Forestluv

A similar process for me. Once I got a taste of enlightenment, there was an energetic shift away from seeking intellectual theories toward revisiting the direct experience of enlightenment. I would be careful setting up a scenario in which an aspect of the mind must be overcome. That can re-establish the ego and keep it relevant. Ego says: “You need to keep me around to help you overcome this facet of mind thing”

Some people like both action movies and love story movies. Personally, I think it’s silly to limit yourself to one. Both have beauty.

The OP is asking about connecting to one’s feminine side, not becoming more female. I’d first drop the association that feminine = female and masculine = male Then I’d start practice being more gentle with everything. Yourself, your friends, your pets, your clothes, your car etc. Then I’d work on seeing the beauty in all things: flowers, smiles, butterflies, music, paintings etc. Then I’d work with on expressing gratitude, appreciation, love, kindness Then I’d work on expressing insecurity and vulnerability with another. Generally, women are more open to this, but beware, I’ve tried some of the above with women that turned out to be manipulative and brutal.

5-meo mini report I just had direct experience as the magnificence of reality. ?

It is the direct experience of the magnificence of reality.

I’ve found both psychedelics and cannibis to be spiritual allies. It’s hard to form a habit with psychedelics or get addicted to them. It’s easy to form a habit with cannibis.

I used to debate a lot. Now I have an aversion debate. There is very little growth and learning with debate. It is not very satisfying. I much prefer to explore ideas and periences, rather than debate.

I’m not using the term as an “absolute” awakening. Rather that there are various genres of awakening experiences. The one I referred to above was in the “ego-death” genre of awakening. All ego, self, language, thoughts, concepts, ideas, meaning etc. were removed. The entire story of who I am dissolved and there was no “me”. There was still object perception, yet the relationship with the object was completely different. I could get all conceptual about nonduality, the illusory self, no-self and cut-and-paste pages of Buddhist text. All that stuff is great as a supportive framework for the direct experience. Yet, years of conceptualizing and a hundred books of theory can’t compare to the direct experience. It’s like direct experience “knowing” is in a container of conceptual “knowng”. A container of conceptual knowledge without direct expience is like an empty closed container. It lacks the substance of true direct experience substance. It lacks fullness and appears very shallow to me. As well, I’ve found that direct experience can shatter attachment to ideology and open a person up to wonder and curiosity to explore.

I’ve pondered this at times. It would seem very easy to test: just get some Zenner Cards and see if someone’s predictions are statistically significant. Yet, there are complications and unconscious biases. Scientists want to play by their rational, objective terms. They want to control the setting and can be closed-minded to what qualifies as a positive result. A few things to consider: 1. Paranormal abilities like hyper-intuition and clairvoyance could be poorly evolved and developed. Consider that millions of years ago, our eyesight was poorly developed. We could only process light vs dark and poorly formed objects as shadows. Would it have been fair test for the ability to see by today’s standards of eye charts and color tests? Similarly, intuition, clairvoyance etc. may be poorly developed. Rather than being able to predict lottery numbers, clairvoyance may look more like having a “hunch” you are going to run into an old friend you haven’t seen in years. 2. Setting. Scientists love controlled, cold settings that remove all the subjective squeezy stuff. Yet, can this bias the results? A few of my students think they may have some paranormal abilities. We’ve tried Zenner Cards. There are five cards, each with a different shape. I’ve found students that think they might have paranormal abilities do far worse with Zenner Cards when working with a skeptical scientist. They do far better when working with someone open-minded that wants to connect with them. They do even better when working with someone supportive whom they already have a connection with. 3. Setting the standard for empirical positive results. One time I picked the card with squiggly lines - which looked like running water to me. I sat stone-faced and imagined myself relaxing by a river in peace. I made sure to have neutral body position with no facial expressions. The student said, “I sense you laying down in nature by water gazing at the stars”. She guessed the star card. This gets scored as a “wrong” guess in the quantification. Yet, is it truly “wrong”? Yes, by one perspective - No by another perspective. 4. I think most scientists are too closed-minded about experimental design and what we are testing for. Years from now, we will look back and laugh at the silly beliefs of scientists in this area - just like we laugh at how years ago scientists believed a fully-formed tiny human was in sperm and the woman’s egg merely provided nourishment for the tiny human to grow. 5. When a person’s spiritual pursuits go deep enough, they often begin to have direct experience in paranormal gray areas and their perspective changes.

You as well. I hadn’t thought of distinctions between holistic perception and intuition. Perhaps they are integrated? I need to contemplate some more.

???

I don’t know. He was off the chart on curiosity about everything. He would suddenly get curious about random things like how a bird’s tongue works. He lived in the magical world Leo has been describing lately.

A child exploring a creek is doing science, art, music, yoga and performance. He hasn’t yet learned that these are supposed to be separate things. Adults need to deconstruct as they evolve.

Leonardo Da Vinci had thoughts. Yet he didn’t think this as Biology and that as engineering and this as painting and that as philosophy.

Ok. ?? I wish you the best along your path.

The words point to that which cannot be explained. Don’t get caught up on words. They are just a pointer. The reason I’m hammering this point is because it’s one of the biggest traps.

I don’t see a “their”. It’s a space that transcends science, music, art, philosophy, poetry, nature etc. Leonardo Da Vinci was the greatest mind ever. Not because he did many diverse things well, but because he did one thing well. When I converse with my colleagues in art, we aren’t talking art or science.

It’s not about Einstein. You can pick any scientific genuis.

How is e=mc2 like The Magic Flute?

And where did their genuis of symbols arise from?

You are asking me to explain it in rational terms. I’m trying to bring you into post-rational space.

My personality, life history and intention is irrelevant. Don’t get distacted by that. Focusing on that is part of the trap. It is prior to all that.

IME, the awakening I speak of is more valuable than my 20+ years of buddhist study and meditation. It lies prior to the words. Let go of the words.

Dang, I thought you got it. ? When you have the realization you will no longer need your words.

I don’t know how in rational terms. I would say Leonardo Da Vinci is an example. Also, consider how Mozart and Einstein are similar.