Carl-Richard

I see, but there is something very special about this technique I'm talking about. You do it at any place, any time, all the time. It's a very subtle tightening of the left side of the abdomen. It's not supposed to hurt, although it could actually help to do it until it hurts in the beginning to test out how it feels and to calibrate a suitable level of tension. You want to find the place that gives the desired effect without too much side effects and keep it like that all the time. Just try it. If things really are as bleak as you say they are, then what do you have to lose? As for other alternatives, in a sense, I'm giving you the "blue pill", as the simplest path is acceptance and surrender, but as you say, that seems impossible for you now, so it's of course not that simple. However, you could also benefit from seeing a spiritual teacher (preferably one who specializes in unwanted spiritual emergencies, if that is a thing) who can help facilitate the process of surrender, helping you to swallow the "red pill". Or you could try conventional mental health approaches (although be careful to find somebody who actually understands your issues). There are many options.

It might very well seem that way to you now (it used to be like that for me as well), but I would still recommend trying it out. When you're in the state you're in, change might seem like an impossibility, but take it from somebody who has experienced a change (and continue to "benefit" from it, in the sense that it achieves what I want it to achieve). Exercise is an extreme and short-lasting way of inducing resistance, while tightening your stomach slightly (the left side) is a more mild and persistent way of inducing resistance. If you find out it really doesn't help in the slightest, consider looking up "dealing with unwanted spiritual emergencies" and use some of their advice. They will give similar advice to the other techniques I mentioned, but not the abdominal tightening technique (from what I've read), and I believe it's the most effective technique when you learn how to do it right (which you do through trial and error), and I think it will be like that for you as well by the virtue of the fact that you're currently relying on another technique that induces resistance through physical means.

The thing that is the focal point of your experience before ego death, which disappears during ego death, and which returns after ego death.

Well, that is what worked for me, sort of. It took about 3 years before I stabilized more in a separate sense of self and I could wean myself off the aforementioned techniques, but no earlier than last week, I had a deep "relapse" episode where I almost panicked and had to ground myself again using the techniques. But that has become increasingly rare (or at least, I've become used to dealing with it, using the techniques I discovered/invented). Anyways, when it comes to you and where you are now (early in the process), you just have to be consistent, especially with the abdominal tightening technique. That is your main anchor. Just trust in it and try it out for a while. You found out that working out creates some resistance which helps you regain a sense of self. Well, the abdominal tightening is a way to create a persistent type of resistance which doesn't require a lot of work. In fact, overtime, it becomes fully automatic or unconscious, and you will have to consciously relax it for it to stop (which I could see becoming somewhat problematic for me in the future, but oh well). I chose this route because I believe that I had a lopsided approach to spirituality and overdid it on the meditation and didn't work on other aspects of my character. So when I actually did start to dissolve my sense of self quite consistently (and eventually spontaneously), I started to run into this resistance, which I think can be worked on (if not solved) through "burning karma" so to speak, living life as a human and exhausting various desires and drives, until maybe one day, I see no other choice but to surrender. I don't think this is the only viable route for a person in this situation, but at least it can spare you of a lot of suffering if you need some time to consider what you want to do.

I think it fits with the topic 😂 Truly far-out yogic shit. I see myself in it very much, the vigorous DIY investigation into your own psychic system. You gotta be a certain type of crazy/obsessed/high-focus person to take it to this level.

Learn to tighten the left side of your abdomen perpetually every hour of the day, in a way that is uncomfortable but not unbearable. Sit, walk and stand with a sub-optimal posture (slightly crouched over), eat big meals and over-eat slightly (not junk food though, real food). Constantly distract yourself with something (your phone, computer, etc.).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluency_heuristic This is one of the reasons I reconsidered my approach to communication that I had developed in the last year or so. Fluency is great, but be very careful not to compromise the truth. Now, this doesn't mean you can't give a generalized or simplified account of something, but that usually requires some kind of transparency on the part of the communicator ("in general...", "put simply..."). Transparency is of course an attempt to be as truthful as possible, even while signalling that you're compromising the truth. Maybe we're perpetually compromising the truth by speaking about it (not maybe, but obviously to you non-dual folks). Still, we can at least try to not make it worse than it needs to be. Now, the more fluency and the less truth you have, that is called sophistry. An adequate balance between the two is called philosophy (philosophia - "the love of wisdom") That said, fluency can also be a good indicator of truth. For example, if you're struggling with typing out a forum post, maybe as a response to some argument that points out a flaw in your reasoning, and you're kind of lost for ideas and try to dig for at least some kind of answer that could add up, it could be an indicator (not certain) that you're wrong. That is however not a reason to give up trying to work out a difficult problem or really grinding it out. Maybe you're just around the corner for the true answer. But it can help you to become aware of times where for example the cognitive dissonance is actually very apparent but you're just in denial or a stubborn mule wanting to win an argument. Conversely, when you notice that the words just seem to fly out of you without much effort, even though you might be paying a lot of attention to detail and polishing various parts of your message to make it beautiful, that could be an indicator that you're tapping into an authentic source of inspiration which is likely tied to truth.

Like we agreed on earlier, the desire to kill what we believe has no right to exist is what morality is. I think having a sense of morality is a useful skill of the separate self. An enlightened being may talk about how God is fully accepting whatever God is, and that you should aim to identify with God in this way. But the person that the enlightened being can still be said to be does most likely prefer things like not killing innocent people over killing them. Hence, they still have a sense of morality, and again, it's therefore necessary to distinguish between the separate self (the person) and the Absolute Self (God) in this case, and to recognize that they do co-exist with each other in an understandable way. The enlightened "person" recognizes that they're not the person in the most ultimate sense, yet the person keeps existing just like it has existed up to that point, and a person makes moral judgements (or at least what can be perceived as moral judgements).

As long as you have a body and a mind, preferences, discernments and judgements will arise, even in the Enlightened person (albeit to a lesser extent). It has a specific name in Hinduism (Prarabdha karma).

Which involves ultimately not condemning your own judgements when they arise (the judgements of the separate self), because God doesn't even judge that. But you as a separate self should of course be vigilant with what judgements arise. But God is beyond that. You have to be clear when you're speaking from the perspective of God and when you're speaking from the perspective of the separate self.

Sorry in advance for being unable to make this less painfully abstract: so if we were to pull back to when I was talking about a different way of framing how we should judge things, and also if we use the definition of judgement of "asserting how someone should act"; if I were to frame what you're now saying in my qualitative frame, judging something in a condescending way could be classified as a low quality judgement which you should generally avoid. It's not that we should avoid to judge as much as possible, but rather that we should avoid less appropriate ways of judging, like condescending judgements. So in the end, I think you also agree with my qualitative framing more (and you seem to be saying so yourself). I think terminological discussions like these tend to get unnecessarily complex for what it aims to accomplish (clear communication), because you have to constantly signal when you're jumping between different definitions and framings. Sometimes it's just easier to concede to whatever definition of words that the OP has decided. The problem of course is if the way they are using the word is not consistent with the definition they themselves provided. But hey, what can you do?

I don't see how you can condemn something in a non-moral way in this situation. Morality is essentially about what you think should or should not exist, and that dovetails nicely with what you said about condemnation in your first post directed at me.

Exactly, because you care about the implied moral weight of the statement, not whether or not it is preceded by another statement. @Princess Arabia makes it seem like a judgement is just when you make a second description about a thing after making an initial description. I don't think that is the real criterion she uses to call something a judgement.

Seeing something you call "fat" is just a description, but seeing something that you call "disgusting" is also just a description. In that case, your definition of judgement seems to depend on whether the two descriptions is presented in some kind of arbitrary temporal order. Likewise, "he said something inappropriate" is a description, and "he is an asshole" is also a description. "Disgusting" and "asshole" do seem to carry some implied moral weight though. The real reason I think you distinguish the two descriptions is not their temporal order but their implied moral weight. For example, if I see something I call "fat" and then follow it with "and that means they carry a lot of weight", I doubt you would feel inclined to call that a judgement, but they do fit your definition of judgement based on temporal order. Conversely, if I were to only make one statement "they're a disgusting asshole" without any preceding or following statement, I think you would be inclined to call that a judgement. You also mention "condescending remarks" as a qualifying criterion, which holds some implied moral weight too (the implication is that you should not be condescending).

So your definition is similar to @Princess Arabia in that it has to do with asserting normativity or a "moral condemnation" (a more charged way of putting it). I personally am more flexible with how these words are used: you can make a descriptive judgement, a moral judgement, a judicial judgement, a logical judgement, an intuitive judgement, etc.

So according to you, judgement involves an assertion of normativity (of how you should act; e.g. if it's wrong or bad, you shouldn't do it). In that case, saying that someone being fat probably means they lack self-control (the initial claim of the OP) is actually not a judgement. It's just a descriptive statement. You could say there is an implied normative statement in there, as the OP probably believes that a lack of self control is generally something you should avoid, but still, based on what he wrote in the first post, he was actually not judging according to you. I believe viewing judgement in the way you understand it as something to generally avoid is a wrong or at least an inaccurate way to frame it. It's framed as a quantitative question: less is better. I believe you should strive to judge appropriately, i.e. a qualitative question: better is better. How exactly you go about that is up to you. I believe judgement in the way you've defined it is something we do all the time (like right now), and again, it's not something to avoid, but rather something to do right.

Weed. Don't let anybody tell you it's not addictive. I also did other substances in combination for certain periods, but weed was the mainstage. Weed was very attractive to me because of how it affected my creativity. I remember one time trying to combine it with a large dose of alcohol (like 5-6 beers), and I noticed that it removed that creative edge, or at least the speed of the thoughts, which I believe is why I never became an alcoholic. My main method of escape was through immersion in a fantasy world of conceptual thinking. Alcohol on the other hand seemed to numb out all forms of thinking, which I didn't like.

People think God can imagine an infinite amount of infinite universes in infinite dimensions but can't imagine multiple separate minds. Funny.

@Javfly33 I've always thought that my addiction story turning out the way it did was based on an entourage of many lucky events coming together. One thing I rarely mention is that the time I really took my first "voluntary" break, I had been given an ultimatum by my mom that I would either quit or move out (she had found out many times by then). At the same time, maybe only a week or two before, the spiritual Discord server I was in (which infamously devolved into a cult) had concluded that all psychedelics (including weed) could be a source of negative energies and that we had to abstain from them if we wanted to stay on the server. Also, the belief that negative energies was a bad thing had started to affect me. All in all, a confluence of two big factors occured for me to finally take the first voluntary step towards sobriety: social and financial threats from my mom, and a change in belief system as well social pressure from the Discord server. Also, I believed I could replace my weed with meditation (that was a huge one), so in reality it was three big factors. I had effectively started to believe that continuing my weed habit was no longer sustainable and that there were other alternatives for me to feel good (and feel alive). The problem in enacting these insights in practice for somebody else is that it's hard to artificially induce social pressure from someone whom their opinion is something you care about. Also, you do not choose your beliefs. Artificially inducing a situation where your beliefs change in a direction conducive to sobriety is probably even harder than the former. That said, every addiction story is different. Maybe you're less deep in the trouble that I was in and that these things are not needed. Still, if nothing seems to end up working for you, these are things to consider.

And I don't use "personalities" for no reason. These are people inside your mind that are giving convincing and in-depth arguments for why you should continue taking the drug, and they're just as smart as you, if not smarter (because they're highly motivated). I've sometimes described it as demonic possession, in the sense that the devil is smarter than you, stronger than you, and of course knows how to deceive and manipulate you. It has a finger on the button of your emotions, it knows the ins and outs of your conscious and subconscious mind, and it essentially has the combined intellect of a debate panel of several PhD-level experts in multiple fields. Most importantly, it lies (or at least fails to keep promises) — oh, so much. "I'll start tomorrow...". It might seem like I'm catastrophizing, but I believe it's a realistic and useful attitude for viewing the phenomenon. Every time you have a craving, you should remind yourself what you're up against, not as a reason to give up because it all seems too futile, but because it gives you the strength and tools to understand and deal with your cravings. It also helped me a lot to view every painful encounter with a craving (painful because of not acting on it) as a sign of growth. In a way, it tricks your brain to associate the rewiring process with something positive. Every painful experience is re-contextualized as a reward. It's quite genius if you ask me. It's still very hard, and you should use every inch of your meditation experience to your favor: be vigorously self-aware and present with what is going on in your mind at all times. Be conscious of every decision that your mind makes.

Natural things like grieving the death of a loved one, which is truly unavoidable, can only be dealt with by not being afraid to feel the grief, and to go where your mind wants to go, and accepting that. Then over time, given authenticity, given emotional openness, it works itself out. But this assumes that your life has a fundamental level of stability to begin with (that you have some sources of resilience, e.g. a community, a family, a social network). If there is a fundamental unstability in your life that is truly unsolvable, then the only "way out" is "up" (self-transcendence), i.e. spirituality. But there is a Catch-22, because you cannot engage in spirituality without at least some fundamental sense of stability, albeit relatively less in this case. And there are solutions there (for example joining a monastery). Also, on the flip side, a relative level of instability can serve as a powerful catalyst for spirituality. I can speak from my own experience, as I found spirituality while my life was spiraling out of control in a more individual psychological sense, all the while I still had a strong support network around me. Nevertheless, spirituality radically changed me as a person: my mind went from an endless circular neurotic mess into the streamlined goal-oriented tool that it's supposed to be. It will forever remain my life purpose to share my experiences in some form or another.

Why?

Lol

So the (healthy) vegans had about a 6% reduction of cardiovascular disease risk compared to the healthy omnivores (in that time frame). Hmm... I guess it's not nothing (?) Now, imagine the difference between the standard american diet and the healthy omnivore diet Dew it! If you had to guess, how large do you think the differences would be?

Cool. Now replicate it Is there anything to note from the variance between subjects? This idea that what is a healthy diet (or healthy behavior in general) might be an individual thing keeps entering my mind (thank you, Bryan Johnson). It's obvious, but even if the results (which is based on data from multiple individuals) skew clearly in one direction, that doesn't mean that you as a single individual couldn't deviate from that data. It would be interesting to have some clear quantitative studies on that too ("how much do people differ?", "which types of people respond better to which interventions?", etc.). Quantitative science is so focused on presenting general results that it might forget that people are indeed different.