PolyPeter

Hi forum !! I hope you are doing epic Recently, I came across this well-articulated human, who says very confidently that psychedelics, and psychedelic experiences add no value to getting one into "the path". He tries to use Logic to create a narrative to prove the point, but I find it vague and misleading. He says he has the authority to talk because of experience, in the past he took "almost every drug". He is not telling you which or how much or how many times (which makes me doubt instantly). I feel like I he is missing a lot from what's the real value of psychedelics, alongside meditation! Mind experiment: If you ever come across this human, and get to talk with him and he says this things. What would you say to him, in order to truly start to understand what psychedelics can offer, if used properly as tools? I thought that the clinginess that he refers to, is the same clinginess that he has, by not letting go of the idea that psychedelics are essentially bad and just appearances.

Pretty much, but what can you say to someone in that position to reconsider their perspective on psychedelics?

If there is something scarier than this, I don't want to know I hope you can find a way to share with the shaman that the dose was, maybe too much!

Oh shiiiiiit! Guys I wanna reply to every single comment, and I will, but I am a little busy with work at the moment. Thank you in advance for your nice ideas and questioning.

Hi Forum!!! I hope y'all doing good. I want to ask something that has been bugging me. So, in order to understand what Truth means, one must, at some point, accept that one does not understand Truth. To do this, there should at least be a level of self-reflection and ego-dissolution involved. To not know something and to accept the discomfort of that, requires at least some level of honesty and acceptance of one's own lack of understanding. The question is: How do I communicate to other humans the importance of Truth itself, the importance of trying to know Truth on your own, the importance of being smart enough to learn what method you should use to know the Truth, and the many facets of coming up with a solid answer? I'm reading all the comments!!! thanks. BTW: I claim that I have already come to a solid answer, which is not the usual "there is no absolute truth, everything is relative you know, everyone is coming from different background so what is true for them, that's true, and what is scientifically accepted, that's the objective truth". I'm past that bs. What I want to discuss here, is the different methods for communicating the methods and the importance of truth-seeking itself. Also, the distinction between Absolute truth and relative truth are a little bit controversial within my mind, since if something is true, then that's the truth! and should be always the truth regardless of anything else. PD: Truth = Consciousness = What is = Existence = I am

Absolutely!!! and about the deeper exploration, I also agree. But overall I can also see that I am not the only one trying to come up with this sort of ideas, and discussing them with like-minded people could create better ideas faster.

Even me trying to understand how to tell other people that looking for Truth is important not only for themselves but to the evolution of the human species too. The universe is always and will always be the universe, the universe does not care about things in particular, the unity of existence is the unity of existence, yes, tautology, but within the relative domain you can always imagine things to enhance relativistic things! like the enhancement of humanity.

MMMmmmm, I think that under the classic newtonian physics, this is right. But nowadays we have quantum mechanics, telling us that particles are not there until you measure them. Gravity is a consequence of particles having mass. But if in reality there are no particles to begin with, then there is no mass, leading to gravity not being true.

This got me thinking when you think about people who are super super far away from become Aware of Consciousness, and start hurting other people, abusing, exploiting, robbing, we as a society learned that we dont just love them as they are, we lock them up in prison cells, and depending on what they've done, some of them get the Death penalty. That does not sound like "love them as they are" to me. In fact, is loving them as they are that would get us in trouble, because if you did, they would continue to murder and do evil shit. What do you think about this? is there always a clear line between loving people as they are and letting unconscious people get away with their misbehavior? what count as a misbehaving? it varies over time, across the planet... When you say you love them as they are, I think that you should also make explicit what is not acceptable, which is not the same for everyone.

This is certainly true! For now. I can imagine a future of humanity where it is elevating its baseline consciousness and falling into traps is not so common as it is today. Maybe it is the optimistic mindset, maybe is reading the tendencies. Thank you for the answers !!

Ok, this is still difficult to measure or to recognize. Someone can be lying to you about what they want, whether they know it or not. How do you handle this scenario?

I understand, I don't see it too often where I live. I think it has to do wit the location, third world countries may have it a little bit more difficult to have an enlightened population, due to survival issues being more common, I guess. when you say optimistic, you overestimate how ready a human is? has this ever been a problem for you or the other?

Ok!! Thank you for your messages!! This is a veeery long term goal. So, any milestone will be celebrated. You are actually correct when you mention the Don quijote reference, I do feel some of that from time to time, but I will take your advice and not take it personal.

ok, this leads me to the following: How to know when someone is ready? How to know when someone is not ready? How can you measure readiness?

Radical skepticism, even skepticism of your own skepticism, is not about beliefs but rather the opposite. I see your point that in many cases, in order to just start to look for the truth, you must have some sort of Belief that there might or might not be such thing as Truth. But that is different from directly knowing what Truth is. Without the mind, without the filter of perception messing it all up. You are truth, you don't have to look for it outside of yourself for believe in it to know it, in fact, that's the chief mistake!

Religion requires Belief. Truth has nothing to do with belief.

I'm writing this into a paper and sticking it to my wall!

Beautiful. My way of dancing is a little bit like this: Maximize consciousness within humanity.

Nice! everything is a process. And I Am absolutely ready to be part of the process of humanity into becoming a higher consciousness species than it already is. I am not gonna just sit back and wait for the rest of the world to awaken on their own. I want to help the ones that seek help. But also set the ground for the ones that do not have a clue about it. Every single human is taking part in this massive process. Ones decide to just chill and let it all happen, "without intervention", failing to see that, in itself that is a way of intervention. Again, I am not saying we should force Consciousness, Truth, God, into someone else. I am saying that, because it is actually The Truth, it is inevitable, and communicating the inevitable is just as important, IMO, as awakening one's self. If a Gigantic Meteorite comes to Earth, then, the astronomers looking at it would run to tell everyone else! not because they want to impose their beliefs of massive annihilation, but because it is actually true. This is too relativistic of an example, but I hope it illuminates my point a little bit more.

can you please provide at least one example of how you can do so in a way that doesn't seem forced?

I am asking what questions I can ask to start the thought process that would lead to truth-seeking I know how to present different methods to maximize this process, but it is worth nothing if the mind is not even interested in seeking truth in the first place. Some people confuse Truth with their own perspectives, and that is what I want to be able to communicate. The difference between subjective experience, filtered through the Ego, and Absolute Truth, what allows for this experience to even exist in the first place. Being is not questionable! in the sense that if you question it, you fall into weird paradoxes. How can I doubt my own experience? for that I have to first be able to doubt. and for there to be a thing creating the doubt, there should definitely be something to be aware of the doubt. Therefore, you can doubt your own self, but you cannot doubt your shared Being. One cannot force Truth or Awareness onto nothing or nobody, if you talk to a rock telling them "you are God", the rock cannot even listen to your human words, so, pointless in that case. But I am talking about human communication in particular. I'm thinking deeply about your ideas

hmmm I see the point. I am not trying to convince anyone. Convincing someone implies that you are not sure about what you are talking about and that your grounds are not entirely true, therefore you have to conceptually maneuver their minds into thinking a certain way. I am asking for ways to show that truth does not need convincing, it is a matter of validating within your own experience what is already there, not to put more lies on top. Truth is not about believing.

I agree, and I am not trying to convince anyone. I am trying to communicate some key insights for them, if they want to and feel ready, look for themselves. To encourage in a not-invasive, not-egocentric manner, that truth-seeking on its own is worth of something, even though at first it might not seem that way or feel "good". In order to recontextualise what the present moment is, as God. Do you mind sharing your criteria for that selective people you choose to share Truth with?

I don't rule out that telling something to some one might kill them, but, have you ever done it before and succeeded? In my experience, telling people that God is not real only leads them to "how do you know" kinda replies how does it work for you?

Can you elaborate? maybe I am not being clear enough. English is my second language.