Peter Ralston on psychedelics

[lmfao]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

You can push your software and hardware to its limits, but eventually you will still hit a biological limit since you are committed to being in that human form.

You can't do what LSD can do simply through visualiation. Visualization is nice, but it is still limited by your hardware.

A rather cliche question I know, but what does that make the meaning of human life then? We're constrained to not become this singularity of consciousness. 

Someone can live their life just surviving, and then one day you die. I've seen that my true nature is immortal. But the human life is the limited thing which ends. I don't know if there is a point, it just is. 

 

I'm assuming solipsism is false here, but animals live their lives and they suffer. They haven't the capacity to realise truth, e.g. A donkey, so they're trapped. Why the trap, why the suffering? 

During moments of insight, I'll temporarily see that my suffering never really existed. I'll wonder "how on earth did I ever perceive or think there was suffering"? Its this weird thing where when you look at it good enough, it disappears. But maya comes back and the state doesn't last, at least it doesn't for me anyway. 

Edited December 2, 2020 by lmfao

[lmfao]

3 hours ago, mandyjw said:

God is so good, there's no bullshit. It's all just fertilizer for more beauty. 

Nonduality, means there isn't duality. But in order to say there's no duality, we must use the word duality. What a bunch of bullshit. So nonduality and duality are one. Except that's bullshit too, because there isn't "one" without duality and the possibility of "not one". You have teachers talking about levels and you have teachers denying levels. Believing in levels is a major problem. Believing that there are NOT levels is a major problem and still in order to believe there aren't levels, you must actually believe in the concept of levels just like in order to talk about nonduality, we must assume we know what duality is first. Watch like a HAWK what's pre-assumed. Here be dragons. 

Word, dawg. 

[Eren Eeager]

@Leo Gura How are you planning to reach maha samadhi if you don't have the proper hardware? Psychedelics? 

[Fran11]

28 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You guys are like being deliberately dense on this topic. I will explain no further cause you are not even trying to understand it.

You think you can do anything, but you can't.

Man I respect you a lot and I don't mean to come off as dense or offensive, but why are you so close minded about the limits of Spirtiual developement?

Have you spent a couple years doing daily Imagination, Magic, Energy Work, Occult and those kind of more "vivid" practices so you can confirm that it's as limited as you think? 

Of course Psychedelics will always take you much higher your baseline, but you are greatly underestimating how high that baseline can go.

You are free to disbelieve of course, but It's possible to do crazy things like becoming an inanimate object (which I have done) and even more amazing things like remote viewing (wich I haven't achieved yet but I know people who can).

 

 

Edited December 2, 2020 by Fran11

[Forestluv]

@Fran11 It's relative to one's exposure to infinity.

A handful of sand is a lot relative to three grains of sand, yet it's not very much relative to all the sandy beaches that exist. 

If the hardware of a finite human mind can expand to a handful of sand, that is an enormous expansion relative to a baseline of three grains of sand. That is an expansion of over a million-fold. Yet in the context of infinity, it is a drop in the bucket. 

[electroBeam]

@Leo Gura so what does changing your physical avatar so that you're not a human look like? If you no longer want to commit to being a human.

Also I've verified that the 'hardware' is beyond different lifetimes. Its much deeper then you're a bird, because it expands beyond different lifetimes.

Edited December 2, 2020 by electroBeam

[Fran11]

12 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

@Fran11 It's relative to one's exposure to infinity.

A handful of sand is a lot relative to three grains of sand, yet it's not very much relative to all the sandy beaches that exist. 

Yeah, but following that analogy, you guys are like saying you cannot even reach that little handul of sand without Psychedelics 

Like I said above:

22 minutes ago, Fran11 said:

Of course Psychedelics will always take you much higher your baseline, but you are greatly underestimating how high that baseline can go.

My point is that Spiritual developement is Infinite even without using substances, although of course the progress is much slower (but lasting) without them, nobody disputes that.

Edited December 2, 2020 by Fran11

[James123]

1 hour ago, Forestluv said:

In that context, of course.

It's all context dependent. When visiting China, speak Chinese.

Mind like water

Great! 

Peace!

[4201]

21 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

@Fran11 It's relative to one's exposure to infinity.

What are you exactly saying is relative to one's expose to infinity? The aforementioned close-mindedness on the limits of spirituality? 

I'm not sure if you are saying "Leo is close minded because he hasn't had enough exposure to infinity" or "You don't see why Leo is talking about those limits because of the lack of exposure to infinity."

In any case, I doubt this entire relationship of how openminded or not you are depending on your exposure to infinity. This is a conceptualization of a mind defined by a degree of exposure to a thing (even if you say infinity is nothing, it is used as a concept in this context). I think the only thing limiting open-mindedness is thinking you know.

Edited December 2, 2020 by 4201

[Forestluv]

29 minutes ago, 4201 said:

What are you exactly saying is relative to one's expose to infinity? 

If someone hasn't been exposed to the beach, a handful of sand is a lot relative to a few grains of sand. 

29 minutes ago, 4201 said:

In any case, I doubt this entire relationship of how openminded or not you are depending on your exposure to infinity. This is a conceptualization of a mind defined by a degree of exposure to a thing (even if you say infinity is nothing, it is used as a concept in this context). I think the only thing limiting open-mindedness is thinking you know.

The context I'm using here isn't about open-mindedness per se, the context is more about degrees.

If someone's neuro cocktail is a drunk mindset, that is a low degree of consciousness. It's still consciousness, just a dimly lit consciousness. If that mind sobers up and goes on a 30 day meditation retreat, that is a different neuro cocktail and the degree of consciousness will be brighter. To take it one step further, each mind has it's own bar with a limitation on cocktail mixes. Some minds have "talent" and have a  more sophisticated bar (hardware), yet they are still limited by their bar. 

And this is just a "pointer" of one facet of an awakening. A lot of people on the forum seem to take things hyper literally and get into debate mode. 

Someone can deconstruct my sand analogy or view it from another perspective and say "Aha! Look! That isn't true!" and they are correct from that deconstruction or perspective. Yet in doing so, the point is missed. 

[Gesundheit]

What sort of awakening are you discussing here? Seems quite the opposite of my awakenings. In my experience, deeper awakening is deeper levels of not-knowing and letting go.

And what talent are you discussing too? You are creating the limitations because you can't let them go, because of fear. But God knows no fear. Awakening is not about flying to other dimensions using your enhanced wings or whatever. That would be a psychedelic myth that you are refusing to let go of.

[4201]

22 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

If someone hasn't been exposed to the beach, a handful of sand is a lot relative to a few grains of sand. 

The context I'm using here isn't about open-mindedness per se, the context is more about degrees.

If someone's neuro cocktail is a drunk mindset, that is a low degree of consciousness. It's still consciousness, just a dimly lit consciousness. If that mind sobers up and goes on a 30 day meditation retreat, the degree of consciousness will be brighter. 

I don't have any problem with this perspetive per say. But are you using it to say that higher degree of consciousness/more exposure leads to a rigid view of how spirituality should be, or the reverse?

22 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

And this is just a "pointer" of one facet of an awakening. A lot of people on the forum seem to take things hyper literally and get into debate mode. 

Someone can deconstruct my sand analogy or view it from another perspective and say "Aha! Look! That isn't true!" and they are correct from that deconstruction or perspective. Yet in doing so, the point is missed. 

I'm sorry if it came accross that way. I'm really mostly asking for a clarification here, which is, what is being concluded? Your perspective is clear enough, it's just what you are concluding that is still not clear to me.

That beind said I apologize for criticizing your perspective. The only reason I did critize it is that I see many ways in which one can use this perspective to screw themselves over. (I can't be at peace right now because I lack exposure to infinity, or I lack degree of consciousness or whatever). But sure those pitfalls of your perspectice are projected, so my bad. 

 

Edited December 2, 2020 by 4201

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, 4201 said:

I don't have any problem with this perspective per say. But are you using it to say that higher degree of consciousness/more exposure leads to a rigid view of how spirituality should be, or the reverse?

I would say a higher degree of consciousness/more exposure leads to a more flexible, fluid relationship with spirituality. At least ime.

1 hour ago, 4201 said:

I'm sorry if it came across that way. I'm really mostly asking for a clarification here, which is, what is being concluded? Your perspective is clear enough, it's just what you are concluding that is still not clear to me.

That g said I apologize for criticizing your perspective. The only reason I did criticize it is that I see many ways in which one can use this perspective to screw themselves over. (I can't be at peace right now because I lack exposure to infinity, or I lack degree of consciousness or whatever). But sure those pitfalls of your perspective are projected, so my bad. 

You're totally fine. No offense taken or reason to apologize. I'm just exploring consciousness. There is no end. 

Sometimes it's like I describe a jungle and someone responds "That's not a Barber Shop!". Of course not. Barber Shops are great if we want to get a haircut. Barbers are great people. I just happen to be describing a jungle, not a Barber Shop. 

[4201]

13 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

I would say a higher degree of consciousness/more exposure leads to a more flexible, fluid relationship with spirituality. At least ime.

No disagreement then. 

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Fran11 said:

Man I respect you a lot and I don't mean to come off as dense or offensive, but why are you so close minded about the limits of Spirtiual developement?

It is not closedminded to say that a donkey cannot do calculus.

You can do all your astral projection and other techniques but all of them are still radically limited in consciousness.

It is you who underestimates the vastness of consciousness.

[The0Self]

1 hour ago, Gesundheit said:

What sort of awakening are you discussing here? Seems quite the opposite of my awakenings. In my experience, deeper awakening is deeper levels of not-knowing and letting go.

And what talent are you discussing too? You are creating the limitations because you can't let them go, because of fear. But God knows no fear. Awakening is not about flying to other dimensions using your enhanced wings or whatever. That would be a psychedelic myth that you are refusing to let go of.

Yes. Awakening is about unknowing, and realizing emptiness, and also somewhat about letting go.

But there is definitely a talent aspect involved in cultivating beautiful states such as Metta, The Witness, Jhana's, etc. Training probably trumps talent, to the extent that it even matters.

Realizing emptiness/love (awakening) seems to be somewhat disconnected with experiencing progressively higher states of consciousness, though. In my experience, the best way to cultivate and assess your so-called "level" of consciousness is to view everything through the lens of everything being a miracle -- gratitude and self love.

[Lyubov]

so it's ralston's turn this month? I guess we will have another sahdguru thread on this again? 

[lmfao]

@Lyubov Nah, Sadhguru is all about spreading mainstream appeal to spirituality. I don't think he's actually trying to teach everyone how to become liberated. I've heard him say openly that he isn't, but that he's giving everyone a way to slowly get there and not regress in spiritual progress they've made. 

He used some analogy that most people are playing a game of snakes and ladders, with enlightenment being the goal at the end. And he seems himself as giving teachings which remove the snakes. But it's up to you how quickly you reach the last square, he doesn't see himself as teaching you how to get there. 

Since he's hindu, I'm presuming he thinks you'll get another lifetime or something to carry over your progress in this lifetime. I'm not sure I believe that

 

You know, psychedelics aside, sadhguru might unironically be quite close to Leo in his view of things. Sadhguru is always talking about chemistry, the "science of bliss" , getting the correct neurochemistry, all that. 

____________________________________________

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

 

(idk how to delete boxes on mobile) 

Edited December 3, 2020 by lmfao

[lmfao]

@KeyholeThanks fam ?, im guessing and hoping you're talented too. All the communication with 12D Aliens. That would mean we're both on a fast track to literally nothing, lmao. 

__________________________

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

 

 

Edited December 3, 2020 by lmfao

[UnbornTao]

@Leo Gura ouch. 

I’m actually an INTP and a people pleaser acting arrogant. It’s not a popular strategy but needed to balance things, IMO.

I apologize for the straightforwardness.