Forestluv

@Nak Khid Get the direct experience. You won’t regret it.

Love me some tasty nondual snacks ?

@cetus56 It’s super cool when a term first arises organically from the essence of direct experience - and then afterwards noticing spiritual teachers using the term.

In my direct experience about six months ago.

I wouldn't consider a 10-20 minute a trip to be an advantage. I would consider 1-2 hours to be better. Regarding "bad trips", actual time is a factor - yet its also a non-factor. During trips there can be loss of time - simply eternity. In this regard, suffering for 20min or 2hrs isn't relevant. 20min or 2hrs from now are the same in that both are eternally not Now. At the human level, I think having caution is fine - yet if one makes it too soft it can be counter-productive. I don't think it's best to try and orchestrate a trip so that it is pleasant. There is often an uncomfortable element - and that is part of the trip. At the Ayahuasca retreat I did, there were dozens of people there tripping for there first time. It went fine for them. Again, being too soft can dissolve the power of the trip and allow an ego to maintain control of the narrative and acclimate to resist the self-transcending properties of psychedelics. My first trip was an extremely high dose of 4-aco-dmt that absolutely obliterated the self and any connection to the reality my mind-body was conditioned to. This is a lot for a mind-body to handle - yet has a lot of value in terms of awakening, imo. I realized more in those few hours than 20+ years of meditation and I attribute that to having a full-on breakthrough trip for my first exposure. Yet, it was extremely intense. . . On low doses, the self has an opportunity to re-group, re-gain control of the narrative and integrate in a way that builds resistance to self-transcendence. . . As well, the shamans made a very strong point that breakthrough was essential and if the self is still present in any way, we should take another cup of Aya. Ime, there are pros and cons with this. I would agree that the purging associated with Aya is a distraction, yet there are those that disagree with me. Aya can be a very profound psychedelic, yet I wouldn't put it higher than others. However, the community aspect of Ayahuasca retreats can be extremely powerful. I did an Aya retreat in the mountains of Peru. There was a very high conscious level of the community and shamans - the music was out-of-this-world ethereal and beautiful and there was a collective conscious / energetics present that was very profound. And the collective Love at the end was indescribable. This can resonate strongly with someone. As well, the purging resonated with some people (but not for me). As well, psychedelic therapy research with newbies has shown better results with mid-to-high dose ranges vs. low doses. It's just not as simple as "this is the best psychedelic and dosage for newbies". There are many variables at play. As well, you are only considering this from a person/human perspective (which is obviously important to the person/human). Yet there is also a trans-human perspective to consider - and the only way to get that direct experience is to trip.

That video looks like some solid advice for newbies. In particular, I like how he stresses generally. There is a lot of variation in psychedelics, yet there are general trends. For example, 100ug of LSD is generally a standard dose. As well, I also like how he errs on the side of caution. He seems pretty balanced between the potentials of psychedelics and risks. The only thing I have issue with is that DMT is a good first time psychedelic. (He is referring to DMT, not 5-meo-dmt). As he says, the trip length is short (although one can get into "timeless" zones with psychedelics). The issue I have with this is in relative to using psychedelics as a spirtual/PD tool. Ime, intense visuals can be distracting and hard to contextualize/integrate. Although they can be amazing. The CEVs on Ayahuasca and 4-ho-met. . . are indescribable. Yet I've found low intensity visuals to be more optimal for spiritual/pd work. Although others may disagree. There are some that resonate with strong visuals - entering visual realms, meeting spirit guides, machine elves etc. For me, this is more on the "recreational" side - which is cool too.

I would say from a meta view, seeking energy is another appearance happening Now. Seeking to stop seeking is more seeking. Imo, it's all from the same pile of seeking. It's not necessary a "bad" thing - it is part of the human experience. Yet the mind and body can get so immersed into seeking it can become a distraction and cause distress. Examples: many people seek a better now. That better now varies from person to person. And within a person it can vary over time. Jack may seek a high-paying job, Suzie may seek healing from childhood trauma. On Tuesday, Marcus may experience seeking energy toward a peaceful state of mind - the next month Marcus may be experiencing seeking the attention of a gal he has a crush on. These are all appearances happening Now, yet they are very alluring and mesmerizes a mind into a story of a "me" character (that has existed in the past and will continue exist into the future). This is a distraction to the presence/awareness of Now. Yet ime, seeking to eliminate seeking is a surface level. That is still oriented toward having a better Now. "If I can get rid of this seeking then I will be happy and peaceful. All "If. . . then. . . " statements are conditional. Now is unconditional. It is where unconditional perfection, love, peace etc. resides. Yet that is not what the person seeks - the person seeks relative perfection, relative love, relative peace etc. in a timeline. . . There is nothing wrong with that - it is part of the human experience. Yet when it gets too intense it becomes distracting to presence/awareness Now and it's distressing to the mind and body. Asking if seeking to stop seeking is "acceptable" is part of The Game. "Acceptable" is a relative judgement. Now doesn't care about "acceptable". Peace is present with seeking energy and Peace is present without seeking energy. . . Keep in mind that at the human level, there will always be some level of seeking energy - that is Alive-ness. That is Motion. It can be beautiful. . . And the energetic source of that seeking can differ. One being can be energetically oriented to seek for self-centered motives. Another being can be energetically oriented to experience the majesty of Beingness. One can observe desires appear and disappear Now.

Be careful of seeking and chasing.

It can be done anywhere. I just gave a kitchen example to go along with the broccoli theme of your post.

Is this desire toward unconditional happiness / peace? Or is this desire toward relative happiness / peace? The orientation of energetics is very different between the two.

@Nak Khid This isn't an intellectual analysis of sentence structure. It is revealed through direct experience. As I mentioned, a good exercise is to sit in one's kitchen (including some broccoli) until the direct experience of One is revealed. At that point, One will not care about silly logical thought constructs of sentence structure. The direct experience is much much deeper and profound than that.

Occasionally, I do a concentration exercise of staring at a candle. The flame has just enough motion to hold my attention. And there is the relationship between my breath and the candle flicker - this allows me concentration. If I have a busy mind and I become immersed into thought - I won't do the exercise. I'll just sit and stare. If thoughts slow down, I enter what feels like a balance between effort, attention and presence. It is similar to doing a balance posture during Yoga. For example, in Tree posture there is effort, attention and presence. If this is disrupted, there is loss of balance. There is effort, without pushing away. If I'm balancing and trying to push thoughts away - balance will be lost. It's similar for me staring at a candle during mediation. It's not so much the appearance of thoughts, it is becoming immersed in thoughts. . . For example, if there are bird chirps outside and the mind becomes immersed in those bird chirps, then the concentration is lost. Similar to thoughts. . . Ime, trying to repress thoughts creates internal conflict. This tells the mind that thoughts are bad and it's important that they don't arise. . . I found it better that thoughts are unimportant. Just like bird chirps outside are unimportant. If you hear a bird chirping outside, you can easily let it go. You don't go outside and try to shut the bird up. (And those chirps are appearing inside your mind, just like thoughts!). The mind gives extra relevance to thoughts. With that said, immersion into thinking can be a major distraction from presence. For me, slowing them down and developing a new relationship with thoughts was important. As thoughts slowed down, I noticed gaps between thoughts - the gaps got longer and longer - into seconds. As well, the relationship to thoughts changed. They seemed much "further" away and didn't have so much power. . . As well, when the gaps between thoughts lengthened, images starting to appear. For me, images are "cousins" to thoughts. During candle-staring practice, I've entered zones in which there are no thoughts. Yet here is the key for me. . . I've also candle-staring zones in which there are no bird chirps. Am I 100% certain there were no bird chirps outside? No, and it doesn't matter. Similarly, am I 100% certain thoughts didn't arise? No, and it doesn't matter. When my relationship with thoughts changed, all sorts of new stuff emerges. There may be a stretch of a minute with no awareness of a thought. Yet there is ISness present - and it's amazing. Or there may be a thought, yet it's not really a thought anymore. It becomes all part of the ISness. A feeling, an energy, an intuition, an image, a sensation, a thought - they all become mixed into the ISness of Now. I'm not sure what your goal is with the concentration, yet I've reached Nothing/Everything/Now/Infinity. This is a paradox of direct experience - that Infinity can be so expansive, or it can become so highly concentrated. A mind can concentrate on One point so intently that there is Nothing. (which is also Everything).

There are aspects of duality here. "Broccoli vs. Not Broccoli" is a duality. Negative term vs Positive term is a duality. There is transcendence to this. It's not an intellectual thing. . . . A good exercise is to go into one's kitchen and see One Everything in the room. NOT a collection of all individual things. Rather, One Everything. There is no separate thing in the room. There is no thing. . . . No Thing = Nothing = Everything.

Ime, exploring the nature of thought can be insightful - both in depth and expansion. It can also be a limiting trap of contraction. There are many different constructs we can create about thoughts. A mind that wants to define a thought as an objective, universal "x" is a rigid, contracted mind. I've found it helpful to have a fluid, flexible mind that can observe thoughts from many different views/essences/beingness/concepts. I imagine standing on a mountain top asking "what is a view?". There are so many ways we can explore this question. The view can be a sensory perception, it can be an experience, it can be a feeling, it can be an essence, it can be visual, it can be multi-sensory. The view can be separate from me. I can be one with the view. All of this has truth. Each is beautiful, yet to hold onto any one idea as being universally true is very limiting. . . Each of your questions can be answered in many different ways. There is not one "right" answer. This is one of the imageries I use. I imagine thoughts are like the surface of an ocean. Quite often, we are like a boat on the surface of the water. The waters (thinking) may be rough - which causes unease. We want to settle down the waves, so it is calm and peaceful. This is a major source of seeking. There are uncomfortable waves (thinking) that we want to stop. Yet, even when the waves settle down - the relief is only temporary. . . Yet calm waters often allow space to explore Here and Now. . . When we are not obsessed with surviving the rough waters, we can relax and look around Here and Now. We can notice things we've never noticed before. . . In regards to first "layer", we may notice. . . "Hey, I'm floating on the surface - there are deeper waters available". Then perhaps we put on some scuba gear and dive beneath the surface. Now we can observe the waves (thoughts) from an observer perspective. There is no longer attachment/identification to the waves (thoughts). Or we can explore beneath the waves. We can explore the coral reefs and fish. The waves may continue above, yet they are not bothersome. We are not immersed within the waves. It's just another aspect of the ocean. It depends on how we define "ego". The conventional use of "ego" is attachment/identification to a finite, separate self (a.k.a "me"). As we dive down and observe the surface water, what do we see? In the beginning, the majority of thoughts are related to "me". Most are related to "my" story. Things I need to do, things I desire, what she said to me, what I should do, how I want to feel, who I want to be. . . and on and on. There is nothing wrong with such thought stories, yet down below we can see them as thought stories. This is an amazing sense of freedom and it opens many doors. We can view and explore thoughts from a very different perspective. Or we can let go of thoughts and swim around - exploring the majesty of the ocean. For example, I may go hiking and be immersed in thinking. In which I am the thoughts. I may worry about what I need to do at work and the upcoming holidays. I may contemplate about my childhood and how it shaped who I am. These thoughts are merely appearances happening Now, yet they are very alluring and mesmerizing. They can entice us to enter a place of past and future in which we lose presence and awareness of Now. . . . Yet these thoughts can also appear in the background. Rather than being immerse within the thoughts, there is distance between awareness and the thoughts. The thoughts become appearances of Now - just like the babbling brook, wind and bird chirps. . . The thoughts can become so distant that they dissolve or get filtered out - similar to how the background buzzing of a fluorescent lightbulb can get filtered out. . . Then a whole new relationship with reality arises. The direct experience is not restricted to thought constructs. Here, Beingness is revealed: feelings, energetics, connection, intuition, empathy - without those pesky thoughts trying to control the narrative. In this space, thoughts don't have the same type of power. Sometimes, they just contribute to Beingness. For example, as I sat in nature a hawk flew by and there was an essence of its spirit. Then a thought/imagine appeared of native americans and their spiritual relationship to animals. This was a beautiful thought that flew away with the hawk. The thought did not grab the reigns and try to figure out the spirituality of nature. I would let go of the thought that "every thought is ego". There are places in which thoughts = feelings. There are places in which thoughts = the mantra. Rather than try to control thoughts so they align to a mantra, I would let go of that desire and become the mantra. If you become the mantra, then any thought is also the mantra. Or a thought is just a passing appearance, like a dog bark in the distance. I think you are giving way to much attention to thoughts. There is vastness to explore in which thoughts are not running the show. I would drop the "deterministic machine" part. That is the type of thing a self will resist. I would explore the "consciousness watching a movie" part. When you are watching a movie, do you ever just watch the movie without analyzing it? There are simply movie appearances and there is understanding, without analysis. Have you ever watched a movie with a highly active thinking mind? Have you ever felt that you "missed" something about the movie? And when we observe without the hyper-thinking, we may notice certain things. Perhaps and essence of the characters. To me, this sets up a "good ego" vs "bad ego" dynamic which I don't find helpful. It keeps the ego in the game, controlling the narrative. This immersion doesn't allow space for transcendence to reveal itself, ime.

@Bno I agree with much if what you say and share many off your concerns. We have more similarities than differences. I think we have different communication styles and orientations - and are talking past each other at times.

No. That's not what I'm saying at all. To me, you don't seem open to listening, considering and learning from another perspective - which is fine. You seem to be in a debate mode of defending a perspective and being right - rather than exploring and evolving. Ime, a small amount of debate, opposition and challenge can help evolution - yet too much becomes counter-productive and keeps a mind in a contracted state.

You seem to have ventured into moon landing conspiracy territory. That's a place I don't have interest in exploring.

I've engaged with you on this before. From my POV, it is like engaging in a conspiracy theory about the moon landing. It's just not a good use of time.

I did not say that US intelligence agencies are completely pure. You seem to be creating "either / or" conflicts of opposing forces. It's more complex than that and there are nuances. For example, intelligence agencies tried to communicate that the evidence indicated that Iraq did not have WMDs and were mostly complying. Yet this got manipulated through political filters in order to advance a political agenda of going to war with Iraq. Of course. Yet you are oversimplifying and deleting nuances. Of course that is a major factors in certain contexts. Yet in other contexts it's a very small factor. You are painting with a large brush. Of course that is an issue for progressives. You keep setting this up as two polar extremes. Most progressives rank Bernie as # 1 and Warren a distant #2. This includes TYT, seder, emma, The Hill etc. They all rank Bernie #1 and Warren a distant #2. They have criticized Warren plenty, yet they won't devour her. If the general election was between Bernie and Warren they would come down much harder on Warren. HOWEVER, its not the general election. The general election is against Trump, who is orders of magnitude worse than either Bernie or Warren. And Warren has a shot at winning the the nomination and general. It makes sense to criticize her and try to pull her further progressive, yet it does not make sense to destroy her and empower Trump. . . This is one of my concerns with progressives. We are eating each other alive and the net effect is empowering Trump. Bernie, Warren, Tulsi and Yang are all MUCH better than Trump. So what. That's not my point. Regardless of the platform you seem to be using litmus tests and your own personal filter to decide what qualifies as a "real progressive". I think eating our own is a big mistake. In the big picture, I think TYT is doing a lot of good work. They are Green, trying to lift up Blue and Orange. I also have some concerns about TYT. Yet I would consider them part of the team and be about 80% supportive and 20% critical. For corporate democrats, I would be about 40% supportive and 60% critical, for Trumpers about 5% supportive and 95% critical. To me, I think it's a mistake to become hyper-focused in progressivism and hyper-criticize fellow progressives. It is tempting, yet it is harmful in the bigger progressive picture, imo. Yet you are free to disagree.

Of course there are incidents in which US intelligence oversteps boundaries and acts inappropriately. Yet in the case of Russian interference, we are not talking about isolated aspect of corrupt intelligence. We are talking about the whole operation: ALL the career servants in US intelligence AND US national security advisers AND US diplomats. There is not a single expert or authority in opposition. Not a single whistle-blower. Further, they all testified under oath under penalty of perjury and imprisonment. To believe that this is a massive consensus in which all the US experts and authorities are lying in a massive conspiracy against the US and their own self interests is beyond absurd. A person would need to create all sorts of bizarre twists and stories to create this absurd reality. The alternative is that they are telling the truth. People like Bill Taylor are at the highest level of integrity and non-partisanship. They are the type of people that dedicate and sacrifice themselves to sovereignty and democracy. They are never in the limelight. They work quietly behind the scenes. They are not owned by corporations. They are not motivated politically. They are not motivated to get reach, advance their own person agenda, get re-elected, to become famous, to gain power etc. They are not politicians and they don't lie about this type of stuff. Imaging questioning whether Adyashanti was lying. Thinking that he is trying to manipulate people so he can get rich and famous and become president. It would be an absurd story.

I didn't refer to a fantasy creation called "Russiagate". I have no interest in that silliness. I am referring to actual Russian interference. That is the threat to democracy. Every US intelligence agency, every US national security advisor and every US diplomat related Russia all agree that there was Russian interference. The highest authorities have investigated, have direct experience and testified under oath. To refer to this consensus of the highest qualified experts and authorities in the world as "Russiagate" is absurd. It would be like saying what Stephen Speilberg says about his movies is "Movie-gate".

That's not why I don't consider him high conscious. I would say Dore is part of the progressive team, yet I wouldn't consider him a particularly high conscious progressive. Yet that's fine, he is still part of the family. I disagree with your interpretation of "Russiagate". In particular, all US intelligence agencies, national security adivisors and diplomats agree that Russian interfered in the 2016 election, are continuing to interfere and the interference is a serious threat to US democracy. I think TYT and Sam Seder took on the issue seriously. TYT, majority report et. al. did take on these issues. They just didn't cover them to the extent you want and how you want. Not every progressive media outlet will cover the exact same issues to the same extent. You don't think coverage of Russian interference is an important issue. That's fine, you prefer other issues. I think Russia interference is an important issue and I like to see some coverage on it. You are defining "progressive" through your personal filter and extrapolating that to others. An aspect of being progressive is fighting for those that are oppressed. Yet being progressive is more than that and has nuances. For example, climate change and environmental conservation are progressive issues. As well, there are variations on how we protect those who are oppressed. For example, I see Russian interference into our elections is oppressive. Fighting against Russian interference is fighting against oppression of people. Imo, you are splitting too many hairs and going overboard. There is a mentality that we progressives are all on the same team, united. We can still hold each other accountable, yet we are on the same team. That is not the vibe I get from you. It seems like you are trying to develop litmus tests and dividing progressives into "real" and "pseudo" progressives. Rather than TYT and Sam Seder being part of our team - they become an "other". This causes too much separation and division, which is harmful to progress, imo. By your litmus tests, I probably don't qualify as an official, certified progressive in your eyes - which is fine from your perspective. Yet to me it's kinda silly. I don't think you are being critical in a way that is productive for progressive evolution. TYT does a lot of good work. The majority of their work is aligned with progressivism. Yet you seem to be portraying them as pseudo-progressives that are causing more harm than good. Imo, this is not a helpful orientation.

I noticed you listed Jimmy Dore as one of those higher politically-conscious progressives, which I would disagree with. Imo, you are going over-board on criticizing TYT. They are clearly on the progressive side. In my POV, progressives need to take care with how we criticize our fellow progressives. You don't seem to be criticizing TYT as fellow progressives, imo. That's like saying calculus is algebra-lite.

TYT is on the progressive side - they are part of the team. They are not perfect, yet they are nowhere near the corruption of corporate mainstream media. Holding fellow progressives accountable in a supportive manner is fine. Yet, stigmatizing/demonizing our fellow progressives as corrupt corporatists is a form of self cannibalism and not a good idea, imo. There are very very few perfectly pure progressives, if any.