DefinitelyNotARobot

Okay, but why does this cat look like it just hit some DMT? ?

That behavior itself is also coming from trauma. Traumatized people attract traumatized people into their lives. It's a chicken and egg problem. Same goes for toxic men who abuse women. Men are successful with toxic dating strategies, because there is a demand for it. Some very traumatized and insecure women are attracted to that kind of abusive behavior. Men like Andrew Tate then come walking around the corner and say: "Hey look at how successful I am with women guys, I get all of the women and I don't even have to treat them like people!", which is very convenient for insecure men who've been traumatized by women, because that keeps them from actually reflecting upon their issues. That doesn't mean that you can't speak up against that kind of behavior, but it's important to recognize that such behavior doesn't just fall out of the sky. A healthy women won't wake up one day and go: "Yep, I'm going to be an absolute piece of shit towards men from now on". A lot of these women have probably either been abused or abandoned in some way shape or form.

I hope you find the comfort you're looking for. Much love to you.

@Razard86 Fair enough. I see your point.

@Razard86 But it's still a dimension, do I understand that right? So it's not some "transcendental", "trans-dimensional" state of being, where you completely break free from all "constraints", but rather, a finite expression of the infinite? The term "3-D" for example doesn't fully capture the physical realm, it only describes the 3 spacial dimensions, but you can't use it to describe other physical phenomena like color. It merely serves as a frame work to describe how photons move through the 3 dimensions, into your eyes. I understand that when you're saying "3D", you're not strictly referring to the 3 spacial dimensions, you're using it in a broader way to describe the concept of "physicality" as a whole, I'm just using this as an example to illustrate the limits of the notion of "dimension". We could arbitrarily assign an infinite dimensions to reality, because there are infinite dimensions to reality! We could assign a dimension to color, sound, human height, country size, income, etc. and it wouldn't be more or less 'real' than the spatial dimensions that are being perceived. My basic point is that you can raise your consciousness to high levels without thinking about it in terms of dimensions. It can still act as a valuable frame wok for spiritual growth, similarly to how the 3 spatial dimensions still have a practical purpose even though they can't capture the whole of reality. So I understand where you're coming from. Everything is a projection of our current state of consciousness. If you can see clearly, you'll see everything as God and Consciousness. I was watching a documentary about the Inca the other day, and I sat down with the purpose to "listen to god". You could described what I perceived as the "language of god". God was talking to me, through the documentary. It felt like the entire documentary was crafted by myself, for myself. This random ass documentary about a topic that I'm don't really care about, somehow ended up being a valuable source of insight into myself, because I was conscious enough in that moment to recognize that everything is god playing with itself. So you can find meaning even in concepts that weren't even designed to communicate any "spiritual truths". I don't doubt that this is of value for some. For others it'd rather act as distraction. Once you put spiritual realizations into language, a lot gets lost. Calling it a dimension might make it more tangible to comprehend on a human level, but it won't get you to realize what is being said. The same goes for concepts such as "chakra", "kundulin", "third eye", etc. All these ideas point to deeper truths, but how many times have you heard someone claim to have opened their "third eye" without having any idea about the actual meaning/implications behind those words? Humans can get stuck in these spiritual fantasies (again, not calling what is being pointed to a fantasy, but the description of it). Focus and clarity are important. Will thinking of reality in terms of dimensions keep you from seeing clearly? Not inherently. It might though. That's the angel I'm speaking up for. My bias if you will.

@Princess Arabia Ah yes, the circle of fart. Truly a miracle to behold.

Which is also part of the dream. Psychedelics are also part of the dream, but taking them can have an effect on the structure of the dream itself. So that brings me back to the question of how that works. The only explanation I see is that mind is ultimately self-referential. Like that picture of the hand drawing itself. This could have massive implications. If I were to be stabbed in a dream, I would wake up and understand how it was just a dream, but isn't that understanding itself occurring as a dream within another dream (as you've put it)? To put my example with the painting being painted onto itself in other words; Is the dream itself the 'screen' it's appearing on? Is there anything that isn't the dream? Can any realization exist outside of dreams?

Isn't infinity being an "endless ocean of dreams" also just part of that "endless ocean of dreams"? So is saying that it's a "dream", just another dream? I can say that I'm dreaming your words right now, but that's also a dream, right? So what's the difference between the structure of the dream and its content? Is the "dream" like a painting, painted onto itself?

That wouldn't be a debate Leo. It would be a divine ass kicking.

It depends on what you want. Do you simply want to raise a family? Do you want to have a business and/or travel a lot? It's important to know yourself as a person. Relationships will teach you who you are, so try dating different girls and learn what you like and what you don't like. I also think that it's important to look at the mindset of a woman too. A good relationship is based on physical attraction (her body, her style, how she carries herself, can she take care of your physical needs?), emotional attraction (Do you vibe on an emotional level? Can you be honest with each other? Can you be vulnerable?), mental attraction (Does she stimulate you intellectually? Are there interesting topics the both of you enjoy talking about? Sex isn't just a physical thing. It's also important to mind-fuck each other as well. ), spiritual attraction (Her aura/vibe, your spiritual connection basically) and a couple of other factors. These fundamentals are important. People can grow apart in life and it is important to be mindful whether you can actually see yourself growing old with a person or not. Making sure that she can satisfy these physical, emotional, mental and spiritual needs is important. Knowing that she will actually be able to grow with you. My aunt had a few awakenings a while ago (she's into yoga and meditation) and she has realized that she's stuck in a relationship with a guy who can't support her growth (he basically thinks that she's gone insane). He can't support her emotionally or spiritually. He is more of a hard working kind of guy and he is stuck in his growth, unlike my aunt, he has just started growing up into maturity. She doesn't want to leave because of their children. This happens when you are unaware of who you are and what you actually want. She had to awaken to realize that this wasn't what she wanted. So give it time. Don't rush this. Make a lists with the fundamentals of what would make a "good wife" in your eyes. We're not talking about details like her taste in music, we're talking about the fundamental aspects of her being. For me, I like open mindedness, passion, emotional availability, intelligence, feistiness, independence. A woman that always wants to continue growing, both individually, but also as a couple. The more basic the list, the better. This will allow you to screen for potential future wives on a much deeper level. Think about the different types of attraction (the ones I've listed earlier) and put down a few essential traits for each of there categories.

By exclusively debating hypothetical materialists in your own mind. Can't loose that way.

@Razard86 I've read the source material, the broader message is valid, I guess I just don't resonate with how it's being packaged. I just think that you could call it ascending into the whatever-th dimension and it wouldn't change anything about the message itself, so why not leave it out? To me it's a form of spiritual branding, where you try to make an idea sound a certain way, rather than trying to communicate the idea as clearly as you can. I mean every spiritual "teacher" has their own "brand of truth", in that they have their own unique way of expressing it (which will never be 100% clear from lower povs), so this whole "5th dimension, crystal, starseed" type of spirituality can still serve as a valid path towards realization, as long as one can transcend it. There is nothing inherently "wrong" about it. I just personally think that it undersells what can be achieved through these methods by calling it something minute like "5th dimensional", when there are much more profound dimensions to reality than that. We only care about the 5th dimension because we conventionally appear to be 3rd dimensional entities. If we lived in the 1000th dimension we might not even care about whatever the fuck is going on down there. Point is: it's kind of human centric. A "3rd/4th dimensional" bias if we want to use that lingo.

@Razard86 Why not ∞-D? Or how about 0-D? I struggle to understand how putting a number on your experience of consciousness helps. Imagine entering the 5th dimension and there you meet some kind of aethereal being that tells you that, "You've got to ascend to the 6th dimension if you want to be truly spiritual! The 5th dimension is for amateurs.", then you do all of that and are told that you've now got to "ascend to the 7th dimension if you want the REAL juice" and it just keeps going and going. I feel like it just complicates things.

Alone they are weak, but together they are STRONG! ?

Does that mean that if I fart, you fart?

A slim (still somewhat fit) friend of mine, who's like 5"3, knocked out some buff dude who was like 6"0. Guy was fighting in the streets since he was young, his entire family is full of gifted fighters. None of them have crazy muscles, but all of them had to fight in order to survive. He himself got stabbed and shot and has been through a lot. All of that experience means much more than muscles, but the muscle guy can still get a lucky shot and knock the experienced guy out. Street fights are all about chances.

I guess you could call it freedom, but it would always be a relative freedom. In fact, I would argue that there is an infinite amount of things you can NOT do, but only a finite amount of things you CAN do. So even then I'd say that that this freedom is insignificant on a universal level. But on a personal level, sure, you can call yourself somewhat free.

Because you're not paralyzed. Imagine if you needed a person to help you do that. Don't take your ability to make these kinds of decisions for granted. It's a miracle you can even walk and you could always loose it. Or imagine if you stood up to walk to the other side of the room and a fucking meteor crashed into you before you reached it. A possibility outside of your ability to make decisions.

HAHAHA DUDE PLEASE STOP. I can't help but read all your posts with the Butters voice in mind and I just can't get over the image of some innocent 4th grader going onto a spiritual forum to post edgy shit like that. I'm dying... ?

My direct experience is telling me that there is no free will. These words are literally writing themselves. It's incredible, mysterious and difficult to explain. I could be wrong in saying that he didn't choose any of those things, in that I could just be projecting my own truth onto the situation, but since I don't perceive any free will in my direct experience, I can't make much out of claims of free will from other people. But again, I could be wrong. You are right, in that you have some will, which you inherited directly from the source of existence itself (in the same way that a Lego house built out of red blocks will also be red), but the emphasis lies on "some will". In order to be a human, your will has to be limited to human capacities. If you could just randomly turn into a wolf, we wouldn't call you a human, we would call you a werewolf. YOU wouldn't be YOU if you could do whatever YOU wanted to do (When I say "you" I am talking about the ego, not the essence of "I" itself). Not getting what you want is part of being a human. Everything you are not makes you everything you are. You're defined by your abilities as much as you are defined by your limitations. So you DO have a will, but it's not free, because it serves the absolute. If you wanted to fly to the moon right now, you couldn't, because the laws of physics would keep you from doing that. The laws of physics are ALSO a manifestation of the absolute! So even if your personal will was to fly to the moon, the ultimate will would still override your limited human will. Your human will isn't always aligned with the will of the absolute. That's by the design. You've chosen to limit your freedom in order to step into form. You've chosen to be limited in how you can express your will. So you're not free, as a human, but you, as the absolute, have chosen that out of your own freedom.

It's definitely based in ideological thinking, but there is some truth to it. Consciousness can be weird. You can enter a lot of mysterious states that might make you question everything you thought you knew. But then there is the part of the human mind that tends to try and explain things away. In a way, by calling it "ascension" or "crystalline DNA" or whatever the hell you want to call it, you ironically take away some of that mysteriousness of consciousness, so it becomes a trap one can get stuck in, but there are definitely states of consciousness that will make you feel like you've entered a new dimension of existence. Someone like Rupert Spira will describe awakening as a pretty ordinary experience. Someone like Leo will describe awakening as completely and utterly mind shattering. Depending on which description resonates with you more, you could definitely make a point for the whole "ascension" idea, at least in the sense that there are very exotic states of being. Turning experiences of such exotic states of being into an ideology is where it all goes wrong. For example: Why call it "ascending into the 5th dimension"? Why not the 6th dimension? Or the 22nd dimension? Or the 2953957893rd dimension? It sounds arbitrary to me. Not giving it a name makes it far more exiting to me.

Did he choose to be born with two functional hands so that he could write that answer out? Did he choose to know the English language? Did he choose to be aware of this forum? Did he choose to be born in this period of time so that he could be here responding to this thread? Did he choose for the internet to exist? Did he choose to have you write this post so that he could respond? His "decision" to respond is based on an infinite amount of factors that he did NOT choose. I'm not saying there isn't a free will, but I AM saying that free will isn't something that you, as a person writing a post on a forum, own or possess or have, similarly to how you don't own mind, you don't own intelligence, you don't own consciousness. The words being written right now are an expression of the one ultimate truth, but they don't represent the whole. They're a fraction of the whole and thus aren't free from the whole and don't act by their own volition. Consciousness is absolute, humans aren't. Try manifesting an apple out of thin air right now and see how free "your" will truly is. You can't, because "your" will doesn't exist in a bubble separate from the will of everything else. "Your" will is only a slice of the cake.

Bruh

The human mind is extremely biased. It's easy to convince yourself of "truths" that aren't actually representative of reality in any broader way. The problem then becomes what we define as "realism". It's easy to say that black pill is just about being "realistic", but what if black pill actually was less "realistic" than other conceptual frameworks? What if it just appeared to be realistic because it resonates with certain preexisting beliefs and assumptions that your mind holds? I used to believe that "atheism" was about being "realistic". It appeared so obvious that religious people were simply stuck in a wishful fantasy and that I knew the cold truth. My first psychedelic experience completely shattered this paradigm. I still think atheists can come up with good critiques of religion, as the concept of religion comes with a lot of problems, but their dismissiveness of god is coming from bias as much as the beliefs of the "religious nuts" they criticize. Similarly to atheism I don't think that black pill is inherently false, every ideology has seeds of truth hidden within it, but it having seeds of truth doesn't turn it into "realism". I think red pill, though still toxic, is a lot healthier than black pill because it at least tells you that there are things that you can do to improve your "market value". Black pill is more for traumatized men who want to complain about the world without changing anything about themselves. It sells you a victim mindset that is far from actual reality. In actuality, there are things you can do to improve. There are skills that you can build. There are practical steps that you can take right now to build a better life for yourself. Black pill doesn't care about that, black pill doesn't want you to change. It wants you to sit there and cry about how unfair the world is.

Jokes on you, I've been fooling you all along. You don't even exist.