Forestluv

A lot can change in three years, yet based on now - if Trump runs in 2024 no republican will run against him in the primary. I’d give it a 50:50 chance he runs. I think there is a good chance Trump keeps suggesting he might run for attention and to maintain his power. Then in the fall of 2023, he finally announces he wont run.

Imo, Josh Hawley is the only one that has the charisma to be the top con man that emotionally manipulates the right wing that lacks critical thinking. Here is going Full Monty pandering to MAGA. My only question is whether he is ruthless and sadistic enough. Trump doesn't give a fuck. I think Hawley still has some fucks to give. In a different environment, I can see him dialing down the batshit crazy and trying to act like a reasonable conservative. All the others can throw red meat, yet are either too cringe (Ted Cruz, Don Jr) or too stiff (Tom Cotton).

@Just Timothy I've been under full anesthesia twice. No way would I try to stay awake. There is a reason they put you under. For me, it was like one minute I'm awake asking questions and the next minute I'm out. My first experience under full anesthesia wasn't like sleep. There is different brain activity. When I wake up from sleep, I generally know that I had been sleeping and for roughly how long. Yet when I revived after full anesthesia, it was like I had died, my body was cryogenically preserved and then I was revived. For a while, I had no idea where I was or for how long I was under. My first question to the nurses was "when is it?". They could have told me two years had past. My second experience was very different. I had to return to the same hospital a month later for a second procedure. It was the same nurses. This time, I was aware of being in the ER and was asking questions. The nurses laughed and said "You asked the same questions last time, you won't remember any of this". I replied "Oh yes I will". They all laughed and said "You said the same thing last time". . . Yet this time, I remembered a neurological trick to put a stake in the ground and remember everything up to that point. I asked the nurse "What is your favorite animal?". She said "Koala Bear". This reminded me of when I saw a Koala Bear while in Australia. . . Then I was out. A couple hours later, I regained consciousness and she was the first nurse I saw. I smiled at her and said "Koala Bear". She was shocked. . . I remembered everything in the OR up to that moment. This time, the full anesthesia felt more like a deep sleep. I wouldn't try to maintain awareness the whole time. Yet if you want to remember the process of going under, ask one of the nurses a simple question with a one word answer. You may remember everything up to that point.

This is what I am pointing to. You are creating a relative construct and trying to stabilize it as being a "universal fact". This is the creation of an external, objective, normalized reality. It is the same dynamic as what religious fundamentalists and scientists do. To me, you are romanticizing relative feelings of joy and peace. Saying 100% of people were 100% joyful / peaceful 100% of the time around Maharshi is nonsensical and absurd. How are you even defining what "joy" and "peace" is? What if someone around Maharshi had hemorrhoids and experienced a painful flare up in their rectum? Are you saying that is "joy" and "peace"? This is the dilemma of objective absolutism. It is similar to someone saying 100% of the bible is literally true. One has to twist themselves into a bizarre pretzel to maintain the narrative. Sure, we can create a construct of "levels" in which "advanced" spiritual beings reach "deeper" states. I see value in these types of relative constructs, yet they are still relative creations. To create a thing called "advanced", we need to relate it to a thing that is "not advanced".

To me, it doesn't seem like you are aware of underlying assumptions and relativity. For example, you write "what everyone has felt when being when being in the presence of an enligthened master" Everyone has not felt the same thing in the presence of what you call an "enlightened master". You seem to be normalizing relative feelings to be external, objective truths. For example, in the presence of Adyashanti your 3rd eye might start buzzing, you may feel relaxed and what you call "the presence of God". Yet this is not what everyone has felt. Sam Harris may be in the prescence of Adyashanti and have a totally different experience. He may get uptight and frustrated and think Adyashanti is a woo-woo charlatan. Similarly, sometimes I feel a sense of buzzing and relaxation when watching Leo's videos, yet you don't. By your standards, Adyashanti would be an enlightened being (relative to you), yet an unenlightened being (relative to Sam Harris). And Leo would sometimes be an enlightened being (relative to me), yet an unenlightened being relative to you. There are many different ways we can create an "enlightened being". As soon as we create a thing, it becomes relative to a not-that-thing. If we say there are enlightened beings, that is relative to non-enlightened beings. Once we enter such a relative domain, there are all sorts of constructs we can create for "enlightened being". I've come across dozens of descriptions / pointers of "enlightened beings". Each construct has value and truth - yet is incomplete since it is a separation from the whole.

"Why Leo has no grace?" Notice the enormous presupposition here. There is a presupposition that there is an objective thing called "grace" in which Leo lacks and that everyone knows what this "grace" thing is. It's not like saying "Leo has no thumbs" in which everyone knows what "thumbs" mean. One might contemplate "what is grace"? And explore many different perspectives and essences. I tried to find what your concept of "grace" is in your OP and the closest I could find is: So, it seems for you that "grace" is that which makes you feel a buzz in your third eye, a light body, relaxed, Godlike, I would say some of the confusion involves assumptions of external, objective things and creating distinctions. Rather than assuming there are objective things of grace, wisdom. awakening. blessings, God's presence etc - consider that you are creating these experiences and ideas. Take a step back and observe the constructs you are creating. For example, the belief that "grace" goes with God's presence. You are giving a characteristic of "Grace" to "God" - and this "Grace" is perceived as feeling a third eye buzz and relaxed. That definition may have practical value, yet it is exclusive. When you don't feel a third eye buzz or relaxed, cognitive dissonance will arise. Your definition would reject aspects of God that is not aligned with your constructs. For example, we can say that God is One Everything. This is contrary to belief and will cause confusion. How can god be that which I don't perceive as grace and relaxation? How can the coronavirus, criminal activity and hatred by God? And if God is Unconditional, that means you too are God and nothing outside of your can bring you to the presence of God - since the presence of God is always with you. A way to expand would be to expand your concept of things like "enlightenment" and "God". Loosen up your grip on your criteria of what counts as "enlightenment" and "God". . . and explore. For example, we might call what you are referring to as "Divine Essence". When you watch Leo, you don't experience certain Divine essence (a third eye buzz, relaxation), yet you experience other Divine essences. You mention that Leo " has profound wisdom of Reality, Truth, Conciousness and Love". So, Leo opens doors for you to profound wisdom of Reality, Truth, Consciousness and Love. We could describe that as aspects of "Divine Essence". Overall, we could say that no one teacher gives us a complete experience of Divine Essence. Rather, each teacher gives us an experience of certain aspects of Divine Essence. This makes sense since our perception of any human being is a finite part of a greater whole. And that whole is YOU.

@Eren Eeager The second one is also a face. Her elbow is the nose.

Generalizations can be useful in some contexts, yet can slow down the process in other contexts. An very important factor is what resonates with someone.

It depends on the person.

Aspects of authority, power, vulnerability and responsibility is highly nuanced.

@Arian Imagine I would like to argue with you about Here and Now. I say that right now it's the year 200 B.C. and you are in a cave cooking dinosaur eggs that you captured this morning. Is that an argument you would engage in? Or would you consider that a waste of time?

"ABC" keeps saying that infinite love is the deepest awakening, yet various "XYZs" say that it is very deep but not the deepest. That the ultimate deepest is simply nothingness and love is its first manifestation. Be aware that a mind can become stuck in formless or stuck in form. A mind of H20 can become formless gas and flow like water and become solid ice form. The 'stickiness' here is the idea of "deepest" - which is a relative construct. It's super easy for the mind to get stuck into a solid ice form within relative constructs. Then, it will start comparing various ice sculptures and get confused by which is the true ice sculpture. The sticking point is not the ice sculptures. The sticking point is the inability to melt the ice sculptures and return to fluid water. An ice sculpture of a dragon and an ice sculpture of a pineapple are both true to their form - and both can be melted to water. We can create the below ice sculpture: "ultimate deepest is simply nothingness and love is its first manifestation." That is a beautiful sculpture that is true to it's form. We could explore this sculpture for a lifetime and barely scratch the surface of it. We could add thousands of details to the sculpture. We can also melt this sculpture to fluid water or formless gas. For example, we could say that Nothing = Everything = Love. The truth of this formless gas does not negate the truth of the sculptured ice form. As well, we can be like water and flow with different forms of beingness. Above, we created conceptual forms. We can also create other forms, such as emotions (not the concepts of emotions - the actuality of it). And with each of those, we can create an ice sculpture - such as an ice sculpture of emotional love. Yet this will be maddening to a mind that wants to walk across the lake to reach a destination. Here, the mind craves solid ice as grounding to walk upon. It will become confused and frustrated as the ice transforms to water, gas and back to ice.

Boredom is a human emotion that appears. You seem to be asking if it's possible for boredom to never appear within a human being. I suppose it's possible. And it depends on your definition of "total enlightenment". For example, we could define "total enlightenment" as "awareness of what is". In this regard, enlightenment isn't boredom - rather boredom appears in enlightenment. When you observe another person experiencing boredom, are you the boredom that person is experiencing?

It's both different and not different. By creating "not different", we also create "different" as contrast as to 'not be'. We need at least two things to have the construct of "not different" or different". In terms of expansion and clarity: if one can only see the difference, it's helpful to point to the 'no difference'. If one can see the 'no difference', it's helpful to point to the 'difference'. As well, there are domains 'prior' to concepts of different and not different. Such things are not present. You are creating things of meaning, symbolized by words such as "content" and "context". This can be further deconstructed to Nothing / Everything.

@Gesundheit Tone down the quasi trolling

@Jodo This perspective seems hyper personal to me. It’s like asking “Why can’t I enter a psychedelic realm and bring back some goodies for myself?”. For me, development of abilities has been a secondary outcome. The primary outcomes are self dissolution, mind expansion and clarity.

I would agree that all governments include power dynamics that is attractive to those that are corrupt or corruptible. Yet I think the quote is also misleading because it suggests 100% of government will corrupt 100% of politicians and government is 100% filled with corrupt politicians. This is a hyper-simplistic construct that lacks degrees and nuances. For example, both the Obama and Trump administrations included elements of corruption, yet Trump's administration had greater degrees of corruption than Obama's.

I will DM you.

It seems like you are gifted with meditation and skilled with it. If you want to expand, psychedelics can help - yet I would also consider breathwork. If you resonate as strongly with breathwork as you do meditation, you will expand and enter trip-like states. The nice thing about breathwork realms / insights is the grounded awareness. Ime, it is generally lighter on the mind-body and easier to integrate than psychedelics.

Sorta like gradually waking up from a deep, vivid dream state. In the dream, there is no 'you' thinking "Ok this was a great dream. I better wake up and go to work". That character isn't present in the dream. You just spontaneously wake up (assuming no alarm clock). . . Now imagine a gradual transition of waking up. Thoughts, images and memories of "me" begin to appear, yet you are still halfway in the dream and cannot distinguish between real and imagined. From a neuroscience perspective, we could say that the psychedelic chemical starts to wear off and baseline brain activity returns. Yet there is not a conscious chooser deciding to return. Yet what you seem to be asking about goes much deeper. Not only would the sense of self dissolve, everything would dissolve. You would have no senses, you would not be able to recognize language. That all gets deconstructed and then reconstructed on the return. That's the best I can contextualize it, others may do so differently.

This is not my experience. Ime, a high dose of psychedelic will lead to self dissolution and a form of nondual experience, yet not necessarily an infinite singularity. I've only experienced that on 5-meo. Yet, of course, I'm contextualizing it as "my experience". There was no separate things present.

Ideas of 'me' dissolve and there is no concept of "me" separate from Everything. There is no thoughts like "A great trip, yet I better wrap this up and return back to myself". The return just happens. Yet the nice thing about 5-meo is that the return is somewhat gradual. There are a few minutes in which One can observe the return. For me, this is one of the most profound parts of the trip because it is a bridge to higher consciousness. Ime, to reach that level - I had to be willing to surrender everything. My sanity, job, family and life. Everything. And not just for one trip. During my month-long 5-meo retreat, I approached a gate around day 7 (while 'sober'). To keep going, I had to leave all my bags behind. That day I was allowed to decide whether I was willing to lose it all. I decided to keep going and that was the last day "me" was present. The concept of a "me" didn't return for another 20 days and it was a bit traumatic when it did. Ime, reaching the deepest levels required the willingness to lose anything and everything I valued. Including my mind and body. Yet there are many amazing realms which does not have that entry price. I wouldn't frame it like that. Committing suicide has an association of suffering so bad, one takes their life. I've never had those energetics entering a trip. In terms of the psychological self, I think a better description would be 'ego dissolution'. The experience of the dissolution process can vary greatly. I've had trips in which it was beyond blissful. I was presented with the choice of holding onto a finite, insecure, separate being or a realm of expansion, Oneness and Love. It's a no-brainer. I'm like "Heck yea!! See ya old self, let's goooo!!!". There have been other times in which the self holds on and fits. I experience some trips as something is trying to possess me. Rather than surrender, I try to keep control of my mental narrative. This can lead to extreme anxiety and terror. This very much feels like dying. Yet rather than committing suicide, it's more like being over-powered and some other entity trying to kill me. Surrender is the key. If the mind fights, things can turn ugly. These dynamics were more of an issue when I was a newbie. After enough trips, it starts to become normal. Yet I won't do high doses of certain psychedelics because the body load is too intense and my mind-body was never able to adapt to heavy body loads.

Yes, the term “neurotransmitter” may suggest an endogenous molecule in some scientifc circles.. Yet if you really have a background in neuroscience, you should be well aware that you are playing a pedantic game of semantics that is partially inaccurate. For all practical purposes, psychedelics are neurotransmitters, both in structure and function. LSD is a better agonist for serotonin pathways than serotonin, You are missing the underlying concepts because you are too rigid with terms. It doesn’t matter if a molecule is endogenously produced or exogenously consumed. It’s all part of the cellular biology. A serotonin receptor does not care about labels of “endogenous” or “exogenous”. That serotonin receptor will bind either LSD or serotonin, which then transmits an intracellular response within the post-synaptic neuron.

To me, self inquiry is an advanced practice that I cannot force. It’s not like the process of building a house and producing a house. It’s more like sitting around relaxed and a question like “what is genuine?” arises and then entering a lucid dreamlike consciousness of exploration. Various insights are revealed, yet it’s not like I get a rock solid answer for “genuine”. It’s much more fluid than that. The inquiry of “who am I?”, never resonated much for me. Yet I can see how it would resonate with others. For me, sitting in ‘I AMness ‘ resonated much stronger. This has a more Beingness orientation, self inquiry can have a very thinking / answer driven orientation to an intellectual mind. In terms of inquiry, I would prefer a question like “who/what is aware of the question ‘who am I?”. And then dwell in that experience, rather than trying to answer the question. Trying to answer the question is within ‘me’, not a meta awareness of ‘me-ness’.

From the comment section: When you ask yourself the question “am i aware”...you refer to an objective-quality less experience of being aware and a thought rises “yes”. If you stay with that experience after the thought (being aware of being aware),awareness gradually ,in time ,loses its limitations and the true nature of awareness will shine as it is .This process is called self abidance.