Osaid

It's very simple in hindsight, isn't it? It is actually a common trap in self-inquiry. The goal of self-inquiry is to examine direct experience. But mind says "I will be enlightened and more conscious in the future after I do this and that" which actually points to something which isn't directly experienced, AKA the future. The mind constantly churns beliefs about yourself which aren't actually experienced. Mind overcomplicates everything, don't fall into it!

Right, but whether you do or don't contemplate, you never experience Santa.

Not speculation. Two experiences is a belief. "5-MeO makes me more conscious" perpetuates that exact belief. 5-MeO might temporarily remove the belief, which in turn creates beliefs about the experience like "it made me more conscious", which is just the perpetuation of the same belief. When someone who does a bunch of psychedelics comes up to Ralston and tells him that, he can see that the belief is still operating just from that statement. You don't need a psychedelic experience to undo the belief precisely because the belief isn't true in the first place. It's not something he can only claim after having hundreds of psychedelic experiences because it is absolutely true, which means the belief can be falsified from anywhere, with or without psychedelics. That is what it means for something to be absolutely true. It requires no relative parameters. You don't need psychedelics to realize that Santa doesn't exist precisely because Santa does not exist. The only reason you would need something to realize a truth is precisely because the truth does not exist right now. That is why you need it. That is why you need psychedelics. That is why you need higher states of consciousness.

The reason why enlightenment doesn't directly relate itself to anything relative like genetics, luck, etc, is simply because the non-enlightened state is a belief. This is also why people will say stuff like "you are already enlightened", because all that is happening is that you believe in something that isn't actually there. It's similar to if a kid came up to you and said "How do I get off of Santa's naughty list?" You obviously don't need to do anything from the perspective of someone who knows Santa doesn't exist, but in order to see this you have to undo the belief first. Because there is no problem in the first place, there is only an assumption that Santa exists which can be dispelled by looking at your experience of Santa. Analogously, you can imagine someone who believes that gravity does not exist. Even if they don't believe it, they are still anchored to Earth. Similarly, you can believe the separate self exists, but everything will evidently point towards the fact that it doesn't exist. There is simply a belief operating which isn't actually experienced. It doesn't matter your luck or genetics, you will always experience gravity. Similarly, being enlightened is literally just the default state where you aren't believing or assuming that there are multiple experiences of yourself.

Yes. There is no such thing as being aware of something that is aware. It's a recursion. This is why the "self" is truly a simple belief or assumption. Just like believing in Santa. You never experienced it. You only assumed it through thought. And this belief is what drives all perception of duality. A separate entity must live in a world of separation, or it can't be believed to exist. These are standard observations. I recommend logically going through all the senses. See if you can see the seer. See if you can hear the hearer. See if you can touch the toucher. See if you can smell the smeller. See if you can think the thinker. Why does the confusion arise in thought? It is also very helpful to examine your perception of time. The self exists through assuming the past and future. If thinking is always perceived now, then who experiences what you know about the past and future?

Yes. It's the separate entity which claims perception. "I saw that" >>> Who saw it? Who is separate from seeing that can see things? "I am thinking" >>> Who is thinking? Who is separate from thoughts that is thinking? When you look at your other senses, it is obvious that there is no separation. We only become confused with our ability to think. This is what must be examined. For example, you can't see the one who is seeing, since that would be more seeing. There is no separate entity needed to see. But the belief in the separate self is that there is someone separate from thinking who is thinking, and that this separate entity is also experiencing all the other perceptions.

Both are good. Any effort to observe self-referential thoughts I would place in the realm of "self-inquiry." Ramana's is a more meditative approach, in the sense that you simply hold a thought or question without any further expectation. He also advises to ask "to whom is this thought occurring?" whenever a thought occurs, in order to return back to the current sense of awareness which he defines as the sense of "I". This question severs the subject-object relation to the thought by making you realize that you are presently watching the thought and that you aren't in the thought. If you ask the question you must say "me", which brings you to the singular watcher in the present moment which he calls the sense of "I".

For me personally, it's hard to forget being attacked by a ghoul hahahaha I barely think of it now, and there isn't a need for drama, but definitely a memorable and cool experience IMO.

It can definitely aid. And I think it could be possible. But it is tricky to define what causes it in the way that you are trying to do. The way I see it mostly happen is after some sort of inquiry or questioning. Perhaps meditation helps you get closer to that. I had a spontaneous desire to just meditate for a few days because I became fascinated with watching my thoughts. I went back to normal self-inquiry afterwards though. Self-inquiry in tandem is what really does it IMO. Meditation can create a natural disillusionment. Because if you do it long enough, it's like "woah I haven't had anxiety for like an hour now, what's going on, maybe my thoughts are actually illusory!"

I'm guessing you didn't have the privilege of seeing shadow people or having voices enter your head? hahaha

Absolutely.

I just chalk it up to the fact that everything in reality is connected, by virtue of being everything. There ultimately is no difference between anything, even physically speaking. All the words you are reading are pointing to the same singular experience. Everything must connect in some way or another at some point because it's all occurring at the same time.

Yes correct. Point being, you don't see distinctions. Seeing doesn't distinguish. Mind does. Mind is all distinctions.

If white and black always exist together, what actually separates them?

You could say it like that. It's just words and definitions you learned over time. If you never learn the distinction it doesn't really exist. There was actually a point where you didn't fear death, until you learned what it is. Only by learning it you can believe that it will happen to you.

If you are looking at white and black, are you looking at them separately, or together? To frame it another way, can you look at two colors while looking at only one color?

Two is probably just easier for the mind. You could divide those things into much more if you wanted, couldn't you?

What separates white from black?

What shape/color is a duality?

It's more like an assumption or belief which can be dispelled. Like believing in Santa Claus and then realizing he wasn't ever experienced. Someone who doesn't believe in Santa Claus doesn't really know anything. They just aren't assuming or believing. Removing a belief is subtractive, it's not some kind of knowledge gained.

Duality wasn't created. Creator and creation are the same occurrence. There's no creator without a creation, and no creation without a creator.

It's all one seamless occurrence. Call it psychosomatic. Or the butterfly effect. Or just unity. Spoiler: There really isn't. Just gotta look a bit closer. When is the last time you heard a division? Smelled one? Seen one? Tasted one?

Can confirm this too. You will literally be so sleepy that you'd rather fall asleep and risk going back into it rather than moving and waking up. Super weird in hindsight. It seems that you're physically too tired to move around and wake yourself up, the sleepiness is much stronger than the wakefulness, and so you just get pulled back into it again.

You need an awkward sleep schedule, perhaps combined with previously accumulated sleep deprivation. I could induce sleep paralysis with about an 80% success rate coming home from school and sleeping from 6pm - 12pm and then falling asleep again at about 3-4am. You essentially need to fall asleep twice, the first time should be about 4 hours so that you are tired enough to finish it later. Mileage could vary, and it was very long ago, but doing this always consistently gave me sleep paralysis.