Search the Community

Thought I’d do something a bit different and simply post my well wishes to all of you on the spiritual path. I am sure many you can relate to the various emotions of happiness, joy, confusion, fear, nihilism, frustration, bliss (most likely missing 100+ emotions) that come along with taking this journey. I see many of you post some of your breakthroughs as well as down points. All of it is inspiring to say the least, we are embarking upon on something that is beyond the human realm, a task that only a few of us who lived to have ever awakened to the nature of God. For those of you who are struggling, and still working with the dark night of the soul, be kind to yourself..and know that whatever pain that is involved in this will be worth it in the end. There is a reason why much suffering happens to achieve awakening, and that’s because God realization will literally absolve all suffering you incurred..no matter what amount. So with this, I send my love and encouragement to you all. When you reach your awakening, we will unite as one in the same ??❤️. Best of luck.

@Leo Gura You're using a conflation to dodge what I'm saying. Yes, it's true that the present moment is itself "directly true" in our experience. But you cannot make ontological claims about the nature of that experience based on conceptual understanding from past experiences in which you remember having an understanding of such a thing. Your memory of those experiences is happening NOW, and as such is purely conceptual NOW. To make claims about the ineffable absolute with concepts is nonsense, which is why you simply can't say "it's all imagination." You can't get around this problem--if it is not your direct experience right now (and I mean the actual knowing of the ineffable), then anything you say about it is mental masturbation. If you think you "know", you're fooling yourself. Enlightenment MUST be your moment-to-moment experience, or you simply aren't there because your mind is still fabricating all kinds of delusion right at the level of basic perception. One concept you love to use but don't really question is this idea of "levels of consciousness". You are being loose with your definition and using that looseness to justify things that you shouldn't. Basic consciousness should properly mean "a moment of knowing" of some sensation or thought. That's it. You use it interchangeably with "depth of nuance / understanding of context," which is useful for things like Spiral Dynamics but frankly a totally different meaning. You're using this second meaning when you say "infinite consciousness," which is actually kind of funny because you're actually getting off on the idea of something infinitely conceptual. This is a trap. It's the VR simulation of the real enlightenment (which is an illustrative analogy, not a duality). This is really the whole problem with your work: it is inescapably based on concepts alone. And the real understanding of what enlightenment IS (and what Reality IS) is therefore lost. Also, be really careful with how you use the duality defense. Again, there's a difference between ultimately saying "all dualities collapse" and using that line to eliminate distinctions that expose your errors. Dualities exist AND don't exist. At an absolute level, of course, we're all enlightened because there's no difference between enlightenment and non-enlightenment. At the relative level of your mind, however, you are not "awakened" because somebody told you about nonduality (which is, in a sense, no different than remembering it from an experience because both are concepts). The reason meditation is different is because it is about unraveling the identity which leads to fabricating distinctions where no distinctions actually exist--and this affects your present experience. As the illusion is deconstructed, perception stops being clouded and you eventually see what is actually Right Here, Right Now. As long as any shred of ego/separation exists in your mind-body, you won't have access to this. I'm sorry man, but you need to do this work if you ever want to actually understand that which is nonconceptual in an ultimate way. There's a reason ALL the masters tell you psychedelics are "not it", and it's not just ego or lack of sufficient usage.

@Slifon nofap, this increases the chance of the Kundalini energy catching fire during meditation. If you're able to fully surrender during meditation and once the pointy orgasm inthe spine shows up, focus on it, this might awaken it. Describe the energy of the lsd trip pls exactly how it moved how it felt etc. I have yet to meet anyone who awakened Kundalini and didn't have any symptoms. Kryias (involuntary movements) are the most common. And a lot of heat. Very bad cases of Kundalini awakenings can lead to psychosis or DP/DR.

@Flowerfaeiry I would maybe say it this way: that you are imagining (also believing) that they are separate from you and that you believe that you are that which is thinking: "I" (that which I think/believe I am) am imagining "them" (that which I believe/think "they" are). You believe that there is an individual "you" looking at a separate "them" saying "I am imagining them". Even as I say "you", this is something different to what you think (lol). My "you" and "your" "you" are two completely different things. What if one was an idea and one was real? Let's look at it this way: When I say "I am sad", "I am happy", "I am me", these are products of intelligence, of life, of mind, of the universe. The "I" here is also a product of intelligence because you (as intelligence/life/God/consciousness) believes that "you" are separate (to reality). This "I" (what you think you are) is not really what you are (e.g. we erroneously think that we are a person in the world and experiencing the world/reality). But, you are not "in" reality, you are reality imagining that you are an individual person in reality (your true self) and are separate to that reality. Reality/consciousness/God/Truth/"What is" believes that it is something separate inside itself. This error is supposed to happen. If we are not awakened, it is because we are meant to be asleep. This is why people say that it's not a choice that the individual person makes (to wake up). Also, our sleep (dream) is not real. So it's best that we do not reinforce it by beating ourselves up over it. If we still feel an emotion when we are told that we are not awake, this make us even more asleep. Because we believe it, we need to see it as just a belief. So the "I can tell you're not awake" comment doesn't hold water anymore, when you investigate the "I" and the "you're" here. Even the word "awake" is not really what the true awake means. We might even be able to say that you're already awake, but you don't know what awake means lol, in a way. I like to think of ego as a verb, not a noun. Ego is a doing-ness that happens when we believe that we are that which we are not. Ego "happens" when reality is tricked into thinking it's a product of itself. It starts when we "believe" the thoughts arising in our mind. We could equate "believing" to "having". Believing "happens" as a consequence of what you are. Who is believing? Who is imagining? and is this "who" separate from what is believed or imagined? That's why meditation works because it is a silencing of the mind. There is no ego in deep sleep. There is just you. Awareness works here too, because awareness (true awareness, not the idea of what it is) is real, and you are real. You are not anything that can be imagined. If it arises in your awareness, it's not the real you, it's a product of the real you. I hope this helps Peace and love, Lenny

Value is a rationalization & justification for aversion / seeking, perpetuating the activity of thought or thinking, which is the only veil. It seems like you’re on a track in this way, and that if you keep going you’ll find the value eventually. But that is more of a hamster wheel. In silence truth inevitably becomes unquestionably clear. Insight only arises within you, and you can experience all the insights you’d like to about the multiverse. They will come from, so to speak, the source within you… once the activity of thought settles. Foolish or wise, true or not true, awakened people or unawakened people, authority or no authority… these have no actuality. That is the thought activity. The veil.

I agree that reality can only be verified in one's own experience, this cannot be any other way. But, as I am not awakened, I cannot be certain that there is no value in seeking answers in forums as a method to point myself in the right direction, or provide some clarity on certain questions. If you are awakened you may feel this is foolish, and you may tell me it's foolish, but from my own perspective, you could be wrong or lying about this too. As an unawakened person, there is absolutely no way I can avoid doing stupid things that lead to nowhere in my quest for answers because I need to unturn all rocks. Heck, I don't even know for sure if awakening is real. I only am told it's real by people who claim they are enlightened. It's a gamble.

This is still a subtle duality. You posit a substratum vs its contents. This is duality. You are the contents as much as the substratum. Formlessness is form. You are the dream. No, it's not merely for the sake of enjoyment. Some states are awakened states while others are not. You cannot awaken without a state change. So what you seek is a change in state. So don't poo-poo state change. All states are Absolute Truth, but not all states are aware of this fact. The default sober human state is not Absolute-aware. The point of spiritual work is to change that. I am not saying you have to explore all states. This would be impossible anyway since they are infinite in number. But you should care about state since it runs your whole sense of reality and quality of life. The idea of ignoring states, as they didn't matter, is absurd. That is terrible advice for newbies.

I'm the last person to tell you there is nothing to do you're already awake lol it's true on the ultimate level but on the relative level there is A LOT of work being done. Even afterwards. ALl those debates are pointless and entertainment, as long as you put it on paper it's biased. The better way to measure non-duality BBC is to have a survey of describing people's moment to moment experience, perception and etc (even that's an inference when it comes down to "subject experience"). Instead of talking about how much you can lift and the science behind your training philosophy, compare the physiques of 2 bodybuilders side by side. Jefferey Martin describes what he calls "enlightenment dogmatism" which i find very interesting. People who's had Realizations tend to think their own awakening is the highest most profound, even very awakened, ESPECIALLY the very awakened ones fall into this trap lol. But when he sits down with beings from different traditions who seem to have disagreement about this stuff on paper are actually describing the same thing Cessation is not necessary, nor is it the ultimate Truth it's just a useful tool is all. But the point is it's hard to Realize and lock in all possible states without the entire range of consciousness, from unconsciousness to super consciousness.

Thought to share these insights with the forum .. The ability to see Oneness in your present experience. This means you have broken down all distinctions between all aspects of reality, and have deeply realized that all distinctions are imaginary. Seeing science for what it is...concept. If you are still loyal to various scientific theories and models, that you deem responsible for explaining reality/existence, then you are not awakened. One must have realized that Truth is prior to science, and all other concepts (religion included). Realizing that you are not a human. Your physical body and thoughts are simply an appearance in reality, just like everything else. By appearance in reality, I mean an appearance in God's dream. Building on point #3, further realizing that not only is all of reality an appearance in God's dream, but going deeper to find out that you are God. Other terms can be used such has: Love, Consciousness, Infinity, the Divine to name a few. The term doesn't matter in the end, the essence of your nature is what counts. Understanding that solipsism is false in a relative domain, but true in an Absolute domain. Meaning, relatively speaking, there are many perspectives occurring at once..science says these perspectives are happening in the human brain..therefore each perspective in unique to each human. When you awaken, you realize that God (or you) is actually dreaming up each of these perspectives...therefore in a solipsistic state. Dissolving all fear, including the fear of death. It doesn't matter what happens after the human body-mind dies, you as God will continue to manifest conscious states. Whether it's some state of cessation, or a re-birth in another time/place...your imagination never ceases. Thus you are immortal. Understanding that the human does indeed have free will, but this free will is granted by God. It's free in the human mind, but it can be revoked by the will of God at any time by simply un-imagining the human when it wants.

Been feeling quite a lot of pain and upset in my heart last night and this morning, the awakened energy's really pressing against those blockages in my heart which is making for a pretty uncomfortable, rather painful experience at the moment. I noticed some upset in my sacral chakra this morning too, which is interesting - that was a particular problem area for me a few years back when I was really struggling, I'd often feel a very painful contraction in that area, like a clenched fist in my gut, and a lot of upset ( I noticed there seemed to be a strong connection between the issues in my sacral and heart chakras around that time). It's generally felt much clearer since then though, so it's interesting that I've experienced a flare-up - not exactly sure what triggered that, though it passed pretty quickly (I think meditating this morning probably helped to alleviate it).

Krishnamurti says, "there is no justice where there is no compassion, love and mercy." Then, through our love, compassion, and mercy, do we have the right to kill? In the manga I posted above, the main character believes people have the right to kill for justice. In other words, he may have associated love, compassion, and mercy with punishment/or even death. I saw one of Leo's posts where he said to discount ever killing criminals from undertaking vile acts upon us might as well be unwise also. Lao Tzu said that when man holds in his responsibility to decide if another has the right for life and death, it is like a carpenter trying to be a a fisherman, saying man has no business associating with the workings of heaven. Or, maybe Lao Tzu wasn't talking about life and death, but was talking about birth and death. These are two completely different things. The former is about people who are enlightened/awakened and who are not awakened: can be interpreted as dead because he or she is not awakened to Truth. The latter is about the existential nature of the physical body. After all, God gave man the ability to kill another man. There is no sufficient evidence where God forbids us to kill another person. In the bible, Koran, and the Hindu scriptures, there are many instances where man kills another man and God has no objection to him. Sometimes, God blesses him amidst his vile act of murder because he may have killed some other person who was truly evil and malevolent. I would like to talk about whether we have the right to kill in order to fulfill our compassion, love, and mercy. Can there ever be love, mercy, and compassion in murder? I'll quote from what a character in the manga to have us think about this in a more deep way. "Whatever the reason maybe, murder is always wrong."

I'm noticing various sensations in my body at the moment, particularly around the back of my heart - sort of around the area of my shoulder blades, I'm feeling quite a lot of energy in that area. The area around my sacral chakra also feels rather tender at times, in an oddly pleasant sort of way - the nerves in that area seem to clearing or something, I'm not quite sure. My root chakra also feels very open, which is a tad disconcerting - I know kundalini rises from that area, and it can be a very intense experience by all accounts. Anyway, I think it's all good, I think my nervous system's gradually becoming entrained to all the energy that's been awakened which is good, obviously.

@ZzzleepingBear I'm arguing about the other half of the title. I have no view on the "no thing missing". If the "me" is separate, then the sense of existence or reality of anything is coming from somewhere that is not-me, the "me" doesn't get to decide what's real or not, even itself. This aligns with my reality, I don't stand there dictating what is real and what isn't, it happens automatically without my involvement. The "me" isn't a special case where the "me" gets to decide that it itself exists, no, it just is that way. In fact it is only awakening that allows "us" to see the illusory nature of the self, in which case a decision of sorts is being made on what is real or not. You see, it's all back to front. All this talk of illusory stuff and no me is coming from a position of being awakened. But until that point, everything is very real including the self, and there's no choice about it.

sooo true. I feel like a lot of us have mystical experiences (like flow) without even realizing it is a mystical experience or the truth of any of it. It's not until you're awakened that everything shows itself (mind, body, you) and you can see clearly the dynamics at play between them. You realize that you are the mystical experience that is happening to your mind, or to your body.

When you decide to die you go to the source and you grow another body until you decide to transcend and take the body with you into infinity. Death of the body is not a rule in this universe. It can be transcended, death. Those of you who seen and experienced this truth congrats. The other flock who thinks they are awakened or enlightened, keep reading your books.

Well, its only speculation until you find out a way to learn more. Reaching awakened states using psychedelics was only speculation until someone discovered the method and tried it. Also I think it can be very problematic to just ignore these things. For instance it seems like alot of people get the idea that they will merge into the godhead when their physical body dies no matter what. This belief can make people do very foolish things, hurting themselves or others etc. Therefor I dont think discussing these things, trying to find more answers, is a waste of time at all. Im not saying it isnt possible that you actually go non-dual after physical death, but from my own experiences and from listening to yogis etc I think its highly unlikely that is what happens for the everyday person.

I shared this thread on another forum a few years back, and I figured it might be of use to the members of this forum, so figured I'd reshare it here. It's a summary of a chapter in Adyashanti's book 'The End of Your World,' in which he talks about awakening on the level of mind, heart, and gut, and it's something that really resonated with me. A lot of these concepts will be familiar to many of you, I'm sure, but it's a conceptual framework that I've found really useful in my own development, so I wanted to share his teaching on the subject. * Awakening on the level of mind He begins by saying that 'most of our minds are in great conflict, caught between the polarities of good and bad, worthy and unworthy, holy and unholy, and so on.' What awakening reveals on the level of mind, however, is that thought is ultimately illusory. Not that it isn't an extremely useful tool, but the issue is that very often we look to thought to provide answers for which the mind isn't equipped to answer, and that we look to thought for a sense of self. And through our minds, we construct a virtual reality which we mistake for actual reality. As we begin to awaken, we see that thought itself is empty of reality; 'at best, it is symbolic'. As we awaken on the level of mind, we recognise that our perception of the world holds no intrinsic reality, that we aren't the person we imagine ourselves to be. 'What is destroyed,' he says, 'is our entire worldview... [Enlightenment] is the complete eradication of everything we imagined to be true, from ourselves to the world'. He ends by saying that often, when people have these realisations, their minds have turned the realisation into a mental formulation, but ultimately the truth cannot be conceptualised. And when we realise this, the mind can operate in a much more useful way, never fixating and creating new beliefs or ideologies. Awakening on the level of heart To awaken at the level of heart, he says, is to no longer derive a sense of self from what we're feeling, whether we're feeling good, bad, worthy, unworthy, lovable, unlovable – whatever it is that we're feeling. Emotion does not tell us what we are; 'it tells us what we feel – period'. Whilst we aren't defined by what we feel, we also can't deny what we feel either, if we truly want to be free: 'Our emotions and our feelings are fantastic pointers to what is unresolved in our being, to what we may or may not have seen through'. And so, in order for us to resolve any emotional issues we may have, it's necessary for us to inquire into the nature of fear, anger, sadness, etc., and to get to the root of these feelings. If we don't get to root of them, they'll surface again and again. Our emotional life and our intellectual life are not, he says, actually separate; when we experience these feelings, there is an underlying worldview of the feeling, of which we are often quite unaware, but which we must make conscious in order to resolve the feeling. Sometimes it can be difficult to uncover the underlying worldview, and people might even insist that there isn't one, but if we're persistent and we're honest with ourselves, sooner or later we'll perceive a worldview. And if we're to be free, no assumption can be left unexamined or unquestioned, and we need to recognise when we're arguing with what is, because when we argue with reality, internally we become divided, and we suffer – and we're trapped by our own non-acceptance, regardless of whether or not we believe it to be justified. At this point he stresses that not all negative emotions (or, at least, what we might label negative emotions) are indications of division; it's possible to feel grief, sorrow, even a certain amount of anger, without being divided. It's up to us to discern whether or not an emotion is or isn't causing us to be divided, is or isn't the result of an argument with what is. It's fear, he says, that holds together our emotional sense of self, and at the root of this fear is a belief in ourselves as separate from the world, as tiny fragments in an enormous universe. This makes us feel very threatened, which can cause us to become defensive and emotionally closed off. As we awaken, however, we realise that this is sense of separation is an illusion, that there is nothing to protect, and we become more emotionally open and available. 'And,' he says, 'when we're unguarded, what naturally flows out of us is love – unconditional love […] The awakened heart loves the world as it is, not just as it could be'. Awakening on the level of gut It is in our gut that our most existential sense of self is located, where there is a core type of grasping. When spirit is birthed into form, it is experienced as a shock; right at the moment that we're born, we're exposed to the trauma of life outside of the warm, nurturing environment of the womb. Then, as we get older, we experience subsequent traumas that cause us to clamp down in fear and shock, and cause further grasping at the level of the gut: 'It's as if you have a fist holding on in your gut, and it's yelling out, “No, no, no, no, no! No to life, no to death, no to being, no to not being! No, no, no! I will grasp! I will hold on! I will not let go!”' Initially, awakening is the release of this holding; just prior to awakening, this holding actually often becomes more pronounced, as the seeker begins to sense the truth of their being beyond the self-image they had taken themselves to be, and as they become acutely conscious of a grasping that had previously been unconscious. Our instinct is generally to try and rid ourselves of uncomfortable feelings and sensations, but of course our efforts are doomed to failure, and often serve only to worsen the discomfort; 'In one sense, the awareness that there is nothing you can do is the most important realisation you can have'. We can try to surrender, but the very act of trying is itself an act of non-surrender. So the best thing you can do is to really let sink in this awareness that you're powerless to do anything about it. At this point he's careful to point out that people who have experienced significant and profound trauma in their lives may experience an especially traumatic grasping in the gut, and that they might need to seek specialised help in order to resolve these traumas. But even if we've had a relatively comfortable and happy life, life itself will still be perceived as a threat to the sense of a separate self (life itself will be regarded as something exterior, when of course it's what we are). So awakening at the level of the gut requires that we face and release our deepest existential fear. Also, he says, 'true realisation, true enlightenment, comes through a complete relinquishment of personal will – a complete letting go'. To our illusory sense of self, this feels dangerous – we fear that letting go will leave us vulnerable to danger, and we fear that we won't get what we want, that nothing will be the way we want it to be. So it's necessary for us to recognise that personal will is an illusion and for us to come to the end of our willfulness, to recognise its futility. We fear that we won't know what to do and that we'll be exploited if we surrender our personal will, but when we've reached that point, we begin to see that life can take care of itself, that in fact it's always taking care of itself, and there's seen to be a magical quality to it. When we're lost in the complexities of our thinking, we become unconscious of the effortless flow of life, but it's operating all the time, regardless. He quotes the definition of Enlightenment of the Jesuit priest Anthony de Mello: 'Enlightenment is absolute cooperation with the inevitable'; when we cooperate with life, then we flow with life. When we meet the fear in the gut, with sincerity and openness, when we say 'yes' to life, we don't have to struggle anymore; flow is what navigates us through life.

I think Leo’s epistemics are the most correct, with respect to reality being God and love, as well as awakening having many facets that go deeper. I think he is right about enlightenment not being the end of searching but an opportunity to go further and find infinitely more. Frank Yang seems to be an example of someone who has found satisfaction in having awakened, and no-longer has the same motivating factor that brought him to enlightenment, because his motivation was not that of understanding everything, but was more akin to finding what it is that is true beyond this illusory world. Jed McKenna had a similar drive. Most important for him was to no-longer live in a state of falsehood, so whether or not he had a Buddhist no-self awakening, he would still be happy having no found something eternally true, beyond the false or illusory. He might not even care to know if it was love or not. Leo might lack the same fulfillment that Frank and Jed might share because he is still pursuing, and he is pursuing more understanding simply because that is his disposition, not because of lack of knowing. when one relaxes like Jed or Frank, they seem more able to embody the truth of enlightenment because they are giving themselves to the disposition that it suggests, that being needlessness. i think it is a difference in their natures. For Leo to embody his awakenings more he would probably need to loosen up on his drive to keep finding more. this is my first attempt?

I feel pretty strongly that direct experience conquers all. However of course, there have been many, many times in my life where I couldn't trust my experience. In fact, I was living with PTSD that has only faded now after a year of EMDR therapy. So I know how easy it is for one to delude oneself into believing all kinds of things. Having said that, I could mostly always see when the paranoia and delusions associated with PTSD was at play, but it didn't stop me acting as if it was real. The feeling of imminent attack, for example. Anyway. I have a lot of questions coming up in my experience on this particular topic. I wonder if belief and truth actually merge into each other, for example. Say, I wanted to believe that gravity didn't exist. So I adopt the belief. Then when I drop a stick from a height and it falls on to the grass, I have some options. I can say "this proves that gravity exists" or I can say something along the lines of "well yes, the stick has fallen in accordance with the theory of gravity and it's pull etc, but I still believe that there is something else operating here." Now, the funny thing is, that these would both be beliefs. I can choose to believe in gravity, or I can choose to refute it and say something else must be at play. If I choose the latter, someone might say "but you saw the stick drop to the ground, how can you not believe in gravity?". Where is the truth of the concept of gravity? In the present moment, right? Every moment that goes by I can see gravity at work. The leaves fall from the trees to the ground. Voila. But there's a distinction here and almost a simplification to be made. A) "In every passing moment I can see things fall to the ground naturally." Versus B) "Things are falling to the ground because of gravity." See the difference there? Option A is very much not conceptualising the occurrence and just noticing something happen. Option B has a story about it, a belief. Now, I'm obviously not refuting the existence of 'gravity' in physical reality. What I am saying, however, is that both statements seem to be true, yet option B seems to be believing the fact, on top of directly witnessing it. How can this be? This means there is a possibility to conflate truth with belief. This is a rather benign example but it will have deeper ramifications. So, I think my point of this post is to ask, how can we ever know something to be true? And, how can we know it is not a projection from indoctrinated beliefs? I want to give one more, hopefully compelling example. I'm watching an Actualized.org video about What Is God? There's something inside me that knows I have not awakened to what this video describes. Yet, there's something inside me that believes it to be the case, certainly more than the Big Bang. Now, I go and take some psychedelic and ask it to show me what God is, and let's my experience confirms everything Leo has said. How can I know that this is genuine truth, and not belief masquerading as the truth? I've just realised what the answer may be. Something like "Being comes before knowing." I'm gonna post it anyway as it seems like an interesting topic.

First of all, 5-meo is not a neurotransmitter but a neuromodulator of similar tryptamine activity - you don't claim one needs to take heroin to truly understand what pleasure feels like, so why claim such for 5meo and insight? For all we know, it is an overload of serotonergic circuits that mediate feelings of affection, social bonding and insight. With our current limited understanding of neurology, to simply claim it is all imaginary is just as naive as Ancient Greeks assigining differential weather activity to Gods - hence the title of this topic 'admitting I don't know'. Leo doesn't claim to have a model, but an objective claim of Absolute Truth. That's a hell of a difference. Bro seriously? I see you're learning gaslighting already, it's not fear but only critical thinking of one's self accord instead of blind belief, which would in turn greatly influence the result of any psychedelic experience. Leo wholeheartedly believes his interpretation of experiences, conflating God with Infinity and love that could, for all one knows, be a result of an overactive brain activity. If you claim otherwise, please do back it up with your understanding of neuroscience, I do love me some discussion. None of the circular loop of 'you're imagining it', because that's not an explanation. For all one knows, it could be a psychotic break that us mere 'mortals' cannot comprehend. Enlightenment occurs only after cessation of attachment to a concept of enlightment - it's 'nothingness', as in there is nothing there to be found. No ultimate high, greatest awakenings - those are ironically the greatest obstacles in the pathway to enlightenment and peace. I don't see much of positive values of awakened masters in Leo, despite the mass of contribution in many fields on his channel. There's little compassion, respect, understanding. He parrots his own 'findings' as absolute truth, where the truth could be that all his experiences are subjective, particularly in the cause of nuclear bomb that is 5meo. He's self-absorbed to the point of not realizing so, anyone wiht a background in psychology can see so. And I say this with greatest love and respect for the guy, because he helped me loads and is a great guy and I wish him all the best. EDIT: Qualia Institute argues for an opposite perspective of Leo's, and overall psychedelic, experience. It seems far more likely and makes sense in a thorough, logical manner, attaching the link here: 5-MeO-DMT Awakenings: From Naïve Realism to Symmetrical Enlightenment | Qualia Computing And no, leo did not dismantle science. Leo has a very limited understanding of what Science actually entails, and masks it behind 'it's all very complicated and requires years of understanding and dying multiple times to grasp it'.

I’ve awakened my crown chakra, clairsentience, or Holy Spirit depending on what language you want to use by having telepathic communication with them in my waking life. As this is a rather subconscious issue, it’s hard to control the nature of those actions in non-lucid dreams even when my conscious mind would never aim to harm. This makes me wonder if the lucid dreaming tactic would work, but I think at the very least it would help me pull another layer of the onion back in order to be closer to loving them fully as Self. Watch the video if you want to hear possibly the strangest story of awakening the Holy Spirit that has ever happened. The Grays - My Story of ET Contact Once you’re feeling up to entering into divine love and bliss with beings who abduct humans without consent, you can move on to the story of maximizing the Holy Spirit through loving the Personification of Evil himself. Here’s the video for that ? How I Experienced Back-to-Back Cessations Through Bhakti & Love (instead of meditating)

@Leo Gura oh fuck. It's the dynamic duo. @EntheogenTruthSeeker dude if you want to warn everyone away from Salvia then why do you feel the need to post about it here....it seems all this post is is an attention getter and you have not awakened from this substance. If it has helped diminish the symptoms of any mental disorders you have had then great..in some fashion then it has brought you closer to Truth...but obviously this is not good for the general public who do not suffer from such disorders...thus why post this at all?

Such a good perspective, our bodies have been evolved preserve the human ego at all cost. Language structures our worldview that is favorable Like I said earlier, it’s total delusion..but absolutely necessary to build a society. There’s wisdom in survival, but also a capacity to transcend. Question is..how far is humanity away from it, and what can we do as an awakened collective to push it forward? Enlightenment is a learning process. It starts with many questions: what I am? What is reality? Etc. you sound like the typical Buddhist or Neo-advaita type. Notice these perspectives our limited and can easily develop into spiritual ego. Understanding the mind is just as important as silencing it. For us humans at least ?

Is this a description of conscience? I don’t think/feel so but something that comes with awakened conscience, objective awareness. To me, it’s a description of objective awareness juxtaposed to that of ordinary waking sleep or consensus reality where the mind just fills in the blank through associations perpetuating it’s habit of creating memories instead recalling what actually happened or a simple admission of not knowing and just being open and spacious, without discursive awareness. Very much so. Drastic transformation doesn’t seem to fit though in trying to describe my experience of it. But from a certain perspective, it could I guess. It’s more like a simplicity of experience occurring accompanied by an inner quiet and familiarity but also consisting of what some might refer to as a subtle but definite virtuous quality of sorts. It’s difficult for me to describe this virtuous quality any better than using Almaas’s wording of “essential aspect”. Essential aspects as in specific qualities of being or presence. Link to glossary page concerning essential aspects https://www.diamondapproach.org/glossary/refinery_phrases/essential-aspects

And thus, the newly awakened hamster immediately hops back on the wheel and starts running again... heh! Well well. Been there, done that. Welcome to the club, my friend! Kidding aside, it sounds like you're on a great trajectory.