 'God''?". It doesn't make sense, yet that is part of the beauty and magic of it. . . For nondual understanding, direct experience and awakening is much much more profound than analysis and conceptualization. If you want nondual exposure, there are many great speakers, youtube videos and practices. Yet ime, the fastest most certain way for direct nondual experience would be to take a psychedelic.

Reading fiction, writing, something creative, art, learning to play a musical instrument. . .

I would say it's a complex network of how I was conditioned and life experience. As well, there may be some genetic programming and inputs before I was born. For my own decisions, I try to trust my intuition rather than mental thinking. The body has a lot of wisdom. Sometimes something will arise and it just doesn't feel right. My mind may try to come up with a story, yet there is also body wisdom I try to get in touch with.

A deep human desire is to return Home.

and nothing to be understood.

@Nak Khid Look around the room you are in. See it as One Everything. Point to a thing that isn't One Everything. There is no-thing that isn't Everything. There is Nothing to contrast Everything with. I could give many examples of meaningful practical applications. Yet any example of meaning would be relative. Thus, there is no proof of objective universal meaning. Yet, there is truth prior to "proof". . . Have you ever searched for proof that now is now? Of course not, because the truth of now is prior to any evidence/proof of now. It would be more accurately categorized as "nonduality" The Einstein quote is an insight in a certain context, yet it goes much more radical. The Einstein quote asserts that there are so many things in existence that the human mind cannot comprehend it all. This is true. Yet it isn't what is being pointed to as Everything. This is more radical and goes beyond logic. This is intuitive since logic must be within it. One cannot transcend logic with logic. . . Direct experience becomes key.

Are you asking about the underlying motivation to say this? Or are you asking about the underlying truth of the saying?

Nothing. There is no thing in Everything. Yet each thing of Everything is also Everything. No things and all things are both Everything. This is the mindboggling nature of Everything. It cannot be captured. Everything = Nothing. Yet that is not pantheism. Pantheism is the belief that every single thing is god. This is both true and false. For any statement about Everything/God, the opposite statement would also be god. Yet that's not what pantheism is about. For example, a pantheist would state that every thing is god. Would they also accept that no thing is also god? I doubt it. Pantheism is using a common colloquial form of "everything". Yet, they haven't gone the full monty. If they did, their whole ideology of god would collapse, since the opposite of their ideology would also be god. They aren't willing to enter that abyss. Yet this isn't to say that pantheism has no value. Pantheism has some cool constructs and insights. And it can have practical value. I don't have anything against pantheism. It's just contracted - like all other constructs and dualities.

The realization of Everything.

I think a better definition of Pantheism is that every thing is god. This is distinct, yet included within, Everything is God. Everything is God = Nothing is God. . . I don't think that is what Pantheism means. This involves the realization of Everything. If one assumes an understanding of Everything and focuses on God, the deeper realization will not be revealed.

Starting threads without context are discouraged. Please provide some context at the start of the OP for the thread.

Who/what is the author of the book about sausagehead and his dog? Who/what is the author of the book about an author that wrote a book about sausagehead and his dog? Who/what is the author of the book about an author that wrote a book about an author that wrote a book about sausagehead and his dog? Off we go into infinity. . . No Authors = All Authors

@Existence You might be entering a deeper level of contemplation that is not limited by reason and conceptual constructs. We can create conceptual constructs about god and what god experiences, yet there is also an "ISness" that cannot be captured through theoretical constructs trying to define what IS is. For example, "If. . . . then. . . " constructs have an underlying assumption. In the question above, we are assuming that there is a thing called god that has no desire to do anything? Do we know that is true? How do we know that is true? . . . Quite often, we are not even aware of our assumptions. When we become aware of the underlying assumption, the rest of the question becomes mute. For example, what if god does have desire to do something? Then the question is recontextualized or dissolves. Fundamental to these questions is a thing called "existence". What is existence? How can we distinguish between existence and non-existence? Who determines whether it counts as existence or non-existence. Could there be an in-between of "quasi-existence"? What is the difference between "reality" and "no reality"? Is there one reality or countless realities? Does a human and a donkey share the same reality? Whose reality is more real? Is waking reality more real than a dream reality? Is there a separate thing called "god" that is imagining this reality? If so, who/what imagines that god? These types of questions are designed to pull the mind out of logical, reasonable thinking. Similar to zen koans. As well, there is a "trans-human" ISness that is not contracted within a human perspective. It can be fun to create constructs to these questions. It can also be insightful to question the questions.

This gets into the "I AM" realization. People are conditioned to add on to the "I AM" and identify with that add-on. Then a personal story arises. For example: "I AM. . . a man". Here there is identification of being "a man" and a man story follows. . . "I AM a man. As a man, I am more masculine than woman. As a man, I should be assertive and decisive. I should take control". . . Or another story may arise, depending on the conditioning of the human. . . Or "I AM Russian", "I AM an artist", "I AM a person with ADD", "I AM often insecure" , "I AM smart", "I AM stupid". . . and on and on and on. . . See what happens when there is only "I AM". Just that I AMness - with nothing extra added on. What is the direct experience of simply "I AM"?

@JonasVE12 Imagine there is a green marble and a blue marble. We can create separation and say there are two individual marbles - the green one and the blue one. Notice how there is no attachment/identification to either marble. We don't say "I am the green marble and you are the blue marble". Now imagine there are two individual human bodies. Notice the attachment/identification. The mind thinks "I am this individual person and they are that individual person". Here, there is not just individuality of two human bodies - there is an additional attachment/identification to individuality. That attachment/identification add-in is ego.

I think this is a great question. It's something I've contemplated a lot myself. It reminds me of my first two Ayahuasca ceremonies. . . During the first ceremony, the whole story of "me" was deconstructed. At first, it was odd and a bit uncomfortable. Yet then I noticed that the deconstruction/transcendence of me was kinda cool. I was one with everyone at the ceremony. I was one with the music. I felt such deep love. I was fully in the moment. I walked outside and the mountains in the moonlight was so mystical and beautiful. I thought "How have I missed such beauty my entire life?". At the end of the ceremony, we all sat around eating fruit together. It was so beautiful, fulfilling and blissful. . . Two days later, the second ceremony was much different. As my story got deconstructed, there were lessons that appeared. Lessons about how my personality was created. For example, how hyper self-criticism during my life conditioned a subconscious insecurity complex. And how this subconscious insecurity affected my subconscious interactions with other people. This was uncomfortable to look at. I wanted to go back to the fulfilling, blissful realm of the first ceremony. I tried to steer things away from the insecurity to bliss, yet didn't have control. Then anxiety appeared. Overall, they were uncomfortable lessons to look at, yet they revealed insight into my subconscious programming. What had been subconscious was now conscious. One reason it was subconscious was that I didn't want to look at it. . . This expanded consciousness/awareness allowed the letting go of the underlying psychological dynamic. This allowed for a greater sense of liberation and wellness.

Everyone has a certain level of mental background noise. The yoga may have raised your awareness. If it’s just a slight background you find peaceful, you are fortunate.