Forestluv

@Nahm We are all inter-connected by nothing. . . I love me some trans-rational humor

How does it feel to take a step back and rephrase as follows: "I Am" "There is spirit" Does that resonate or does some resistance arise?

@MM1988 It's a strategy for a self to cope with life. From a nondual perspective, you are God. So God would be "testing" itself. You seem to be conflating pain and suffering.

When the illusion is realized, what remains?

@Nahm We've got *nothing* in common. . .

That does "nothing" for me

A few things that have helped me: 1. Anything that relaxes the mind (yoga, meditation, running, time in nature etc.) 2. Let go of trying to stop thinking. It just makes it worse. When you are in a noisy restaurant, do you try to stop other people from talking to quiet things down? Of course not, you just let the background chatter do it's thing. Similarly, rather than trying to stop thoughts, allow it to be background chatter. You can sit and observe background chatter in a restaurant. See if you can observe background chatter in your mind. 3. Leo's "Do Nothing" meditation is great for hyper-active minds. It may seem overly simple, yet it can be a very powerful tool.

IME, the energetic shift from Orange to Green did not arise from self interest to progress up the spiral. That would be a personal achievement goal that is Orange-centered. After 20+ years of being Orange-centered, I hit an existential crisis. I took logic and rational thinking to it's Orange end. It became so painful that I could no longer continue. I was hyper logical. over-analyzed everything and got into debates a lot. My career, my relationships, my view on life. It was no longer fulfilling. Then, an energetic desire for something deeper emerged. To understand the relative experience of others. To form deep human connections. To experience post-rational being. I had to give up A LOT of attachments to beliefs - yet the struggle was well worth it. Green is much more fulfilling than Orange. Once go Green, ya never go back. . .

Perhaps. Yet, the inquiry comes from a much deeper nuance within direct experience - not via conceptualization. My sense is there is a particular distinction to integrate the direct experience knowing to conceptual understanding. I know Leo has direct experience with the null void and has deeper integration than I. He immediately recognized my direct experience as Mu via his own direct experience. He has a knack at understanding people's direct experience partial awakenings and connecting dots toward a more expansive / deeper awakening. A skill I am working to develop. Edit: Yikes, I just realized Leo's latest video is on perception and I haven't watched it yet. Perhaps the key lies within the video. Juicy stuff.

@graded24 Great stuff. Thank you. The part about the quantum world appearing "fuzzy" is awesome. The human mind has millions of years of evolution to easily understand a macro environment. As well, humans get conditioned from birth to conceptualize a macro world: object : subject, motion, gravity etc. It's like we develop a maco lens for the world and when we try to focus on something close-up - the image is fuzzy. I remember when the internet arose - conceptually it was mindblowing. It took a while to process new ways of looking at reality. Yet, kids today need zero processing - digital phenomena just is. They have no more difficulty accepting nearly instantaneous transfer of images across the world as they have accepting the sandwich they are eating. Both simply are. I wonder if children were taught concepts like superposition - they would easily accept and grasp it - since they have no prior lens to make it "fuzzy". They are taught Europe is a continent on the other side of the world - they accept it no problem. They are taught the earth revolves around the sun - they accept it no problem. What if they are taught one thing can be many things at once? I bet they would accept it no problem. From my experience in cellular biology, assumptions and dogma is most strongly ingrained in the "old guard". I'd say young scientists are more open to new discoveries, looking at things differently and progressing into new frontiers. Yet it seems their zealous nature is prone to drifting off into what some call "pseudo science". I'm curious of the "old guard" physicists put up more resistance than the young budding physicists. As well, you mentioned the language of math is better suited to convey quantum phenomena. I often hear nonduality teachers say that "It" cannot be explained in words - that words are inherently dualistic. The words only point to what cannot be described with words. I'm curious if you think it is similar with quantum mechanics. Are words inherently unable to describe quantum phenomena? Or language simply lagging behind? If quantum phenomena became mainstream, could new English words / concepts arise to communicate it on par with the language of math? English has evolved to communicate other physical phenomena such as electricity, magnetism, gravity, Could English evolve to communicate quantum phenomena?

Alrighty. . . so when 5-meo took me to the null void - all distinctions gradually dissolved and there was absolute nothing. There was no perceiver and nothing to be perceived. Then, the first distinction appeared and there was awareness of it. Yet, this awareness was prior to a "self". Gradually, more and more distinctions arose. . . a basic shape, a color. As more distinctions gradually arose, it took a long time until the first symbols, words and concepts appeared. And a very long time until a self arose. Once the self arose, there was a different feel to the awareness. So different I'd rather not use the same word for it. Based on this direct experience, there is a knowing of perception prior to words, concepts, and a self. Yet in that null void, nothing existed. I know I'm conceptualizing here, but. . . it seemed one could group it into three stages: 1. Nothing ; 2. prior-self awareness ; 3. Self-based awareness. Reflecting back on it, I could make a distinctive "essence" to each stage. There was like a pivot point to each stage. So, how can one say perception exists in the null void? Is this a radically deeper usage of the terms "perception" and "existence" or was it a partial awakening?

I'll start the ball rolling with a couple questions for @graded24: As a preface, I have little knowledge in Quantum Systems - yet I find it fascinating. Almost like a bridge from science to mysticism. First, the stereotype of science is that it is limited to materialism, yet Quantum Mechanics seems to include both. For example, there is the basic idea that a material entity can have an immaterial superposition. For example, could one imagine an electron as both form and formless - the formless takes form upon observation? Or, would it be better to use a more classic scientific view in that energy is neither created or destroyed - only transformed. Here, one could one imagine an unobserved electron is an energy field of possible positions and upon observation that energy is transformed into a physical particle? Similar to chemical energy in a car being transformed into kinetic energy?

Yep. Just as scientists get stuck in scientific paradigms - spiritualists get stuck in spiritual paradigms. It boils down to ideology. I know it well, I was trapped in the scientific paradigm for over 20 years. Science as materialism is a limited belief. Materialism is *within* science. The scientific method is open to the immaterial.

Be mindful of lack of direct experience and knowledge. I've spent well over 50,000 hours immersed in conducting and evaluating science. I became full immersed into science as an expert, then transcended science. From this direct experience, the views you offer on science appear naive. It seems you are making assumptions about science without a deep level of direct experience and knowledge. For example, science is not limited to materialism.

It is "known" by which it appears. It is "known" by itself. This is one facet of awakening. All of these concepts are highly sophisticated distinctions. Even concepts that appear to transcend concepts. Go to the place before you were born. Go to the place that proceeds all concepts. All language. All images. All symbols. All distinctions collapse into nothing. A lot of what's being offered in this thread are awakenings. Some of which I have not yet had direct experience. Yet, one facet of awakening that seems to be getting off track is that it's all inherently meaningless. I get the sense that there is some attachment to very sophisticated, subtle spiritual beliefs. There is nothing "wrong" with that, it's just extremely difficult for the self to be aware of. One facet of true freedom is zero attachment to anything. Regardless of how spiritual the idea is. Can a buddhist monk let go of all his profound beliefs and experiences? How about an advaita master? How about a scientific master? Can they let go of them like they were just a fantasy dream? Or do they actually believe them?

I don't get the sense you have direct experience with the null void of absolute nothing yet. This is a question of distinctions which traveling to and from the null void can reveal. IME, 5-meo is the best tool to travel there.

Not my point at all. The point is that what was once unimaginable appeared. Throughout history, human minds have made limiting assumptions. You are working within a finite set of concepts. Be careful using terms like "impossible" and "never". This is a huge assumption error and saying "this is fundamentally different" is a restriction within a limited belief paradigm. Reality is infinite. ANYTHING can appear, because Anything is within nothing/everything. If reality wants to reveal the essence of existential nature through science, it will happen - regardless of whether your finite mind can imagine it or thinks it is possible. The ideas you present are based on your evolving perception of reality - which is based on less than 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of all available information. This would round off to zero. . . It's like saying that jakibibs will never be able to fanilikate because hatikastin can never be pulatifined with zastekimin. It's fun stuff, just be mindful of whether you actually believe it as true.

Yes, however that is not the distinction I am making. Be careful of using previous paradigms as the basis of future paradigms. The point is: just because you can’t imagine something - doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist or cannot appear. This is a classic assumption error. Reality can create an infinite number of tools. Of which, 99.999999999999999999999% you cannot imagine. For example, the old paradigm was that science only studies the material world. This is a limiting belief. We are seeing scientific discoveries in the immaterial world (e.g. in quantum mechanics). How science is conducted and expressed evolves. There will be scientific revolutions in the future that we cannot imagine today. If you were transported 1,000 years into the future, it would be so far outside of your limited beliefs that you would likely go insane.

How were scientists able to see microbes? Just because you can’t imagine something, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist or will not appear. We each have less than one trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of all available information. That would round off to zero. Be aware of making assumptions based on essentially zero knowing.

Be careful using the term “never”. It is a hyper-limited term. A finite mind cannot imagine what science will be expressed or discovered in the next 1,000 years. Phenomena and concepts we don’t know exist today will be revealed. Saying “never” is a huge assumption that finite minds have made throughput history. It is just a limited concept. Reality is infinite and can do whatever it wants, including things a human mind considers “impossible”. It would be more accurate to say “with our current level of knowledge and how science is currently been conducted - has been unable to detect this.

@winterknight The story of “me” remains. Playing along with that story seems handy at times since most people are oriented toward interpersonal relations. I’ve found it awkward to operate from a nondual orientation

Of course. Does that fictional character appear within your mind-body to interact with other fictional characters?

Do you find it necessary to play a character during daily interactions with with unawakened characters that see themselves as separate entities?

Thanks! I gave her the info. She seems very caring and has mentioned compatability a few times. She said the chart was “interesting”. I see her tonight and will find out more.

@winterknight Have you considered a Youtube channel? Perhaps with callers or write-in questions? For some teachers nonverbal tone of voice, facial expressions and body language can be an asset - for others it's a liability. I teach at a college, so I don't have to find an audience. But for some students, they are a captive audience @Emerald on this forum has a nice youtube channel