Who Wants Actualized Psychedelic Retreats?

[zurew]

10 minutes ago, vibv said:

Exactly! Because you keep missing that point that all words & semantics are fundamentally unable to carry the meaning of those things.

I dont know why you would think that Im missing the point about that particular thing.

Its not me who wants to fight for a label - its Leo.

I never said that anyone can give an exhaustive account for any given term , especially not for enlightenment and for awakening. But the issue isn't that one cant give an exhaustive account, the issue is changing the meaning behind the term and not engaging with a meaning that was explicitly given to you.

[zurew]

12 minutes ago, vibv said:

You're not able yet to grasp the weight of what he said.

You're not able to yet grasp that if you use the definition nondualist have for enightenment then what Leo said in those statements is incoherent.

The only way to make it coherent is to change the meaning behind the term and hence engage in equivocation.

Drop the label 'enlightenment' and just insert in the intended meaning and the problem is solved.

 

[vibv]

5 minutes ago, zurew said:

and not engaging with a meaning that was explicitly given to you.

I prefer to create my own meaning.

[zurew]

Just now, vibv said:

I prefer to create my own meaning.

Thats cool, but then its not a response to whats being said, in that case you are talking about and pointing to a different thing.

Which was our whole point in this whole thread and thats why I pushed for clarification of the term to get a sense how he uses these terms but then got shot down for being pedantic.

[vibv]

1 minute ago, zurew said:

Thats cool, but then its not a response to whats being said, in that case you are talking about and pointing to a different thing.

That was the most interesting thing I had to say about that  

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Arguments with my 9 year old nephew go down like this....

[Water by the River]

11 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

@zurew @UnbornTao @Water by the River

You three do not have the intelligence to understand what I am saying. So I will not bother explaining it to you any further.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

"Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion often using a totally irrelevant, but often highly charged attribute of the opponent's character or background. The most common form of this fallacy is "A" makes a claim of "fact", to which "B" asserts that "A" has a personal trait, quality or physical attribute that is repugnant thereby going off-topic, and hence "B" concludes that "A" has their "fact" wrong – without ever addressing the point of the debate."

"Use in debates:

Ad hominem fallacies are considered to be uncivil and do not help creating a constructive atmosphere for dialogue to flourish.[29] An ad hominem attack is an attack on the character of the target who tends to feel the necessity to defend himself or herself from the accusation of being hypocritical. Walton has noted that it is so powerful of an argument that it is employed in many political debates. Since it is associated with negativity and dirty tricks, it has gained a bad fame, of being always fallacious.[30]"

 

WbrR mumbling "Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses" (If you had kept your silence, you would have stayed a philosopher) by the River

 

PS:

@UnbornTao Cool Picture. Yours truly would be the (only?) guy smiling I guess. 

Edited 7 hours ago by Water by the River

[Water by the River]

10 hours ago, Davino said:

In the vertical Awakening you'll discover that consciousness can go on forever, you become so conscious that you can hack yourself out of the Human dream and Universe, till eventually your consciousness breaks free from all limitation and becomes Infinite, total and Sovereign. If you dare to go on, increasing in consciousness shall you realise yourself to be the One, the Only, the Almighty God. This Infinite Universal Mind Field metamorphoses into all possible realities and sensations.

Um... What do you think happens in Enlightenment other than something along these lines? The difference to psychedelic awakening is that this stays available and accessible in daily life, and is not distorted by filters/lenses of the remaining ego/separate-self projecting itself on any states/arisings . Ralstons constant Kensho/Satori statement. 

10 hours ago, Davino said:

Yes this boundless consciousness field always 'is' says the horizontally awakened, independent of the phenomena it always is.

Yet you have never broken free of limitations, you're trapped inside a rat movie abiding in the ever-present nature of the screen. Says the vertically awakened.

Again, that is just your assumption that there is something left trapped in a rat movie.

You are confusing Enlightenment with mild nondual boundless states (with illusion/other/ignorance/separate-self-arisings still active/hypnotizing). These states ripen normally for years until the full Waking Up happens and any limited identity/hypnosis is discarded as mere illusion. 

10 hours ago, Davino said:

This perfectly explains the dynamic happening here. It also explains what meditation is useful for and what psychedelics are useful for

Or this view can set you up for exactly the show that Leo is performing: Keeping the separte-self/ego well and alive, going chasing awakenings, understandings and what not, projecting itself on aspects of Spirit, resulting in Spirit Interruptus so to say. Costing you possibly decades or life-times of not stabilizing Awakening. And instead of enjoying and celebrating the Exploration of the Infinities of Infinite Consciousness from an enlightened/awakened/blissful/always home - realization, one uses these higher states to cope with the still suffering separate-self/ego and ease the pain.

But like I always say, the point of the ride is the ride. The journey is much more thrilling when more urgency/grasping/suffering/state-chasing is in play... So everything is exactly as it should be. Each soul chooses its own adventure, following its intuition. Some have intuitions arising from previous failed projects, some need that project yet to fail. Yet, every soul rejoices in its freedom to follow its own path and adventures, even if these lead to suffering sometimes.

Bon voyage, Godspeed and enjoy the ride!

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Water by the River said:

Ad hominem

No. It isn't.

What I am saying requires such high intelligence to understand that 99.9999% humans have never and will never understand it.

Intelligence is nothing personal. You can't fake it. You can't BS your way around it. You can't read it in any book.

Fully realizing God requires insane intelligence. Mindless meditation techniques are not enough. You can't note and label your way to Intelligence! You can't self-inquire your way to Intelligence!

The sheer intelligence of the highest things I understand is just astonishing.

This is not a debate. I understand things you do not. Nothing personal about it. You too could understand, if your mind was open.

Edited 6 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Water by the River]

5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

No. It isn't.

What I am saying requires such high intelligence to understand that 99.9999% humans have never and will never understand it.

Intelligence is nothing personal. You can't fake it. You can't BS your way around it. You can't read it in any book.

Fullt realizing God requires insane intelligence.

"Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person [here: (lacking) intelligence] making an argument" 

So you can't or are not willing or not able to argue your position, but the others aren't intelligent enough to undertand and agree to your points.

And all of that is not Ad hominem, because Intelligence is not an attribute of the person(s) as you state, "Intelligence is nothing personal".

On the other side, here intelligence (or the lack of) is refered to as a property/Attribute of the person ("you three do not have the intelligence"):

12 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

You three do not have the intelligence to understand what I am saying. So I will not bother explaining it to you any further.

 

You know what, the strangest thing is that I am so out of habit of forming any self-contraction caused by any these contradiction-in-themselves that you produce that I still truly like you! 

 

Giving Leo a big hug by the River

 

 

[zurew]

7 hours ago, zurew said:

Thats cool, but then its not a response to whats being said, in that case you are talking about and pointing to a different thing.

Which was our whole point in this whole thread and thats why I pushed for clarification of the term to get a sense how he uses these terms but then got shot down for being pedantic.

Let me try this one last time to demonstrate what one of my issue is.

If by the term 'Leo' I mean a particular lion in Africa, and you mean Leo Gura, then we are obviously referring to two different things. And then if I made the sentence 'Leo managed to protect his group from a pack of hyenas yesterday' and you would respond to that with "But Leo Gura couldnt have done that, because we were hanging out yesterday and we were tripping balls and you just cant grasp the depth of what it is like to trip balls with Leo Gura" then thats just wouldnt be responsive to what I said, and hence wouldnt change the truth of what I said.

If you want to change the truth value of my sentence in a scenario like this, you have to use the same meaning - so for example, it would be responsive to say, "no that particular Lion you referred to in your sentence couldnt have done that, because of x y z (where X could be something like "Because we were filming that lion all day, and we have video evidence that there was no hyena attack yesterday.")

 

 

Now, all of this is compatible with me grasping and also compatible with me not grasping the depth of what it is like to trip balls with Leo Gura - 1 point is just that your inference doesnt make sense, you are concluding me not grasping whats it like to trip balls with Leo Gura based on a thing I said about a Lion in Africa. The second point is that if you insert my definition in your sentence then it becomes incoherent. You probably cant trip balls with an actual lion in Africa.

And now add to this scenario the fact that you didnt clarify what you meant by the term 'Leo'  (you dont clarify that you meant Leo gura) and all im left is your sentence that is completely incoherent under my semantics (under how I use the term Leo) and im also left with you seemingly have issue with the truth of my sentences (under my semantics).  So Im there thinking -  its either the case that he is trying to challenge my claim "Wait , is he trying to challenge the fact that the lion was actually attacked by a pack of hyenas yesterday?!?!" or it is the case that he engaged in equivocation and he was talking about something completely unrelated to what I said (tripping balls with Leo Gura).

 

 

Now lets go further with a different analogy. A nondualist makes the statement that 'my pet named Ice cream is a cute dog' and then Leo Gura responds to that with saying "No, no ,no you are wrong, you have to understand how ingenius God is at making frozen desserts.  God invented dogs just to hide a frozen dessert typically made from milk from you. Only the smartest will see through the Ice cream illusion."

Do you think that would be responsive in any way to what the nondualist said? No it wouldnt be, and him concluding that a nondualist is wrong about frozen desserts is stupid, because the nondualist havent said anything related to  frozen desserts hence his/her position is unclear on the matter. Its unresponsive for the fact that none of what Leo Gura said changes the fact, that the nondualist's dog is named Ice cream.

Edited 17 minutes ago by zurew

[Water by the River]

Ok, and here my reply to your edited/updates points:

20 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The sheer intelligence of the highest things I understand is just astonishing.

Maybe. Yet, I would recommmend getting the opinion of  a good PR-consultant on wether statements of these sorts are useful. Even if they are true, it could be that a large part of the audience finds them maybe not so - um- sexy. And considering that, then the second question could come up if these kind of statements are "sheer intelligence".

21 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

This is not a debate. I understand things you do not. Nothing personal about it. You too could understand, if your mind was open.

No doubt about that. Ken Wilber was once asked if he understands something that the Buddha doesn't. His answer was "How to drive a jeep". And maybe I have understood some things that you haven't.

 

Marveling at the sheer intelligence of the highest things by the River and opting for hugging some of its waves

 

[Leo Gura]

5 minutes ago, Water by the River said:

I would recommmend getting the opinion of  a good PR-consultant

Then you really don't know me.

[vibv]

5 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Arguments with my 9 year old nephew go down like this....

Maybe it's time is to begin to enjoy it  Word duels are a form of art.

First disarm, then hit directly into the heart.❤️ 

Edited 2 hours ago by vibv

[OBEler]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

No. It isn't.

What I am saying requires such high intelligence to understand that 99.9999% humans have never and will never understand it.

Intelligence is nothing personal. You can't fake it. You can't BS your way around it. You can't read it in any book.

Fully realizing God requires insane intelligence. Mindless meditation techniques are not enough. You can't note and label your way to Intelligence! You can't self-inquire your way to Intelligence!

The sheer intelligence of the highest things I understand is just astonishing.

This is not a debate. I understand things you do not. Nothing personal about it. You too could understand, if your mind was open.

So if someone is intelligent and open minded but not spiritual and never contemplated god, reality, etc.  what would be needed that he can be God realized. 

[UnbornTao]

@Water by the River Fine, only this time. I'll be Maude.

[Davino]

9 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

@Davino No matter the conceptual machinations one undergoes or the amount of wishful thinking involved, what a chemical can do is alter brain activity. Since you're making that argument, you likely want to believe, or already believe, that they lead to awakening. But how could they? Direct consciousness is not a function of physiology or the brain, nor is it a shift in mind-state. You're chasing the bells and whistles of chemically induced states - which, by the way, can be beneficial, impressive, and dramatic.

It easily goes over one's head that "enlightenment" (becoming directly conscious of the true nature of oneself or existence) is neither a perception, a state, nor an experience. It's not even awareness. Now, where do the drugs have their effect? In your experience and cognition. There's no way for a "doing" to produce an absolute result, because the latter isn't a process. And everything occurs as a process. This is an essential insight to have that will change the way you look at this matter. 

That's totally right if you're talking about the horizontal dimension of spirituality.

That's totally wrong if you're talking about the vertical dimension of spirituality.

The reason why chemicals matter in the vertical dimension is because you're breaking through every limit, physical, mental, existential, etc. You are unlocking the Rubik's Cube of existence towards infinity and that involves jailbraking the workings of this particular universe and beyond.

[vibv]

1 hour ago, OBEler said:

So if someone is intelligent and open minded but not spiritual and never contemplated god, reality, etc.  what would be needed that he can be God realized. 

True Intelligence comes from beyond the human.

To answer you question: To build an intimate connection to God (even if he calls it differently, it doesn’t matter).

Edited 2 hours ago by vibv

[Davino]

Returning to the main topic, you should note psychedelics are geared towards the highest peaks of consciousness and Infinity. If you're interested more into the everpresent buzzing being of existence, maybe these type of experience will not give you what you're looking for (maybe they give you something better or not, but it's not directly what you're searching for a priori)

[vibv]

2 minutes ago, Davino said:

Returning to the main topic, you should note psychedelics are geared towards the highest peaks of consciousness and Infinity. If you're interested more into the everpresent buzzing being of existence, maybe these type of experience will not give you what you're looking for (maybe they give you something better or not, but it's not directly what you're searching for a priori)

In my experience the ability to let go and just be is an important prerequisite to try to reach the highest peaks.