Forestluv

Of course. To a rationalist, both pre-rational and post-rational will appear irrational and absurd. One must transcend rational thought for deeper direct experience and understanding.

Post-rational science is not only possible, it is a powerful spiritual method. The scientific method is not bound by logic - that view is constrained within the scientific paradigm. Try post-rational science on yourself. You are your best experimental subject to conduct post-rational science. You may find the data to be fascinating ?

Yes. It’s all “bullshit”, including that idea and this idea. When I went to Mu, everything was deconstructed to nothingness, then reconstructed to everythingness. There is an IS prior to all the language and ideas. Prior to ALL ideas - even wonderful ideas, insightful ideas etc. From this perspective, all ideas are just appearances from nothing. “Bullshit” doesn’t mean bad or good. It’s just a term to knock people off their rational grounding into something that becomes groundless, then becomes groundless ground. Regarding irritation, if a kid kept urinating in the punch bowls at a party, it would be challengeing to remain patient and show the child unconditional love - especially after drinking his piss juice. It’s human nature to get irritated at times.

@Joseph Maynor The deeper level is seeing it’s all “bullshit”. All the religion, science, philosophy, buddhist theory, Maya, psychology etc. The problem of the human mind is it can’t see it’s own bullshit. All thought and concepts are bullshit - the problem is when a mind believes it’s true. I just watched a Shinzen Young video. Great insights, yet he has deeper levels to go. He seems to believe what he is saying. Believing in your thoughts and concepts is as psychotic as believing in an imaginaty friend. Our minds are writting creative stories. It can be a creative story about the planet Zarcon and how the jimlee beings interact within their space and how they interact with the camlin beings. We could creativly write about their social structures, experiences, emotions, diet - what is good and bad etc. Yet at the end of the day we could walk away from the writing, realize it is just fantasy and get back to our “real” life. It is *much* harder to realize that all of our own thoughts and concepts about “real” life is also just fantasy bullshit. All of it. I thought Leo’s blog video on skepticism and nonduality was brilliant. IMO, he can go to Alan Watts level depth, yet with his own unique expression/approach.

I agree. Rather than assuming what is real, let’s get curious about what is real. Serotonin trips are consistent in that they are generally nondual. Yet, they can vary greatly. That’s like asking “why are dreams so consistent?”

The same way a chainsaw works so well.

@sarapr Excellent questions. Th scientific method involves formulating a testable hypothesis, making predictions, gathering and interpreting data, modifying the original hypothesis. Beyond the method, the scientist would strive to place the data into a model, which in turn would be placed within a larger model. For example, placing data of protein interactons into a model of cell division regulation which is placed into a larger model of cancer. Each point above is filled with subjectivity and biases. Scientists admit this to an extent (for example using double blind studies). Yet they are unaware of how deep the subjetivity/bias runs. It’s difficult for scientists to study the greater truth because science is *within* the greater truth. If there is one everything and there is no-thing, how can a scientist step outside of everything to objectively study some thing? Science is a great tool to study the nature of reality. It is useful, yet limited. How can we make science better? I’d say by increasing our awareness of how science fits within a larger holistic view. To acknowledge that we scientists use metaphysics in our work. To acknowledge how little we understand about reality - and not just about the details of protein interactions in cancer cells - also fundamental aspects of reality. To give up the scientists’ obsession with controlling the narrative and to give up power as the arbitrator of truth. To be open minded about how intuition can increase our ability to conduct science. To see science as one tool to study the nature of reality and combine this tool with other constructive tools in psychology and philosophy. More importantly, we should combine constructive science tools with deconstructive tools found in nonduality, mysticism, metaphysics etc. *Disclaimer: I was a life-long scientist within the scientific paradigm before escaping the trap a couple years ago.

@The Blind Sage What was your dosage and setting?

@Arthur I would say consequences outweigh the smoking. Someone could smoke occasdionally with a friend to chill, open up about themselves and form deeper human connection. Or, laugh their asses off and release stress. The main downside I see of weed is it is habit forming. Once a person starts smoking weed it’s easy to want to do it all the time - movies, food shopping, hiking, yoga, concerts etc. Then, engagement with life can decrease. Wake-n-bake daily smokers seem more sedentary. Then, the costs skyrocket. Yet, I also see a lot of benefits with weed for recreation and spirituality. Psychedelics have extremely low addiction potential, weed is much higher.

Put it’s balls in a vice grip and crank it tight.

Hmmm. Can someting exist without a witness?

I also teach Universty level genetics. At one stage of my career, I acted similar to your prof regarding what I saw as irrational. Some scientists have such disdain for religion that they will jump on any opportunity to bash it. Mendel is regarded as one of the greats in biology. I wonder if the prof has a distinction between Mendel’s accomplishments and what he perceives as the life of monks in general. (I.e. bashing monks/religion, but not Mendel and genetics). To a scientist, science titles are are at a higher level than religion, Mendel’s science acheivements far outweigh anything about his religion. A phd or professorship is a much high level than being a monk, reverand or priest. Like the difference between an olympic gold medalist vs. being certified in CPR. . . The monk part just makes it a more interesting story. You prof has not transceded science and rational thought yet. He conflates lower level religion with higher level spirituality as both being irrational. I wouldn’t be surprised if your prof. rants against the paranormal before the semester ends. The cure for such a delusional scientist would be a biweekly program of 150ug LSD + two hours of Deepak Chopra.

Yep. Sometimes ya gotta be brutal with it and not take any shit.

@josue This seems like a lot of nervous energy. It may get better with practice, yet there may also be something deeper going on - e.g. looking outside of oneself for completion, validation to get relief from inner insecurity. I’d do some introspective work, develop self love and get grounded.

This guy’s identity is super strong. I remember being that immersed into an identity. It was so painful to surrender. I struggled like hell to hold on.

Also consider working on relativism. It is one of the keys to stage yellow stage.

That’s like asking a billion dollar lottery winner how many lottery tickets they bought. Sure, buying more tickets improves one’s chances, yet once you win, how many tickets you bought becomes irrelevant.

You are asking me to be reasonable, which is challenging for me. I’m still developing that skill.

That view uses a hierarchal framework. Imagine a community of shamans. They only used the term “shaman” with those that were unawakened.

For some, a mild dose of 5-meo is very pleasing. Some use it recreationally. Therapeutic *is* personal development. The intention is to create a healthier *person*. Spirituality goes far deeper than the person. The person is within something deeper. Regarding psychedelic therapy, various studies consistently show staistically-significant benefits. In the U..S., were are now at phase III clinical trials for MDMA therapy for PTSD. The stage II trials involved severe PTSD patients in which no other form of treatment worked. After a few MDMA sessions, 2/3rds of patients no longer qualified as having PTSD based on DSM criteria. Three-year follow-ups showed the effect is long term. They were cured of PTSD similiar to how one is cured of cancer.

Because the view is pre-transcendant. All of those teachers and students are within something deeper. Keep digging deeper.

And would Mario need a therapist? ?

Imagine transcending teachers and students.

This goes much deeper than disagreement, me and Leo.

Go deeper to see what you cannot see.