Forestluv

I’ve had enlightened experiences, but I am not enlightened. The enlightened state is transient and not maintained. However, it has altered my perspective in my unenlightened state. One becomes skeptical to the point everything gets deconstructed and you die. I recommend watching Leo’s recent blog video on skepticism and Nonduality, He explains the process better than I can. To my self, the process is at times beautiful, terrifying, liberating, loving, sad, lonely, connected. There came a point of no return. I can no longer say “Ya know what, I tried this spiritual thing for a while now and it’s just not working for me. I think I’ll try something else”. There was a time I could have turned away, yet I no longer can. I’ve tried several times and can’t. I guess I have to take this to the end. It’s both exciting and scary.

5-meo is like an alarm clock ?

Currently, I don’t feel a strong enough pull to pursue that. Yet, I sense I am evolving in that direction. Well, this is a post-rational thread and you seem to be asking the questions within a rational framework (by assuming only yes/no answers and using a materialist paradigm). If you reached a place of stillness and awakened to a post-rational answer, would you accept it? What if the answer that arose involved the integration of concepts such as purple and discipline? Would you rationalize that answer away as being irrational? Your questions also assumes an observer and object. What if you became aware of a place in which there was no observer or object? Would you let go of the materialist paradigm and explore that area? One can spend a lifetime in rationality. Don’t let spiritual rationality fool you. I estimate I spent over 100,000 hours in a rational thought trap before escaping. . .

I wouldn’t want to do it alone. I would want to be at a Turquoise-level institution with awakened beings where we integrate science, metaphysics and nonduality. This area is just starting to emerge, yet is still considered fringe pseudo-science. If I evolve high enough, I may become a pioneer in this field - yet right now it looks unattainable and too risky to me. Personally, I would like to investigate if mutations are nonrandom and some paranormal phenomena. Yet, my institution wouldn’t be open to that. Yet, if I develop more confidence, I might try to pull it off. Yet stage Yelow stuff is lots of fun to and my institution is very supportive at that level. They just don’t like any whoo whoo stuff.

I’m mindful of how far I can step outside the scientific paradigm and the reactions of my collegues. I can develop my stage yellow without problem at my academic institution. Yet, if I venture too far into Turquoise. I will be labeled a pseudo-scientist or a quack. I’m trying to figure a way to do it without being threatening to my colleagues.

One method is self inquiry. Contemplate something like “what is a thought?”. Do not get rational like “A thought is an impulse in the brain stimulted by neurotransmitters at synapses”. Rather, relax the mind and enter an empty stillness. Observe what arises. Imagine you are observing cells divide under a microscope. Observe your own consciousness. Record “data”. Then allow for integration of data points to create a more holistic view. Be mindful if you start analyzing things rationally. Once you get the hang of it, it’s hella fun,. Rational thought and linear logic bores the hell out of me these days.

Bingo! I think most scientists enter their education in search of what’s true. Then, they get conditioned and cynical. They lose that chil-like curiosity and fascination to discover what IS, just for the sake of discovering what is. IMO, that mindest can help fuel the evolution of science. Many scientists are dogmatic and trapped within the scientific paradigm. You get grants, publications and tenure for following the status quo. Yet, that’s not how you get famous. You get famous in science by overturning dogma and status quo. It’s getting harder and harder to do, but it’s still there. For example, quantuum biology may discover how observation alters the reality of biology at the molecular level. A pioneering scientist may develop new methods to account for this - opening up a whole new generation of biological research. Such a scientist would eventually be seen on a much higher level than your Richard Dawkins type scientists. Yet, our pioneering scientist would likely have to go against the grain and face risks. Personally, I hold back at my work because I’m not yet ready to lose my job.

And what comes prior to sight and illusion? One can dig deeper: all senses, perception, insights are also bullshit. (Again, “bullshit” does not have a positive or negative value).

I hear ya. . . . So I’m out to dinner on a first date with this gal. We go into some deep existential discussion. I’m in my comfort zone. Then there was a long period of silence and energy, intuition, empathy bubbled up. That “whoo whoo” airy fairy stuff. I wanted to avoid it and start talking again or go to the restroom. But then I tried to surrender to it. The thought arose “Hang on. Shit just got real. You made it through that Ayahuasca ceremony, you can make it through this”. ??

I’m just beginning to explore intuition. I recently met a gal who is highly intuitive and has experienced paranormal states - it’s eerie. Yet, she has never experienced psychedelics before. There is a fascinating attraction between us.

These are great spritutual discussions for evolution. Perhaps intuition and insight is the same, or perhaps they are similar. Kinda like chocolate and fudge are similar.

Isn’t it super cool? Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens were two of my heroes. Their rational IQ was so high that I thought any confusion I had must mean I’m not yet intelligent enough to understand. Then I began realizing they lack the ability to use higher modes of being. It was like they are super skilled at using a saw, then you wonder “why aren’t they using a chainsaw here?”. Then comes the realization that they are unable to use a chainsaw and might not even know a chainsaw exists. It’s kinda trippy- I didn’t know if I was going insane. Regarding terms, I consider pre-rational and irrational to be pretty much the same. Post-rational is different to me. I make distinctions because I see many people group multiple levels as being “irrational”. Language is super cool. Take “intuition” for example. Why is there only one word for intuition? If everyone spent two hours a day contemplating, discussing and developing their intuition, there would be dozens of words to describe all the nuances and subtleties of intuition. Leo is the first person I’ve seen use a new term for intuition - “hyper-intuition”. So we know have two flavors of intuition. How many more will arise?

That is post-rational. Richard Dawkins is a brilliant rationalist, yet he cannot see the limits of rational thought. Deepak Chopra can use rational thought, understands the limits of rational thought and can communicate post-rationally. Deepak would not view Dawkins as irrational like he would view a child that believes in Santa Claus is irrational.

Rationality is not irrational. Rationality is post- irrational. A child that realizes Santa Clause isn’t real and understands why the belief is irrational is becoming rational.

What makes a child scared of a monster hiding under his bed irrational?

Rational is rational. There is also pre-rational (e.g. a child) and post-rational (e.g. a mystic). A rationalist will conflate pre- and post- rational as both being irrational. A child scared of a monster hiding under his bed is different than a mystic contacting a being in another realm. Yet to a rationalist they are both at the same level - irrational.

It seems like you are still categorizing “bullshit” and “non-bullshit”. Notice how in the video Leo rambled off about a hundred forms of “bullshit”. Most people would nod their head for some examples and think “yea, that religion stuff is bullshit”. Yet in the same person, there is also the sense “hey wait a minute, science, evolution etc. isn’t bullshit - it’s different than religious bullshit”. The deeper level transcends bullshit. Imagine you are dreaming - is any part of the dream more “bullshit” than any other part?

Of course. To a rationalist, both pre-rational and post-rational will appear irrational and absurd. One must transcend rational thought for deeper direct experience and understanding.

Post-rational science is not only possible, it is a powerful spiritual method. The scientific method is not bound by logic - that view is constrained within the scientific paradigm. Try post-rational science on yourself. You are your best experimental subject to conduct post-rational science. You may find the data to be fascinating ?

Yes. It’s all “bullshit”, including that idea and this idea. When I went to Mu, everything was deconstructed to nothingness, then reconstructed to everythingness. There is an IS prior to all the language and ideas. Prior to ALL ideas - even wonderful ideas, insightful ideas etc. From this perspective, all ideas are just appearances from nothing. “Bullshit” doesn’t mean bad or good. It’s just a term to knock people off their rational grounding into something that becomes groundless, then becomes groundless ground. Regarding irritation, if a kid kept urinating in the punch bowls at a party, it would be challengeing to remain patient and show the child unconditional love - especially after drinking his piss juice. It’s human nature to get irritated at times.

@Joseph Maynor The deeper level is seeing it’s all “bullshit”. All the religion, science, philosophy, buddhist theory, Maya, psychology etc. The problem of the human mind is it can’t see it’s own bullshit. All thought and concepts are bullshit - the problem is when a mind believes it’s true. I just watched a Shinzen Young video. Great insights, yet he has deeper levels to go. He seems to believe what he is saying. Believing in your thoughts and concepts is as psychotic as believing in an imaginaty friend. Our minds are writting creative stories. It can be a creative story about the planet Zarcon and how the jimlee beings interact within their space and how they interact with the camlin beings. We could creativly write about their social structures, experiences, emotions, diet - what is good and bad etc. Yet at the end of the day we could walk away from the writing, realize it is just fantasy and get back to our “real” life. It is *much* harder to realize that all of our own thoughts and concepts about “real” life is also just fantasy bullshit. All of it. I thought Leo’s blog video on skepticism and nonduality was brilliant. IMO, he can go to Alan Watts level depth, yet with his own unique expression/approach.

I agree. Rather than assuming what is real, let’s get curious about what is real. Serotonin trips are consistent in that they are generally nondual. Yet, they can vary greatly. That’s like asking “why are dreams so consistent?”

The same way a chainsaw works so well.

@sarapr Excellent questions. Th scientific method involves formulating a testable hypothesis, making predictions, gathering and interpreting data, modifying the original hypothesis. Beyond the method, the scientist would strive to place the data into a model, which in turn would be placed within a larger model. For example, placing data of protein interactons into a model of cell division regulation which is placed into a larger model of cancer. Each point above is filled with subjectivity and biases. Scientists admit this to an extent (for example using double blind studies). Yet they are unaware of how deep the subjetivity/bias runs. It’s difficult for scientists to study the greater truth because science is *within* the greater truth. If there is one everything and there is no-thing, how can a scientist step outside of everything to objectively study some thing? Science is a great tool to study the nature of reality. It is useful, yet limited. How can we make science better? I’d say by increasing our awareness of how science fits within a larger holistic view. To acknowledge that we scientists use metaphysics in our work. To acknowledge how little we understand about reality - and not just about the details of protein interactions in cancer cells - also fundamental aspects of reality. To give up the scientists’ obsession with controlling the narrative and to give up power as the arbitrator of truth. To be open minded about how intuition can increase our ability to conduct science. To see science as one tool to study the nature of reality and combine this tool with other constructive tools in psychology and philosophy. More importantly, we should combine constructive science tools with deconstructive tools found in nonduality, mysticism, metaphysics etc. *Disclaimer: I was a life-long scientist within the scientific paradigm before escaping the trap a couple years ago.

@The Blind Sage What was your dosage and setting?