Tim R

Many people get nauseous from eating that much mushroom. I heard truffles don't taste very pleasant either. I'd rather go for normal cubensis or some other strain that contains a lot of Psilocybin The less you have in your stomach the better.

@intotheblack Haha I live in Germany too!! I've tried mushrooms (normal dosing and microdosing) but no truffles, not yet.

Yeah there's a few mushrooms of which the sclerotia contains psilocyin and psilocybin. They're basically normal "truffles" which you can buy in headshops in the Netherlands (I only know of the Netherlands, no idea how the legal situation is in the US or Canada) Microdosing is probably the best thing to do with these because they don't contain as much psilocybin per gram of dry mass, which is why you'd have to take a lot for a full blown trip. There's no "sclerotia truffle" as some different species of truffles btw a "sclerotium" is just a different form of mycelium

@Leo Gura Maybe it will be a similar development like with computing capacity? 99% of the time not very much going on much, and then, bam! Spiritual technology sounds fancy and futuristic

Yes, true. It isn't in your control. And yes, you can grow yourself to a place where a strike is more likely to happen, but don't think for one moment that this is in your control either. Abandon the notions of control and randomness, because neither is the case. Easier said than done, right? Yeah.. Have you ever experienced in meditation your breath becoming both happening and doing at the same time? Where what you felt "your doing" became the same as "happening to you"? Where your breath melted into the process that is the same process as everything that's going on? The one process?

Although it is true that you can't do anything about it, I agree with Leo on this point: Because nothing is random, not really. Of course, it may seem to be random, depending on your perspective; if you think that you are the one who can bring about enlightenment, it will seem random. What do you mean when you say "random"? That's the real question here Nothing is random, but equally, nothing is "chosen" and you are therefore not able to bring about enlightenment. There's nothing you can do about it, only when you think you can, it will (or won't) happen "randomly".

Lionel Messi, is that you?

@Preety_India I've spent many years in trying to understand enlightenment, and the first and last rule is: your desire to become enlightened is the impediment to enlightenment. Of course in the beginning you really have to want it and to work extremely hard to reach it, but after a certain point, you will realize that you are in a trap which no amount of work will ever resolve. Therefore the last step to become enlightened is the step of letting go the desire of becoming enlightened - and that step simply cannot be taken, by no method, no teaching, no understanding, no 5-MeO, nothing will lead you there. It won't happen by anything you could ever set out to do. That's way too simplistic and dismisses my whole perspective. Not very sophisticated of you. You follow Leo blindly.

@Preety_India How can you be liberated if you feel the need to do something?

As I said, there's absolutely nothing wrong with raising consciousness. That's not the point of my post. Yes, that's more in the direction of my thought. The attempt of raising consciousness in order to - what? Become enlightened? - that attempt itself can become dogmatic and ideological to the point where it becomes an impediment on the way of liberation. Liberation includes letting go of the need of raising consciousness.

@Preety_India Yes, all of that is true. I'm not taking some "anti-consciousness" perspective and I'm not saying that the pursuit of higher consciousness is bad, my post was intended to be exaggerated in order to get a point across. And that point is don't get sucked into consciousness as an ideology. Because that's what I see is happening for some people. Hence the quotes at the beginning. Some people seem to have such an aversion against what they call "low consciousness" and are so eager to reach "higher and higher" stages that they have completely missed the point of spiritual work. "Low" consciousness must be loved and accepted, too. "Low consciousness" behavior mustn't be condemned. That doesn't mean that I promote or accept let's say criminal, egotistical behavior. I think that should be fairly obvious. This whole game around "becoming more conscious" is nothing but (more or less) advanced one-upmanship. Mostly you're trying to one-up yourself, and sometimes even others (take the quarrel between Leo and Frank Y. as an example). SD comes in very handy for doing that, but that doesn't mean that there's something wrong with the model, there isn't. And really in the end, if you think you're gonna get somewhere by becoming more conscious, you haven't understood the first thing about enlightenment.

Lacking what? Consciousness?

What is laughter meditation?

@Vibroverse That's not how Zen works

@Leo Gura What about Zen? Where's the dogma? Doesn't Zen always say that they have nothing to teach, no rules no belief no nothing?

I think the distinction between immune and not immune is a spectrum rather than a yes/no issue. Everybody is immune to some degree, some more than others. Depending on the degree of broadness and nuance of of your perspective, you are either more or less gullible to propaganda. Also, propaganda itself can either be offensively crude and direct or it can be very subtle and manipulative. So the best way I think of becoming "immune" to propaganda is to realize, that you can't become totally immune, only more immune. Because then you take all perspectives with a grain of salt and never simply fall for something without questioning. And when the propaganda was more subtle than you were able to be nuanced, well then that's that. We make mistakes.

Hahaha Osho the good ol' playboy.. this outfit will get you all the girls, no doubt

*sniff sniff* U guys smell that? Smells like quarrel

The insight that really blew my mind was "I'm the universe, I am consciousness". That was my first big insight and it hit me like a freight train, since that day, nothing is the same anymore. I think the deepest insight I ever had was "Existence = Love" That one just blew my away. I never thought it could actually be true, but it is.

Suffering in general. Doesn't matter which kind of suffering, because it is all just suffering. Spirituality and the attempt to end suffering doesn't mean "running away" from suffering. It means finding a method by which all suffering can be truly eliminated. One wants to become free, once and for all. If for example, I have emotional problems - I could use alcohol or opiates to escape my suffering, but that isn't a very good method, because all I have done by getting high is ignoring and suppressing the issue. So it will come back to haunt me. Therefore I have to deal with it in some other way. Take the Buddha as an example: he analyzed how suffering is created and then he developed a method to end it - but he recognized, that all suffering in and of itself is not the problem, but rather a symptom of something else: illusions. And the methods he developed aimed at seizing and eliminating those illusions and thereby grabbing the problem of suffering at its root.

Now that is funny Cool that you've joined the forum @Valwyndir That reminds me of something I read or heard somewhere "It is only for the scripture that there is something outside of it to be transmitted" Not sure if I remember it correctly but the point is, that without the pointer there is obviously nothing being pointed at. Which is pretty hilarious, I don't know why All this confusion with the finger and the moon, and in the end, the finger was kinda necessary haha. Oh boy...

Leo often uses the word devil when he describes people being deluded, biased or egotistic and many people on the forum copy him. I think the use of the word "devil" comes with some problems, the main three being: Its underlying judgement Using the word too often and too casually because it is like a meme Its connotation with the christian myth of "the devil" which we all inherit So the problems I see are more concerned with the way the use of this word effects us - since we don't call people "devil" to their face, nobody is being insulted or anything, so that's no problem. So yeah, the main problems are that the word promotes our own self-bias judgement unconscious application That being said, I suggest we either become more careful when using the word or cut it out altogether. What do you guys think? Are my concerns justified?

No definition. All definitions will prevent us from actually recognizing God. I haven't realized "God" yet, but that's my take on this issue. I'll try to make no image/conception of God.

You wouldn't know what enlightened was unless you also knew what not-enlightened is

Not worth it lol. MBTI is just an indicator that shouldn't be taken too seriously, it's not even a test. It's somewhere between a horoscope and IQ tests in terms of validity.