Forestluv

You are Oliver in a "big brain". By your reasoning, you are imaginary and a total illusion.

I get what you are asking. It's a commonly asked question, yet difficult question to answer - because there is a destination in mind. A destination that is ill-defined. Exactly how would you determine if one is a Buddha, arhat or free from fetters? if you really get in there, dig deep and try to define it - it will collapse - because it is groundless grounding. We could spend years discussing the essence and meaning of a Buddha, arhat or total freedom from fetters. And we would keep going around in circles. Ime, the most powerful aspect of 5-Meo is the potential for a transcendence of all of this. For example, consider the question: Can a man restrained by fetters be totally free from fetters? There is a transcendence of that question.

Psychedelics are certainly powerful. In some ways, I learned more in six hours of my first trip than I had during the previous 20 years of meditation combined. I would say psychedelics have opened many doors. I hear a lot of people asking and debating whether "only" psychedelics can yield "enlightenment". To me this doesn't make sense because we cannot isolate a psychedelic experience from the inter-connectedness of Reality. If someone has an awakening related to psychedelics, how would we determine it was "only" psychedelics? What if the person had meditated a few times years ago and got a couple insights? Would that disqualify the awakening as "only" psychedelics? What if the person had reach quasi nondual states while running? What if the person had laid under the stars and pondered "who am I?"and received insights? Would that count as self-inquiry? What if the person had entered another realm during lucid dreaming? Or had a revelation watching a nondual video? To me, it's all inter-related and we can't remove and isolate an event from it's vast inter-connectedness. I don't think the question "Can only psychedelics yield awakening?" is a good question - because it is a binary "either / or" framework. I think a better question would be "Can psychedelics contribute to awakening?". I like this frame better as it allows for inter-connectedness. Then we could ask questions like "How significant is the contribution?", "What factors is this contribution related to and dependent upon?".

I think this is a difficult question to answer based on the terms "awakening" and "permanent". I've experimented heavily with 5-Meo (daily breakthrough use for over three weeks). I would say there are aspects I think you would consider to be "awakening" and aspects you would consider "permanent" - from a subjective human perspective. Yet there would also be aspects I think you would not consider to be "awakening" and "permanent". At deeper levels, ideas/concepts/images of awakened vs. non-awakened and permanent vs. temporary break down. I suppose it can serve as a framework up to a point, yet it eventually breaks down.

The past does not equal the present. Breath, relax, pay attention and do your best. You will be fine. Let us know how it goes.

What would awakening simply by psychedelics even look like? Would we take a newborn baby and isolate him in a solitary room with no windows? Then throw in some psychedelics during his life and monitor him with a hidden camera? How would we even be able to determine "enlightenment"? And how could we determine that the person had never “meditated” or “self inquired”? Everything is inter-related.

English as a foreign language I'm not sure if we have any english football league members

@whoareyou Tone it down. As a general reminder to everyone: This is a global international forum. Many forum members speak English as their second or third language. English is a difficult language to write well. English shaming can create a toxic environment to our EFL members. Please don't do it.

These are theoretical constructs. How "it works" is relative to the theoretical construct. Nothing wrong with that - constructs can be fun, interesting and useful. At the end of the day, the map is not the territory (yet map is territory). It ultimately collapses into ISness. Yet in a relative sense, we gotta do something. For some, creating constructs of reincarnation is a better use of time that watching TV.

Well that certainly "expands" things. . .

Sounds like a breakthrough. The concept of meaning exists as a concept of meaning. And those concepts are happening Now. Sounds like a deeper breakthrough. Everything is meaning = Nothing is meaning. It is a deep nondual realization. Seems like thought stories are now arising. The mind loves to create thought stories. Nothing wrong with that, just be aware of what is happening Now. This is the next breakthrough. Welcome home to nowhere. It may feel groundless and destabilizing at first, yet it is also very liberating. Seems like you are creating a story that there is a "right" and "wrong". That there is some thing or some place called "right" and another thing or place called "wrong". Yet that thing or place doesn't ultimately exist. You are looking for a somewhere in nowhere. That is the source of desire and frustration - trying to get to a somewhere that doesn't exist. What IS is Now. Once this is revealed, a new relationship with Reality arises and we can see from a place of clarity how constructs such as "meaning", "experience", "past" and "future" are created.

A nice construct of enlightenment. It has a lot of overlap with other enlightenment constructs.

Nondual sex is hot. Just sayin’

Chomsky has been awesome for decades. Below is a discussion between William F. Buckley and Chomsky in 1969. Buckley was considered the leading conservative of the time and was very well-respected. Chomsky went on Buckley's TV show and absolutely schooled Buckley in a debate about imperialism/colonialism. Chomsky is at a very high meta level of understanding and masterfully controls the narrative with his superior knowledge, integrative understanding and debating skills. He pounces on Buckley time after time like a cat pounces on a mouse. After the show, Buckley was furious and swore he would never invite Chomsky back (and he never did).

The Egg is not a traditional view of reincarnation. According to The Egg, You are all the lives in the Universe. You are Kim Jon ung, Pewdiepie and Julen blanc. That was the whole point about how interacting with another person is interacting with Myself. You already are all people.

Each of these questions assumes there is a thing called "meaning". Imagine not assuming that. If there was absence of meaning, how might your questions be answered? Would the questions even make sense? From this perspective, "absence of meaning" does not mean "no meaning". Saying there is "no meaning" in life is giving meaning. No meaning is an add-on. . . .For example, all of your life there has been an absence of afnolidge. You have never debated afnolidge or no afnolidge. There was an absence of afnolidge. Similarly, what if there was an absence of meaning? (I am not saying this is ultimately True - its is another approach that may open a door to expansion beyond relative meaning).

I love the analogy that humans in society are like cells in a body. I like how you used this analogy. A couple more: Each people are like neurotransmitters to each other. Similar to neurotransmitters in our brain. Some people are like dopamine, some like gaba, some like cortisol. The earth is one giant organism. An alien viewing the earth from outer space wold see one giant organism. People are like cells communicating with each other within the giant organism. Narcissists are like cancer cells. Roads are like microtubules, energy plants are like mitochondria and on and on. . . One giant organism.

Hmmm. I thought about it a bit more. I think he deconstructs separate linear lives more fully than deconstructing a timeline. I think the key deconstructions later in the video are: 4:00 - Partial deconstruction of a timeline 4:40 - Deconstruction of separate human beings begins 5:40 - Deeper deconstruction of separate humans. A partial construct of time remains. I think it is a very well-done video. I would have further deconstructed the timeline. That is, You are everyone and all things Now. (including all that "has happened" or "will happen" - without a timeline). Yet this would collapse the concept of reincarnation, since there is no longer a "re".

I think by "first appearing", they mean a threshold amount of people. Leonardo da Vinci was way ahead of his time, yet it would be misleading to say that yellow first appeared 500 years ago. I'm sure there were a few yellows scattered around the world through history.

You are now back to human form doing what human minds do - try to make sense of what IS by creating a story of an "experience" that happened. There is nothing wrong with that. It can give the mind and body a sense of grounding and can have practical purpose in life. Just be aware of what is happening. Right Now your mind is creating a story of an experience. It's no big deal. Yes Nothing. . . Yet that's Truth as well. . . The subjective experience certainly feels like deconstruction. There is so much deconstruction that reality becomes Clear. Notice how you are assigning meaning and intention within a story. We could also say that the mind and body was deconstructed so one could be a Clear channel for others. Yet that doesn't seem to resonate with you. Ime, this intellectual story creation is just one component. There is also energetics such as empathy and intuition that are non-verbal. If your intuition tells you that the mind body is reconstructed with Truth/God, then that is what your intuition is telling you and that is true. If you read online that after a 5-meo breakthrough you are *supposed* to be reconstructed with Truth in every neuron, yet your intuition tells you that's not reality - then that is what's happening. To me, it sounds like you are on the verge of sober breakthrough beyond intellectual stories. I would be mindful of how immersed you get into concepts and story creation - it can be helpful to a degree - yet it can hinder deeper levels of embodiment, knowing and expansion. You said that you were deconstructed. If you were deconstructed to clarity - great. Now observe how the deconstruction, construction, deconstruction process works. All around us - a cycle of deconstruction and construction.

Depends on what type of yellow you want to be. Leonardo da Vinci didn't know statistics and he was yellow.

My go-to passage when I have a broken heart:

Being skeptical of scientific claims can still be within the scientific paradigm. E.g. A person may be skeptical of the scientific claim that wine prevents breast cancer, because the sample size was too small and they didn't run the proper controls. That is still within a traditional scientific framework. I am pointing to something more radical here. I am not suggesting that one should believe something without evidence and proof. This gets to the heart of the pre-trans fallacy - the inability to differentiate between irrational and post-rational. If someone says that there is a dinosaur living in their backyard - this would be irrational from one perspective. From this perceptive, show me the evidence . Show me evidence there is a dinosaur in your backyard. . . A very important point: I am not telling you to let go of this perceptive or that this perspective is wrong. What I am saying is that over-use of this perspective in all contexts will be very limiting. A few points (again, I reiterate that this does not mean that certain perspectives are invalid or unuseful - this is about expansion). 1) What IS is prior to evidence and proof. 2) What qualifies as "proof" is contracted within the current paradigm. Over time, what qualifies as evidence evolves and expands as we make new discoveries. What we accept now would appear like magic 500 years ago. Likewise, what will be understood in 500 years will appear like magic to us now. In 500 years, people will look back at us and laugh. 3) Experimental design is often limited due to previous conditioning and assumptions. Overall, science has shown slight, yet significant, data in favor of "paranormal" phenomena. Yet I believe this is under-detecting the phenomena. For example, using traditional scientific methodology to test for extra-sensory perception could actually be limiting the extra-sensory perception - the very thing that we are testing for! I didn't make that claim. Yet I would explore how you conceptualize the terms "matter", "affect" and "our". In a certain context, I would agree with the statement that a mind cannot affect matter. In another context, I would disagree. This is much more nuanced than you are aware of. Reality isn't a binary system.

I understand how it is perceived that way. My career is in the sciences. I have spent 28 years of my life immersed in genetics, molecular, cellular biology and neuroscience - both scientific research and teaching. I have over a dozen publications in top level peer-reviewed scientific journals and I teach science at a University level. I don't dismiss science. This is not a question of science vs. non-science. It is about transcending the traditional scientific paradigm. This does not invalidate science. One becomes aware that traditional science is within something more expansive. Then the term "science" starts to break down and becomes inter-connected with all of reality. I can tell that you are contracted within a traditional scientific paradigm, because I lived that paradigm for over 20 years. The key to transcending it for me is to know that it isn't about invalidating, dismissing, refuting and rejecting science - it is about transcending science. This is a very different orientation. If you frame this as rational science vs. irrational non-science - you will not reach more expansive transcendent levels.

Science has clearly shown that a particle can simultaneously be everywhere and nowhere. That was seen as irrational magic years ago. Like believing in unicorns. Yet know it is accepted in the scientific community. We can. You are within a limited, contracted paradigm and cannot see this. You are asking for "proof" within a particular paradigm. You are free to stay within that paradigm, or you can expand beyond it. Expanding beyond the scientific paradigm does not invalidate it. It is not a science vs. non-science argument. Science is within something more expansive.