Jacobsrw

Haha wow ??

Because the average human does not have the benefit of siting for 20 years in cave constantly mediating. Psychedelics temporarily break the mind free of its ceaseless delusions so you are enabled to see the incommunicable potentiality you have for growth. Without them, an ordinary human in a conventional society has very slim hope of radically going far in this work. Nonetheless, it is possible. Just extremely unlikely.

That’s it, symbols are helpful up until a point, they the. become redundant. Nonetheless, I see there being much use in this map. Just like any map (such as spiral dynamics) it’s important not to cling to them so as to leave room for further developed learning. I think that’s a good idea since it will provide you some real world relatability too. Good work man. It’s great to see someone so committed to actually interpreting this content through their own unique understanding. Keep it up ?

Worthy of a watch. This woman describe her powerful 5meO DMT experience as infinite love, god and being expressing itself. Interesting how she resorts to these words stating no others can quite do the experience justice. may be a pointer for those critical of the psychedelic experience.

Dude, this is good. Its much better to lay it out so you can understand what you are leaning. Also important to remember that all symbolism must ultimately dissipate and be left behind. Great work nevertheless. Should consider applying this to different cultures and filling in each section. Could provide a reflexive interface with some general utility.

That’s a good start. Self inquiry, contemplation and psychedelics are even better. Mm me too actually, sometimes the humility to do such a thing, understand one’s experience directly intrigues also. Much ignorance could be shedded way from all our assumptions we are accustom to making. Yes I have actually. I have had to do brief study on him for psychology. He was a specialist in existentialism, one of its key pioneers. He has some very fruitful information to share. Namely, that suffering, fear, guilt and the dark side of phenomenology is what reveals our deepest sense of self. Victor Frankyl is quite good also. You should read ‘mans search for meaning’.

welcome Indeed. Most best sellers are stage orange due to the system in which glorifies them operates from it People on this path need to read radically minded books like Ramana, Maharaj, Ralston, Adyashanti, Spira etc. This does not negate books like that in which you read. However, they merely are concerned with relativity and survival, only useful up until a point. Yeah with thoughts they can be a tricky thing to understand. It’s not simply that we all have the same thought patterns, it’s that thoughts occur according to our sense of self. Its great you have had some development regarding the nature of your mind. Letting go is a powerful practice. However, I urge you to never underestimate the minds incessancy. It deludes us far more than we grant it. If you spend enough time in solitary isolation you will see so much that is ordinarily difficult to see. Mystical experiences can show to you just how wrapped up in the ego-minds mental fixations we are. The best thing is just to be open for more learning and position yourself like an open book. It is often where we overlook deep discovery in these matters reside.

Singer is correct in his explanation here. In fact, I would go as far to say what he is stating is far beyond the ordinary awareness we operate. He used an explicit example above. Really, it’s implicit mental activity that we succumb to. We have excess noise to degrees much subtler than he explained. Plans about what to do, where we must go next, what’s happening tomorrow or next week, what had happened a minute ago, yesterday or will happen tomorrow. Even banal mentalism such as labeling a present experience in varying ways “this is comfortable”, “I like this”, “I don’t like that”, “that’s interesting, that’s not” and so forth. All this is what we are enmeshed in much subtler than we know. It’s not what you are aware of having noticed, it’s that what we do, we are not yet aware of it. Ralston calls this the uncognised mind. The process of being so immersed in mental fixation it appears normal and we think it undeniably false that we would be. We have so much chatter of the mind we a obfuscated from seeing it. A better question to ask and put to the test is this: what happens when I attempt to still myself, do nothing and just be? This rudely demonstrates our relentless activity of the mind and inability to silence it. Thoughts are extremely pervasive it’s just we are so accustom to them we cannot see their excessive predominance. Simply look close enough and you will see them ubiquitously and in endless degrees.

The dude has lost it. I watched some of his content just to get some insight into what was going on and from my observations, he has constructed a gargantuan spiritual ego. I feel this is a clear demonstration example of ego backlash. Jump in too quick without preparation the ego will instigate it’s most fierce reactive protective mechanisms. Never underestimate the power of self-deception. He had no spiritual practice nor psychological foundation, what did he expect to happen. On top of this, he abuses the spiritual path making it out to be something it is not. Such naivety. **what not to do**

Right and truth is beyond the self. Anything that empowers or aggrandises the self is pretty much illusion. Why? Becomes the self is solemnly predicted on survival not truth. I’ll tell you this, for me when I had a deep realisation sometime back I was shown the very opposite to what I thought was right. My self dissolved and the realisation arose almost as if I was the empty spectator to it. It’s very hard to explain, but real deep realisation and truth perse, goes far beyond the self. Watch yourself like a hawk. When you get the urge to agree or make arguments to support or refute something this is often delusion. Truth and realisation is independent of the self. When you truly realise the truth of something you will feel no need to defend it because what ever you do it still remains unaffected. Also, right and wrong are a duality. Truth of existence surpasses both of them.

I don’t know about this dude. He appears extremely stuck in duality. He assumes a good and bad, superimposing his points in a polarising fashion. Like some of his points but this video hardly demonstrates his level awakening. It merely displays his inability to compose himself when contending the inevitability of existence.

You‘re misconstruing absolute love for relative human love. Love has nothing to do with what you do it has everything to do with what you BE. What you are explaining is merely human constructs of emotion. That is not love that is primitive human behaviour. Useful as it may be, that is not an absolute. Also notice, “care” and “feeling” are relative. Dependent on what one deems conducive to their survival. Thus, both equate to relativity, meaning, equating to limitation. To be relative means to be not absolute. Therefore, the love you speak of is a relative human construct not independent of itself.

Nice analogy. Psychedelics are a powerful illusion which can show the way to transcend illusion. Fo not underestimate their value. They are far more powerful than the service “mystical” experience. They are the radical illumination of insight in which surpasses the ordinary ignorance of mind.

I understand your sentiment but you have clearly demonstrated my point. All action you just pontificated is subject to survival, it is not absolute. Helping or “saving” others is a relative means. Dependent on what “saving” is qualified as in its given context. Eg. Killing in one context may be more justifiable than “saving”. And regardless of whether you do or you do not save/kill is completely irrelevant to love. The state of being from which your action stems is far more important than the action that follows it. You don’t seem to comprehend this. You assume action supersedes Being. Which is a fundamental misunderstanding of both consciousness and reality. One can pursue the support of others, however, without an alignment to Being it still remains classified as egoic-neuroticism or some form of self-preservation. The central point you have misunderstood is that you assume Love is predicated on action. It is not, that is survival. Survival is ego. Love is Being. Nonetheless, to live a conducive life one must serve others as it is the most powerful thing one can do on a survival basis. But do not superimpose the survival of the human-species as fundamental a absolute. You’re comparing contrasts of survival to the ineffability if love. This is just pure bias. Love and the expression of it, surpasses all action or words you espouse. Both your explanations of love and apathy a merely limited human constructs with no independent existence.

Haha that does not prove reality obeys logic. Quite the opposite actually. How come there is something rather than nothing? Logic is mute here. How come the immaterial can produce the material? Logic is mute here. How come you exist but cannot validate the experience you were born? Logic is mute here. How come infinity cannot be mathematically computed? Logic is mute here. How come you can intuit an experience without a rational understanding? Logic is mute here. All these questions and many more defy logic and yet they still exist. Logic is not required because it never began with. Consciousness produced logic using the mind. And notice, logic changes depending on which mind uses it. It is limited to minds’ and reality surpasses the mind.

No this does not prove logic has been every thing to do with consciousness. Logic is secondary and relies upon concepts language in order to be conveyed. Therefore, logic is limited to language and concepts. No concepts or language = no logic. Furthermore, reality is not a concept, it supersedes concepts. Reality cannot be explained by concepts since they are limited to the conceptual realm of “the mind”. Since reality cannot be explained by concepts, one requires a more effective tool. This so happens to be direct experience. No the the “idea” of direct experience. The actuality of direct experience. Ps. Logic cannot even explain direct experience let alone reality. Thus, what makes you think it has any further importance than to compute inert concepts via the mind?

Logic is a fabrication of mind which is completely arbitrary. It has no relevance to consciousness because consciousness does not require anything in order to be validated. Consciousness is self validating by the very nature it is exists. Therefore, logic is irrelevant. The only utility logic holds is in the relative domain of mind. Which just so happens to only concern a finite self that relies upon survival. Logic is not absolute because it is limited in what it explains. It must be, as it is a subset directly derived from the whole. Logic is rather codependent. A faculty of mind dependent on conceptual imagination. How is it that an immaterial consciousness can derive itself out of a “assumed” material world? Logic cannot answer this because it is limited. Refer to ‘the hard problem of consciousness’.

One must know suffering in order to know bliss.

Good topic thread! From my observations, many prefer to antagonise forum members on politics opposed to partake in conducive discussion for the purpose of inner work. This would be a good start.

Anger is the misunderstanding and displacement of ego reactions. Ego uses anger as it’s defence mechanism to protect it from threat. Feeling anger may not be so much the problem, however, acting from it is complete delusion.

What Sadhguru is referring to is universal love. A positionless and paradigmless interaction with humanity, synonymous with non duality. The problem he speaks of is not inequality, it’s much deeper than that. He is speaking about the arbitrary line that we drawn between human existences. The line is the problem not how one operates from it. The problem is not that black people are mistreated. That is secondary. The problem is the dividing line that has been drawn between races and type for the primitive purpose of survival. If one could not distinguish between them self and another (a no dual state) one would have no quarrel with others. However, this is not the case in our present societies. We have superimposed classes, competencies, creeds, races, belief systems, statuses, appearances and so forth. People are schematically organised beyond any awareness of being so. We both do it and succumb to it, it’s a closed loop. We have projected the minds dualistic deductions on to what we perceive in order to preserve a survival bias. Reality has been divided from the whole. This is why discrimination of any kind exists, not because of hate but because of unconscious arbitrary division to fulfil survival.

It’s apparent many here have misconstrued the power of what Leo explicated. Ultimate Love is not simply a doing that fulfils the patriotism of an agenda, it is to love all as it IS. That’s not to say nothing can be done but to understand that the action which follows is always tainted with limitation. It must, as it is self deriving from a finite self. The love people here seem to be espousing, is a very self-aggrandising love which upholds survival in the name of human rights. Human rights is not the act of love, it is the act of survival. And a democratic moralist one at that. That’s not to say it’s not useful or applicable. But realise it’s extremely conditional and limited. Not applying to anything beyond a western human construct for that matter. The love Leo is pointing to supersedes human rights and the action and change which proceeds on behalf of survival. These are nothing more than merely stage green utilities. Stage green can be acted from for the purpose of a conditional love but understand, this is a limited skewed version of love, over aggrandising a human-species bias. Love is universal and surpasses any agenda which prioritises the human.

Agreed. And so that was my point I was attempting to insinuate. We must seek to understand and serve those we despise just as those we revere. However, this must not come at cost of our ignorance. We must apply diligent action where it is most required. Relative reason may not trump Truth, nevertheless, Truth must still account for relative reason since reason is stemmed from it.

The mind and all it’s contents. It is is by definition, the only this that can be unimagined since it is the only thing that has been imagined in the first place. In other words, “you” and the entire existence of a self could be unimagined. The problem is, the mind tries to use the mind to eliminate the mind. This cannot be done. To dissolve the mind one must start to experience and perceive reality beyond the mind. It’s illusion can then begin to fade and Being can be indefinitely experienced. Your analogy of a cat is but merely another construct of mind. The mind imagines a cat, therefore it could by all means imagine itself to be one. However, this is just more circulatory delusion. The most powerful thing one could do is unimagine them self.

That is a limitation of mind not consciousness.