can we explain psychedelics under the materialist paradigm ?

[Someone here]

22 minutes ago, Jacobsrw said:

There is no Leo 

Leo I think may be open to the idea that awakening can be induced.... Hence his heavy involvement with 5-MEO for awakening. I definitely am not open to it.

Go awaken then tell me if you still maintain a belief that enlightenment can be induced  The whole “process” of awakening dissolves becoming no more real than a bed time story.

I think Leo should be the first one who wants science to understand psychedelics and be able to induce the psychedelic experience without actually taking them.  

 Regarding awakening.. I agree with fred (the nonduality teacher they talked about in the other thread) that we are already awake. There's nothing to Awaken to. This is reality.. This is as real as it gets..hello, Can you see it? 

[Carl-Richard]

You can't really explain anything using the materialist paradigm. You can make cool toys though.

[Someone here]

2 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

You can't really explain anything using the materialist paradigm. You can make cool toys though.

Says who? Science apparently explained a lot of things.  Might not be able to explain everything. But to say it can't explain anything is just ridiculously false. 

[Carl-Richard]

@Someone here Science makes models. Models are maps. Maps can get you from A to B, but they can't explain what the terrain is made out of or where it came from.

[Jacobsrw]

40 minutes ago, Someone here said:

I think Leo should be the first one who wants science to understand psychedelics and be able to induce the psychedelic experience without actually taking them.  

 Regarding awakening.. I agree with fred (the nonduality teacher they talked about in the other thread) that we are already awake. There's nothing to Awaken to. This is reality.. This is as real as it gets..hello, Can you see it? 

Agreed. This does nothing for one who is completely deluded however. One can understand they exist and it’s source but operating from this place is a completely different story.

28 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

You can't really explain anything using the materialist paradigm. You can make cool toys though.

@Someone here Fundamentally, this is true. As I stated earlier. A concept is not the same as the very thing attempts to represent. Actuality is very different that the descriptions used to describe it. A model of reality is not the same as the actuality of reality.

Research Jack Derrida and you will see how his theory of Deconstruction completely decimates materialism and science.

Edited June 3, 2020 by Jacobsrw

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Someone here said:

There's nothing to Awaken to.

This is so wrong.

Stop listening to fools like Fred. He is not awake at all.

[Someone here]

@Leo Gura how can I know who's "really" awake? . Different teachers have different concepts about what It means to be Awaken and they all think that's the only "real" awakening. 

Mooji : just realize the "I" thought is an illusion and stay as "isness". 

Rupert Spira : you are the knowing of experience. Be aware of being aware. 

Osho : meditate and stay in a silent mind. 

You : realize that you are God and you created the whole universe. 

How can I know which one is the highest method? 

[Jacobsrw]

19 minutes ago, Someone here said:

@Leo Gura how can I know who's "really" awake? . Different teachers have different concepts about what It means to be Awaken and they all think that's the only "real" awakening. 

Mooji : just realize the "I" thought is an illusion and stay as "isness". 

Rupert Spira : you are the knowing of experience. Be aware of being aware. 

Osho : meditate and stay in a silent mind. 

You : realize that you are God and you created the whole universe. 

How can I know which one is the highest method? 

Go directly to reality itself and find out.

Self-inquiry, psychedelics and contemplation.

[Leo Gura]

8 minutes ago, Someone here said:

@Leo Gura how can I know who's "really" awake? . Different teachers have different concepts about what It means to be Awaken and they all think that's the only "real" awakening. 

Mooji : just realize the "I" thought is an illusion and stay as "isness". 

Rupert Spira : you are the knowing of experience. Be aware of being aware. 

Osho : meditate and stay in a silent mind. 

You : realize that you are God and you created the whole universe. 

How can I know which one is the highest method? 

Mine is the highest, of course  But don't take my word for it.

The only way to know anything is to do it.

[Gili Trawangan]

1 hour ago, Someone here said:

@Leo Gura how can I know who's "really" awake? . Different teachers have different concepts about what It means to be Awaken and they all think that's the only "real" awakening. 

Mooji : just realize the "I" thought is an illusion and stay as "isness". 

Rupert Spira : you are the knowing of experience. Be aware of being aware. 

Osho : meditate and stay in a silent mind. 

You : realize that you are God and you created the whole universe. 

How can I know which one is the highest method? 

Geez, man, just reclaim your authority already and get to work.

Spoiler alert, they're all talking about the same "thing". So was Jesus, the Buddha, Mohammad, Ramana Maharshi and all the sages.

No one is going to give you answers!

[docs20]

4 hours ago, Someone here said:

@Leo Gura how can I know who's "really" awake? . Different teachers have different concepts about what It means to be Awaken and they all think that's the only "real" awakening. 

Mooji : just realize the "I" thought is an illusion and stay as "isness". 

Rupert Spira : you are the knowing of experience. Be aware of being aware. 

Osho : meditate and stay in a silent mind. 

You : realize that you are God and you created the whole universe. 

How can I know which one is the highest method? 

Most of them are different ways to tell the same thing

[Member]

31 minutes ago, docs20 said:

Most of them are different ways to tell the same thing

Except that some refer to the isness (stay like a fucking tree because you have no control and you will die anyway), while others point to the very act of Creation.

I could tell that it's a huge difference here.

Edited June 4, 2020 by Member

[Someone here]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Mine is the highest, of course  But don't take my word for it.

The only way to know anything is to do it.

That's true. I'm struggling with obtaining psychedelics tho. But I think I will be able to obtain them sometime in the future. 

[Someone here]

5 hours ago, Gili Trawangan said:

Geez, man, just reclaim your authority already and get to work.

Spoiler alert, they're all talking about the same "thing". So was Jesus, the Buddha, Mohammad, Ramana Maharshi and all the sages.

No one is going to give you answers!

I can sense that. What confused me Leo says there is levels to awakening. I'm convinced that all of reality is itself awakening. So in that sense you could say there is endless levels to awakening that's true which is the same thing as saying there's zero levels to it and this is it lol. 

Edited June 4, 2020 by Someone here

[The observer]

6 hours ago, Someone here said:

I can sense that. What confused me Leo says there is levels to awakening. I'm convinced that all of reality is itself awakening. So in that sense you could say there is endless levels to awakening that's true which is the same thing as saying there's zero levels to it and this is it lol. 

That's precisely true. You don't need to become a spiritual monk to be awake. You can be an awake scientist, or anything else that you want. Awakening is not exclusive to mysticism. That's a myth created by mystics that want you to become a mystical doppelganger of them.

Follow your heart. It sure knows where it belongs.

[Someone here]

20 minutes ago, The observer said:

That's precisely true. You don't need to become a spiritual monk to be awake. You can be an awake scientist, or anything else that you want. Awakening is not exclusive to mysticism. That's a myth created by mystics that want you to become a mystical doppelganger of them.

Follow your heart. It sure knows where it belongs.

I agree. But I think there is no need to bash mystics. Everything in reality is perfectly inevitable.  That's what awakening reveals to you. So there is no point bashing anyone or anything. 

[The observer]

@Someone here Bashing? Lol! I was specifically talking about the ones that want others to become like them. That's what many of them do. And of course, it's not exclusive to mystics. The ego loves to have control over reality. The ones that tell you to copy them do not want you to be free. That's what I meant.

Of course, that's what our modern definition of freedom means. But now that I think about it, even blindly following others can be freedom for some people. So, I guess it's not so simple.

Edited June 4, 2020 by The observer

[Forestluv]

17 hours ago, Someone here said:

Science apparently explained a lot of things.  Might not be able to explain everything. But to say it can't explain anything is just ridiculously false. 

You are not seeing the relationship between explanation and that which is explained. 

[Someone here]

6 minutes ago, The observer said:

@Someone here Bashing? Lol! I was specifically talking about the ones that want others to become like them. That's what many of them do. And of course, it's not exclusive to mystics. The ego loves to have control over reality. The ones that tell you to copy them do not want you to be free. That's what I meant.

Of course, that's what our modern definition of freedom means. But now that I think about it, even blindly following others can be freedom for some people. So, I guess it's not so simple.

Ofcourse I'm against copying others. That's definitely not my path.  And I assume most people in this forum have enough IQ to not accept everything that  "someone" says on blind faith without questioning it and testing it for themselves. So I hope you refrain from debating with that particular "someone" and trying to prove him wrong because I love ya bro and I want you here 

[The observer]

17 hours ago, Someone here said:

Science apparently explained a lot of things. Might not be able to explain everything. But to say it can't explain anything is just ridiculously false.

Science didn't actually explain anything at all. Literally nothing.

Still, it's definitely capable of creating value out of translating one form of perception into another and interchangeably.

To make this conversation solid, could you provide one example where you think science did explain something, so that we can deconstruct it with you?