SELF-Realization

[Reiku]

SELF-Realization: When absolutely Nothing Happens
yet what was a rock-solid and certain reality
becomes a Hallucination
in which Nothing Ever Happens.

-- the Living SELF; Eternal and Infinite Sri Birgit Bhagavati-Bhagavan Vishnu Fukkamee Swami

Well, the realization of the self, is also a principle of consciousnes i brought forward not long ago on another site.

It seems that consciousness is not actually real, unless the system itself can reflect on their own existences. As yet of discovered, only three other animals in the Kingdom of the World share this.

The Dolphin, the Elephant, and the Ape family have a ''Self-Reflection Principle,'' as i named it.

 

[cosmictraveler]

Presumably you know people who do this on a Sunday night and are bright and early at work on a Monday then?

No, they usually did it on either Friday or Saturday night. But your claim was 3days they were "tripping" which I was in disagreement with. Then you said I was full of shit but I presented facts that proved my point making you seem to not understand what you were talking about. Instead of just agreeing with me you can't even say that you were wrong, why is that?:shrug:

 

[Vkothii]

But your claim was 3days they were "tripping" which I was in disagreement with.

I'm in disagreement too. That isn't what I said at all.

This is what I actually posted: "A trip usually takes about 3 days to come down completely from."
You appear to have come to some sort of conclusion about what the above sentence is saying.
Do you know what the word "refractory" means?

 

[VossistArts]

Yeah, Ive never had a trip last more than about 20 hours max. Probably somewhat less really. I dont know anyone who tripped for three days on one dose of ANY size. LSD like any drug metabolizes at a certain rate.

It could last 3 days though, if you took a dose once then 24 hours later then 48 hours later.

 

[Vkothii]

My actual recollections of ingesting the stuff (California clear light, say) was that I was 'peaking' in about 2-3 hours. That was about the only consistent effect; the next 18-24 or 48 hours were 'fuzzy'. Discussions with other users of the stuff reflected that mostly, the 2-3 hour buildup (presumably as the bloodstream level of LSD got to a peak), was not unique to my individual experience of it.

I was usually 'down' after 24 hours, but as I've said (once or twice in this thread), there seemed to be a definite recovery, or refractory period.

The 'after-effect' effect is very common, I believe (not that I'm a pharmacist, or a physiologist, or biochemist).
But hey, believe what you want.

 

[Vkothii]

I dont know anyone who tripped for three days on one dose of ANY size. LSD like any drug metabolizes at a certain rate.

I do. I know people who tripped for days (nine days one dude reckoned). They dropped a LOT of LSD (for some reason) to achieve this.

Probably they had a massive trip for ~6-12 hours, then tripped for a day or two, then gradually came back to earth over a week, say. I don't really know but I imagine dropping 10-20 trips wouldn't be like dropping 1 trip.

 

[Simon Anders]

Would you take another place to see what they say, or are they full of shit too?

"The precise mechanism by which LSD alters perceptions is still unclear. Evidence from laboratory studies suggests that LSD, like hallucinogenic plants, acts on certain groups of serotonin receptors designated the 5-HT2 receptors, and that its effects are most prominent in two brain regions: One is the cerebral cortex, an area involved in mood, cognition, and perception; the other is the locus ceruleus, which receives sensory signals from all areas of the body and has been described as the brain's "novelty detector" for important external stimuli.

LSD's effects typically begin within 30 to 90 minutes of ingestion and may last as long as 12 hours. Users refer to LSD and other hallucinogenic experiences as "trips" and to the acute adverse experiences as "bad trips." Although most LSD trips include both pleasant and unpleasant aspects, the drug's effects are unpredictable and may vary with the amount ingested and the user's personality, mood, expectations, and surroundings."

http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/lsd/f/lsd_faq04.htm




"How long does the feeling last?
The effects of LSD come on gradually within an hour of taking the drug, "peak" at two to four hours and gradually taper off, with the entire trip lasting up to 12 hours. The intensity of the effect depends on the size of the dose.

Some users feel let down or fatigued for 12 to 24 hours after the trip is over. "


http://www.camh.net/About_Addiction_Mental_Health/Drug_and_Addiction_Information/lsd_dyk.html

That's a description of the bulk of people's reactions. Some people never come down: IOW they are permanently changed - some simply eccentric, some damaged. Some people experience much more than the top end that is listed above. You are talking about radically changing perceptions, something the brain can do on its own and does on occasion once the pattern is shown to it.

Flashbacks, for example, do not happen when LSD magically reaches a threshhold in the blood years later. The brain can repeat states it has been 'taught'. For both good and ill.

 

[onemoment]

When we dream we think it is real, and then when we wake up we recognize that it was all a dream. In the dream, if we are in it, we think we are there climbing mountains, running from someone etc, but it was all illusionary yet seemed so real. And, was there any substance to this dream - was there any solidity to it - no. So, can it not be then that when we see what we really are, we see that it was all illusionary, an hallucination made up of nothing substanstantial? Just nothingness!

 

[Vkothii]

When I dream, I don't think my dreams are "real". I'd say my unconscious mind is aware that it's dreaming.
It could explain why we don't generally act out what we dream as we dream it.

 

[onemoment]

Obviously when we wake up we know that the dream is not real, but while we are dreaming, are we thinking 'I am dreaming'? Mostly not! So my point is what is the difference between seeing the dream as real while we are asleep and seeing this 'awake' reality as real while we 'sleep' (I say 'sleep' because we are not truely awake to our true self).

If your dreams took off where they left off, just like our 'waking' state seems to do, how would you know the difference between the dream and waking state?

How could the 'unconscious mind' ever be aware of anything. 'Unconscious' implies 'over and out'.

 

[swarm]

So I'm seeing a lot of ignorance about entheogens.

Get over to http://www.erowid.org and educate yourselves.

I also recommend http://www.maps.org

 

[VossistArts]

Obviously when we wake up we know that the dream is not real, but while we are dreaming, are we thinking 'I am dreaming'? Mostly not! So my point is what is the difference between seeing the dream as real while we are asleep and seeing this 'awake' reality as real while we 'sleep' (I say 'sleep' because we are not truely awake to our true self).

If your dreams took off where they left off, just like our 'waking' state seems to do, how would you know the difference between the dream and waking state?

How could the 'unconscious mind' ever be aware of anything. 'Unconscious' implies 'over and out'.

At this point in my life I am almost always aware that I am dreaming while I am dreaming. This isnt to say that the sensory "substance" if you can call it that, is notably different from the sensory substance I experience while awake, its just that a certain "qualityness" of dream reality almost alway comes through, noticeably so. I suspect at least part of the difference comes from the obvious inconsistencies that exist in dreaming compared to waking.
Even if your dreams started where they left off each time you were to dream, youd know it because youd always wake up to your normal waking experience in between dreams. The reason we can say that dreams are insubstantial and illusory with ease but by contrast we stuggle to say the same about our waking experience of things is because from the waking experience our only escape from what we believe to be real and solid is in dreaming or maybe death. In other words there is no greater or more substancial reality to return to allow us to view our waking reality as being without substance or concern. Apparently anyways.

Its said that certain Eastern traditions and religions that utilize meditative means can lead us to a space from which our real illusory nature is apparent, exist.
One can not really know whether this is possibly though, without seriously investigating these methods for one's self.

 

[swarm]

onemoment how would you know the difference between the dream and waking state?

Doesn't matter.
Always treat the reality you find youself in as real.
Always do non destructive reality testing.

Think you can fly? Lift off from the ground or jump off a chair.

 

[Search & Destroy]

Remember, we never completely wake up out of our dreams.

 

[VossistArts]

Remember, we never completely wake up out of our dreams.

why do you say that?

 

[onemoment]

Swarm: Always treat the reality you find youself in as real.
Always do non destructive reality testing.

Here's a perfect example of advice that means nothing. What are people meant to do with this? Of course people treat the situation they are in as real, even an 'enlightened' being, one who recognizes his/her oneness, is going to jump out of the way if someone throws a snake at them. The question is though, is it 'me' who is making the decision to act? How can it be if it is all the one?

A more beneficial pointer to our oneness is to see for ourselves what in us has never changed, regardless of the ever changing experiences of life. Aren't we always aware? And are there any parts to this awareness?

And what the hell does 'always do non destructive reality testing' mean? Quite apart from the fact that this direction could never lead anyone to 'enlightenment' (more appropriately referred to as re-cognition of our true essence), what the hell is someone to make of this statement?

 

[Simon Anders]

Here's a perfect example of advice that means nothing. What are people meant to do with this? Of course people treat the situation they are in as real, even an 'enlightened' being, one who recognizes his/her oneness, is going to jump out of the way if someone throws a snake at them. The question is though, is it 'me' who is making the decision to act? How can it be if it is all the one?

Wouldn't this argument make the difference between advice that 'means nothing' and advice that people can 'do something with' rather moot?

A more beneficial pointer to our oneness is to see for ourselves what in us has never changed

are there 'parts' that have?

And what does it matter to the 'oneness' this advice you are giving?

 

[onemoment]

Simon, in your first question are you saying that you cannot do something with what I have written? I promise I would answer your question if I understood what exactly you were asking.

As to your question 'are there 'parts' that have?' changed - I would have to answer 'No'. Nothing in effect changes, it just appears to change. Those changing things to which I refer are the thoughts we have, the body we have, the changing experiences etc. But that awareness that is ever there, can you divide that? Hasn't that always remained the same as far back as you can remember?

And what does it matter to the 'oneness' this advice you are giving?

You are right, nothing matters to the oneness - there is no concern in the awareness that is always and ever there. Everything is just appearing. It is like you are a character in a hologram movie with sensations and feelings included and the sadness/happiness that is felt is not felt by a person because you are not the person you are the awareness in which it all appears(well it is felt by a person in a way in that the experiences are of an 'apparent' body and mind). If it is not you that things are happening to, then there is just the experiencing. Nothing matter because there is no-one for it to matter to.

 

[Simon Anders]

Simon, in your first question are you saying that you cannot do something with what I have written? I promise I would answer your question if I understood what exactly you were asking.

In a sense I am saying 'What can we do with anything, including what you have written, if what you have written is true?

What I bolded below seem to continue pointing to a certain fruitlessness in advice, 'good' or 'bad', workable with or not.

As to your question 'are there 'parts' that have?' changed - I would have to answer 'No'. Nothing in effect changes, it just appears to change. Those changing things to which I refer are the thoughts we have, the body we have, the changing experiences etc. But that awareness that is ever there, can you divide that? Hasn't that always remained the same as far back as you can remember?

And then referring to the second bolded portion above, the words of both swarm and you (and me) would be exactly equivalent to these thoughts.

If it is not you that things are happening to, then there is just the experiencing. Nothing matter because there is no-one for it to matter to.

And so, again, what matters whether his advice is something someone can use?

Can you not see the irony of one part of the oneness telling another part of the oneness that there is something wrong with the thoughts 'he' is writing down for 'others'?

I don't really hold to this oneness doctrine, at least not in the dominant way you seem to, and so what I experience from a different perspective on 'things' is that there is something ludicrous about correcting him, given what you say as part of that correction.

 

[onemoment]

Simon: so what I experience from a different perspective on 'things' is that there is something ludicrous about correcting him, given what you say as part of that correction

Of course, that is the paradox that is so often referred to when people think about non-duality. Activity doesn't cease just because someone becomes clear that they are not the body and not the mind - that they are just the awareness - 'Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water.'

So, yes, I am involved in an argument of logic firstly, but ultimately what I am pointing to is that awareness which is undeniable, unrefutable, ineffable and indescribable. Can you ever say 'I am not aware'? We can argue what else you may be but that awareness must be there for any argument to appear. No?

So what I am pointing to is not a matter of opinion or 'holding to this oneness doctrine' as you put it. It is evident now.

Don't you see that the truth we think in words is all our 'own' devising and assumes that just because we have named something we know it. So this is a computer - but what, really, is it?

I said above that nothing matters to the oneness. I could also say from the point of view of an individual that it does matter - it matters to the one who sees himself as an individual and thinks he/she is suffering. And in the play, the appearance, there is another individual that points and says 'Suffering is not necessary and this is how you might end it.'

From the point of view of the individual still seeking answers it does matter whether the advice being given is useful or not, don't you think?