fluidmonolith

@Serotoninluv @Nahm Thanks for the detailed thoughts and suggestions - I'll look into 5-meo.

@Gili Trawangan Thanks for your reply. I have been experimenting with dmt as a form of ayahuasca, which led me to the above realization. But I've been pretty cautious with my dosage as I'm doing this solo (no guide). Perhaps a higher dose is necessary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zjuDdysOL8 In this week's video, Leo suggests that the death of our egoic identity feels similar to, and in fact may be identical to, physical death. I have a related experience: A few months ago while engaged in meditation and other forms of study, I came to the powerful realization that to further my understanding of reality, I would need to be willing to die. At that time, my ego did not permit me to die. I have been considering solutions to this issue since then. I know of accounts of others who have had enlightenment experiences in which they claim a sense of physical death. I suspect I will need to accept death to move forward, but in the months since my initial experience, I haven't come to any conclusions regarding how to do it. Has anyone else struggled with this? If so, how did you overcome this challenge? Is this just an issue where more meditation and introspection are needed? Or are there other possible solutions or perspectives? Thanks

Please do not misunderstand - I am not disagreeing with the fundamental principles of quantum mechanics. I only question the validity of the claim that the interpretation is the science. Just as you shared a video giving one interpretation, I can share a video giving another: This is physicist Neil deGrasse Tyson. As a disclaimer, I am not claiming his views to be my own, but rather to be an example of a different interpretation of the same scientific data. We could easily argue that Neil deGrasse Tyson is not enlightened, and that perhaps if he were, his viewpoint would be different. But by claiming such, we are letting the enlightenment experience(s) dictate the truth, not the science. This is fine. In fact, we may argue that it is preferable, or even ultimately only possible, to find truth from direct experience rather than science! My only point here is that science (atleast with the methods and technologies used today) is not capable determining the absolute truth of reality. I think if we can accept this, we can let science have it's place (in the development of knowledge and technology) while spiritual seeking will have its own place too (in finding meaning, purpose, and absolute truth). [Modern] science and spiritual seeking aren't interchangeable - they both have different functions.

@Inliytened1 Thanks for sharing! While I am not a physicist, I have also watched and studied many videos and documents related to the double slit experiment. The results of the original double slit experiment and the follow-up testing explained in this video are quite fascinating, perhaps especially to those of us who pursue personal development and enlightenment. However, I still claim that the conclusions drawn in this video go beyond the true science and into interpretation, as I mentioned in my previous post. In the double slit experiments, the act of measuring the position of a photon influences the experimental results. This much has been demonstrated scientifically. However, someone decided that 'measurement' (with a scientific instrument) was analogous to 'observation' (by a person). This is interpretation. And then someone decided that 'observation' means 'conscious awareness'. More interpretation. And we can keep going down this path until we believe that quantum physics proves infinite, singular consciousness. It does not. Please understand that I am not claiming your conclusions about reality to be false. Rather, I encourage everyone to be extremely cautious when trying to understand ideas that are presented to us. We can use the results of the double slit experiment to support claims about infinite singular consciousness, and indeed, to grow we should speculate when proof is not available. However, we also need to recognize speculation for what it is. There are many ways to interpret the results of the double slit experiments, and infinite, singular consciousness is just one of them. When we think of science as being incomplete, or not caring about the big picture, we think of unenlightened scientists. We forget that we, too, are responsible for our own biased interpretation of scientific results, even if we are not in the science business ourselves.

There’s some animosity going on here, and I do want to help contribute to the conversation, but hopefully without fueling the fire. I think the disconnect that is fueling this argument can be precisely summed up by something Leo mentions frequently in his videos: to paraphrase, modern science, including quantum physics, is not the appropriate tool for understanding metaphysics. This is not inherently a problem with the science, but rather an indicator of a misuse of it. When we try to inflate science to suggest, for example, that “quantum physics says X about the nature of reality”, then we’re not arguing about the science, we’re arguing about its interpretation. Science can look within the system (of reality) and create remarkable insights and technologies. But it cannot look at the entire system from the outside, because it is itself within said system. If we can accept this idea, then quantum physics will be a lot less threatening because it won’t be (improperly) leveraged to attack anyone's worldview.

@Danioover9000 Good question. I will answer with another question. How do we differentiate between "deferring to an authority" and "verifying for ourselves"? What does it mean, on a fundamental level, to verify something for yourself? If you believe something is true because you have verified it for yourself, how do you personally differentiate that self-verification from what an authority may have told you? I completely agree with Leo's point that who or what we choose to recognize as a source of truth (an authority) is subjective. However, I challenge that "verifying for ourselves" is no different than trusting another form of authority. I am interested to hear how others think about and experience self-verification.

I agree completely. I have used a rigid meditation schedule (X minutes per day, every day) in the past, but I gave it up when I found that the quality of my meditation was poor. I now meditate when I want (which is ultimately less than I did before), but I still meditate regularly, and I can meditate with much more intention and less obligation.

What is your personal outlook on the value of direct experience? How do you personally sort truth from illusion? We are often encouraged to question everything and detemine the truth for ourselves rather than blindly accepting assertions from others – with the exception of the assertion that direct experience is the ultimate conveyor of truth. I argue that we should even challenge that assertion. Before accepting that what we directly experience is true, we need to ask ourselves "are our experiences true?" Some people are hesitant to speak about insights and enlightenments they've had, with the argument that words are insufficient to describe some experiences, and can even cause confusion and mislead others. The process of translating an experience into language to share with others can introduce errors and assumptions, 'corrupting' the experience. One of the insights I've had is that our experiences aren't just translated to others - they are also translated to ourselves so that we can make sense of them. In other words, the moment the experience is over and we think back on what happened and what it means, that thought and that understanding, is also a translation. It is just as prone to error and assumption as if we were telling it to someone else. Another consideration I challenge us to make is to carefully separate experience from interpretation. For example, if I see a blue car drive by, I can say "I see a blue car", but I might also be tempted to say "there is a blue car driving by". The former is true (after all, I did experience a car driving by). The latter is an interpretation and is possibly true, but not necessarily. Separating raw experience from interpretation is subtle but, I would argue, of the utmost importance to those of us in this community. The blue car example is a silly one, but as we pursue existentially meaningful experiences that can become more and more separated from the reality that we perceive on a day-to-day basis, separation of experience and interpretation becomes critical. So that is brief summary of my outlook and experience. But I am curious as to how others arrive at their own conclusions on direct experience. How did you, personally, decide that direct experience is the source of truth? And if you haven't decided that, then how do you, personally, decide what is true and what isn't? Thanks

I recommend backing up one step. Don't ask yourself "How am i God?", instead ask "Am I God?" Some who believe that to be true do so from experience, not from argument. Arguments work for science, but they will not work here. Someone else's argument cannot become your experience. Ask yourself if you are indeed God, and if and only if you find the answer to be 'yes' (or even 'maybe'), then you can ask how. Finally, be ready to dedicate some time to finding your answer, this is a difficult question.

@Eonwe5 I can agree with this. I think the biggest difficulty is sustainability in a new practice. There doesn't need to be mandate to do something (like cardio) every single day, unless you're confident that you can sustain that activity forever. On the other hand, convincing yourself to do something unpleasant can be difficult, however it is crucially important. So I try to combine these two. It's ok to miss a day now and then to keep yourself sane (or more frequently as needed). But it's not ok to give up or to make excuses (e.g. too tired, not enough time, etc). In reality, there are rarely perfect opportunities to work on unappealing things, so we have to do it even when we don't feel like it. But all of this ignores motivation. By motivation, I am not referring to an inherent quality that some people have and some don't, or a quality that we need to build up. Rather I mean "why do you want to accomplish a goal?" If you're not really convinced that a goal is important to you, it will be hard to put much effort into to accomplishing it. To paraphrase one of Leo's videos (unfortunately I can't find which video it was to link here), we often drastically underestimate the time and energy that will be needed to accomplish a significant goal. This results in discouragement when we don't accomplish our goals as quickly or easily as we wanted to. To counter this, I would encourage you to contemplate why want you a specific result (e.g. the result of the exercise you mentioned). Spend some time considering why it's important for you. What will happen when you achieve it? What will happen if you don't? Try to assign a value to it. How much of your time and money is it worth to you? How much of your willpower? How much of your comfort? And realize that there is opportunity cost in accomplishing any goal. We all have finite time, money, and motivation. I would encourage you to make sure that your most important life goal is progressing acceptably first, and if not, work on that. Then, if you have extra time/money/energy, you can invest some into something else too. It's ok to say no to some practices in order to give you the resources to progress in more important ones. No one can be perfect at everything. @Mu_ I have used exactly your dieting example to make changes to my own diet gradually and successfully. Things like drinking less sodas or less sugar intake in general. I don't say "I can't drink sugary drinks", I just say "I won't buy them frequently." And when I get accustomed to a reduced level of consumption, I can then slowly reduce consumption even more. I can look back over several years and see how much my diet has improved, but I think it will require the patience to allow such long time periods to accomplish lasting change.

I have been using Cycloastragenol. It is not a nootropic, but it does have nootropic effects, atleast in my experience. Leo mentions a slowing, or “brain fog” that is likely age related. I take an anti-aging supplement called Cycloastragenol. A bit of science background…Telomeres are strands at the ends of our chromosomes that shorten with each cell division. The telomeres don’t code for anything and are solely protective of useful DNA. Once the telomeres get too short, the cells will (hopefully) stop dividing – if it does not, it can start losing useful DNA with each division, which can cause mutations (e.g. cancer). If the cell does stop dividing as it should, this is called senescence. A senescent cell has limited capacity to repair tissue since it can't divide and make more cells, so as more and more of our cells become senescent, general functionality declines. According to the telomere theory of aging, shortening telomeres are responsibility for much or all of the aging process in humans, and re-lengthening short telomeres would, in theory, slow or even reverse aging. Note, it is not proven that telomere shortening is the primary cause of aging in humans – currently it is only one among several theories. Cycloastragenol is a naturally-occurring molecule found in the Chinese plant, Astragalus. It has been shown to stimulate telomerase activity in humans (and mice), which is the enzyme that lengthens telomeres. Now that the background is out of the way, how do you take cycloastragenol, and what does it do for you? I have been taking 10mg cycloastragenol capsules daily for 2 years, and I have experienced nootropic effects that increase mental alertness and capacity for complex thought – this has been useful for me since my work can be cognitively demanding. These effects are probably more of a return to optimal mental function rather than hyper-functionality that Leo describes for some of the supplements in his video. The effects are significant, but too mild to be compared to any stimulant or psychedelic in any way. Cycloastragenol is intended as an anti-aging drug, not specifically a nootropic. I have experienced other effects as well, including decreased tiredness during the day and higher metabolism. Other users report better quality of sleep, faster growth of hair and fingernails, and quicker recovery from physical exertion and illness. I have not experienced any side effects. These pills are not addictive, and I am not aware of any tolerance that the body will build up over time. The effects have been persistent (e.g. there’s no peak and decline after you take it), which is to be expected of a treatment that repairs the body – the effects last beyond the half-life of the drug in the bloodstream. However, the onset was slow. I took this drug for about two weeks before noticing any effects, and I can stop taking it for around 1-2 weeks before I will notice its absence. I do not take any other supplements. Cycloastragenol is available in a form called TA-65 from TA Sciences. These are 8mg cycloastragenol capsules and are fairly expensive, around $6-$7 per pill. There are also generic brands that are more affordable. I take a generic version, which is around $1-$2 per pill for 10mg pills. You can also purchase 5mg and 25mg pills, but I have not tried any dose other than 10mg/day, so I can’t predict how these would work for you. These cheaper pills are from likely Chinese companies, but many manufacture the product in the U.S. Such products include Nature’s Bliss Cycloastragenol, Counter Aging Wise, and Crackaging Cycloastragenol, and all of these can be purchased through Amazon. Disclaimer: I am not a medical professional nor am I involved in or make money from the sale of any of the products I discussed here.

It is definitely not a waste of time to learn science. It is only a waste if science is the only thing you ever learn.

Thank you for the advice. It was this video: Leo was specifically referring to mindfulness meditation in this video but the advice given is useful for other meditation practices as well. See 39:45 - 46:00 (approximately). Again, to summarize (paraphrase): "do it every day, without excuses or holidays or vacations or bad days or busy days". This section of this video has been of the greatest use to me.

Unfortunately I don't recall the name of the video that helped me the most, but I believe it was about meditation. It was the video where Leo said (to paraphrase) "meditate every for atleast 20 minutes or you'll never figure it out."