Forestluv

We are not on the same frequency and my input is not helpful here, which is fine. I wish you the best ? ❤️

No, that is not what I’m saying. I’ve tried to explain it many times to you and each time you want to immerse within a world of contextualization/conceptualization. When you do so, you won’t see it. For example, if you spent a week in nature - away from all people and technology - you would expand beyond your conceptual comfort zone. One may spend an hour admiring a flower, becoming the lower and realizing absolute infinity within a single pollen grain. Not creating constructs and models of the essence of a flower and how it represents absolute infinity. I can tell you have not these types of awakenings by the way you communicate. There is no way to fake through it. . . . Imagine someone who has never done scuba diving trying to convince a scuba diving instructor what the experience is like. This person can spend months reading about scuba diving, speaking to scuba divers and imagining what scuba diving is like. They may go snorkeling and think it’s like scuba diving. . . Yet it will be clear to the scuba diving instructor this person has not experienced actual scuba diving.

You are using an idea of “direct experience” to elevate experience/ideas to higher truth. Notice the obsession to go “beyond infinity”, to extraordinary levels on SD - coral, teal, ruby, whatever. To rank the conscious levels of all forum users, moderators, Leo and nonduality speakers. To post insights only you have received and to gain admiration on the forum. Notice how your threads and posts have become more and more dramatic that attracts attention. As soon as you say “my direct experience was. . . “ it is no longer direct experience - it is contextualized experience that is occurring within direct experience. Direct experience is Now - whatever contextualization you give Now is a contextualized experience. Yes, there are no words to describe the ineffable. It’s not about the words. It’s the relationship with what the words are referring to. You don’t seem willing to look at the attachment/identification to experience. Presenting experience, images and ideas as “direct experience” does not grant immunity. I’m sure you have had insights that are difficult to put in words. Yet as of now, it is a tangled mess lacking clarity.

This is the center of the knot. What emanates from this is secondary. You are like a spider that has become caught in its own web.

Here, "I" is deconstructed to Nothing / Everything. Since I is all there is, we don't need the "I" part - it is redundant. We simply have "all there is". From this Nothing/Everything, observe how somethings are constructed. . . Notice how the construction process has begun: - "I" is all there is. . . to. . . - There is no difference between experience and experiencer. . . to. . . - For something to exist, you must be the thing. . . to. . . - your experience of the object is identical to the object itself, therefore, sure, you can say you are the object. It follows that you are everything that enters your perception. If "I" is all there is. . . that's it. I is all there is. I is Everything. There is nothing else other than "I". Nothing to discover, perceive, figure out, attain, arrive it etc. It's all "I". Game Over. . . Yet, humans are not satisfied with "I is all there is". So we start constructing. Since the mind is not aware of the fully deconstructed state of "I", it will not be aware that it is constructing because it lacks the contrast of full deconstruction. So, let's deconstruct. If "I is all there is", why even have the "I" in there? What is "I" relative to? - I is all there is! It's redundant. It's like saying "Everything is all there is". Of course. So we can further deconstruct to "All there is". "All there is" means that there is nothing that isn't IS. So this is redundant as well. We can further deconstruct to "IS". This is as far as we can deconstruct through verbal communication. From "IS", we can start constructing, which is fine. Reality is a process of deconstruction and construction. Yet be aware that any construction we create, we can deconstruct it back down to "IS". You have constructed things called "experiences", "objects", "existence", "you", "things" and "perception". Humans are conditioned to assume these constructs. Yet notice how enormous the jump is from "IS" to "experiences, objects, existence, you, things, perception etc". This enormous jump took millions of years of evolution. Based on these constructs, you have asked questions: Notice how we started off with "I is all there is", created a foundation of constructs and are now asking questions based on those constructs. You can use questions to deconstruct back to "IS" or you can ask questions to create more elaborate constructs. The deconstruction route: Notice how the above has "things" and "my perception". We can deconstruct that so "things" and "my perception" are not separate. Now things, my and perception is One. So "things" don't come from anywhere, because there is no thing to come from one thing to another thing. . . For the question "Do I have any control over that?", there is separation between "I" and "that" and a new thing added called "control". That can all get deconstructed back to "I is all there is". . . Thus, "I" is Everything. Not "everything that enters my perception". Everything. If you deconstruct to the full monty to Everything = Nothing and embody that, you will see how you are constructing all of reality. It's all constructions which are deconstructed to Everything/Nothing.

@Nivsch I love the colorful fruit as SD codes!!

Based on the OP’s definition of enlightenment, Deepak Chopra comes to mind.

Yea, it's a tricky, nuanced topic. In traditional English "Devotion" generally has a very strong "me" implied. Such as "He is a very devoted father" or "I am going to devote 1hr a day to studying Spanish". I like the frame of "to move something closer to that which is sacred". This reduces the attachment to "me". Yet like you said, within the contraction of a personality dynamic and a timeline, there will be some sense personal dedication to a practice and some type of personal desire - even if that intention is liberation from personal desire. I think this is why many people describe awakening as a "cosmic joke". It's like we search for years looking for our glasses, to discover they were on our face the whole time. It's like we first need to check hundreds of places to determine our glasses aren't there - then after exhaustion we give up and surrender, then discover our glasses where on our face the whole time. In a way, it's comical.

Haha, yes. This is the type of statement that used to drive me crazy when I was confined within rationality. Now I drive some people crazy by saying these types of things. lol

I would be cautious with that. If it naturally pops up, I would stick to the science of the trials and potential medical/therapeutic benefits. For example, the studies showed that the compounds had significantly positive effects after only 1-3 treatments and the positive effects persisted over a long period of time. This is encouraging because patients will not have to undergo monthly treatments the rest of their lives for the benefits. In contrast, patients on SSRIs use the medication consistently over a long period of time. As well, scientists have recently discovered that a new class of compounds called "psychoplastogens" (that include psychedelics) can induce neural plasticity, which has potential to rewire the brain. However, there are still safety concerns we should consider while developing this new class of therapeutic molecules. These types of frames sounds mature. An immature frame would be something like "Last month, my friend tripped balls on MDMA at a concert and now his PTSD symptoms are reduced - just like the JH studies. I think psychedelics should be legal so everyone can do it on their own.". Psychedelic therapy is a legit new and exciting area of science. It's fine to discuss it, just like we might discuss new EMDR therapy methods. Yet, I would shy away from personal subjective experiences and recreational use of pyschedelics - or come across as

@Scholar Yea. Meat-eating culture is generally resistant to emotional appeals. Singer gives a strong rational argument for veganism - much stronger than the counter-argument, imo. . . In theory, I think the argument is lopsided toward veganism - both empathically and logically. . . .Similar to homosexuality - there is a very weak argument against homosexuality.

It’s a relative truth. The is no objective universal truth that would apply to everyone. For me, there are pros and cons of mixing spiritual work and sex/relationships. There is a lot to experience and learn within sex/relationships, yet it can also be a distraction.As well, it depends who the person is. Dating a narcissist is a different dynamic than dating a mature woman on a spiritual path. This is my experience and it’s not true for everyone. A buddhist monk may say to go celibate, others may say it’s fine to be promiscuous. You are your own authority. Experiment and see how it goes. While pursuing women, a lot of egoic dynamics may be revealed that you can work through. Or you may pursue women and spiral into a self absorbed mess and need to change things.

Yea, thats the paradoxical conundrum: Nowhere is the destination. Somewhere = Nowhere

@Scholar Are you familiar with Peter Singer? You seem to share a frequency with him.

@Michael Paul ? ♥️

A very chill playlist. If I was on the Johns Hopkins team, I'd sneak in some Shpongle. . .

Users have the option to "hide" their own posts - within a certain time limit. We ask that users do this sparingly, because if post hiding is common-place it causes fragmented threads and confusion.

This was my experience. I had 20+ years of zen/buddhist meditation and participation in sanghas. I had always resonated most strongly regarding teachings of ego. Yet I never felt like I clearly “got it”. Then I had my first trip - a high dose of 4-aco-dmt. As “me” returned, it was clearly revealed and I thought: “So that’s what the awakened buddhists were talking about all these years!” These days when I visit buddhist communities, I need to tone it down and hold back on some stuff - or they will kick me out ?

Yep!

Yea. There are many ways to frame it: real vs. imagined ; real vs. illusion ; ego delusion vs. non-delusion ; ego's imagination vs. infinite imagination . . . and on and on. . . This is all within relativity and has relative practical value. Yet if someone has the ability to access Absolute, universal, objective distinctions within relativity - that would be extraordinary. Yet it always collapses into someone unaware they are conflating Absolute and relative - which is super common. . .

@Inliytened1 Yes. So. . . if a being had the ability to assign Absolute distinctions within the sameness of real/imagined, it would be an extremely high level of consciousness. This would a level of god-consciousness as high as any I have experienced. . . It seems like generic relative distinctions being offered, yet the OP seems highly confident that he has access to something beyond that and that we are missing something. So I'm curious how it may work. Maybe I am missing something. . .

Your posts have stimulated some exploratory thoughts in my mind. I don't intend to frame this as "you are wrong" and "I am right", so I will use the pronoun "we". . . . These are just explorations in my mind that is helping me clear up some cloudiness regarding God. . . We say that *you* is a "mistaken idea that there is a separate entity that needs to be liberated." And then we say "You cannot liberate yourself. Devotion to God is the final method" This seems the same as saying: "A mistaken idea cannot liberate itself. Devotion to God is the final method (to liberate a mistaken idea from itself)." . . . This seems to make sense, a mistaken idea cannot liberate itself from itself. . . The "catch" seems to come with the Devotion to God part. . . If the person is a mistaken idea, how can a mistaken idea Devote itself to God? This seems strange. Another way of looking at it is that there is liberation from the attachment/identification to a mistaken idea of self. Then saying "an mistaken idea cannot liberate itself from the attachment/identification with the mistaken idea", seems to make sense. Yet how a mistaken idea can Devote itself to God still seems strange. We could say that rather than the mistaken idea itself, it is the subjective experience of a mistaken idea (of self) that seems real which Devotes itself to God. Yet again, how can a subjective experience Devote itself to God? . . . We could say "There is no actual Devotion to God, just a subjective experience of Devotion to God". Yet, this seems to be a different contextualization. To me, the term "Devote" is awkward since there is nothing that can Devote itself to God - especially if the mistaken idea of self and the subjective experience of self are expressions of God. In this context, that would be saying God needs to Devote itself to itself to liberate itself from itself. . . If Devotion to God is simply an illusory subjective experience of Devotion, it raises a common question of whether a path of Devotion to God is the best approach. We are essentially using subject experience to trick a mistaken idea of self (that doesn't even exist) to Devoting it's non-existence to God. In the end, it's a total sham. It seems more efficient to cut to the chase and realize You are God. Yet I suppose that could diminish the human experience in a way. If we say a guru is a symbol of God, we are adding in a distinction of separation. We have created two things: God and the symbol of God. If we say that symbols of God are the middle-men, we have now created a third thing of distinction. There is God, the symbol of God and the being perceiving the symbol of God. . . What happens if we don't add in these distinctions? Then the symbol of God is God. Likewise, the being perceiving the symbol of God (God itself) is also God. The symbol, God and the being are all God. We need to add in human constructs of distinctions to create separation. Taken together, God is playing a magic trick on itself. . .What a prankster. . .

@Nivsch What are your impressions of the election results?

I'm curious of the context of "yourself" used here. There comes a point that "yourself" vs "non-yourself" breaks down. "yourself to non-yourself" is a construction of the mind. As well, who/what is it that devotes "their self" to God? You say that Gurus are the middle men of symbols, yet isn't "yourself" also a middle man of symbols?

Your questions assume that the above is true. I would first question this assumption. Is this even true? If not, the subsequent “why” dissolves. For example: why do purple pigs only fly at night? If we don’t accept the assumption that “purple pigs fly at night” the “why” they do so becomes irrelevant.