/lit/ - Literature

idk bro i just smoke weed

>>18587473
I ask myself this all the time. It feeds perfectly into my more depressed moods when I reach the boundary of the ineffable. I get lower and lower trying to chip away and put into words everything that all other idiologies have failed to put into words for me personally. But then there are other times when this question turns into something that gives me energy in a "life is what you make it" way. All religion/organized way of thinking is fiction and a celebration of what we are unable to see or hold or point at in a physical sense. Stories, symbols, and metaphors that are only able to dance around the boundary of truth.

To answer your question more directly, idk. I just try to do my best to love and, when I remember, thank the good feeling when it comes back around.

>>18587864
What I'm asking about is above ideology, belief, and ideas, it's about restructuring the mind itself

>>18588004
Well shit. Sorry I still don't have a good answer then. Substances don't really provide truth but like you said just rearrange the mind and provide new angles to see things. Kind of like how our minds are shaped in sobriety by all sorts of "substances" like education, religion, trauma, and so on. I get that I'm not answering your question but I like the question and it's not exactly easy to talk about so forgive me for thinking out loud. What do you think? Are you comfortable without an answer?

>>18588133
>Substances don't really provide truth but like you said just rearrange the mind and provide new angles
yes and no. They will definitely give you a different perspective, but if you take something like 5-meo-dmt and experience ego death (haven't done it yet), it appears to radically alter the mind/consciousness, stripping away unconscious assumptions and programs that make us functional. This probably isn't the best example, but, if you see two objects, say a red flower and a blue car, they appear fundamentally distinct, however (from the nondual perspective) they are of the same boundaryless substance. You can argue one scientific piece of evidence for this is when you give vision to people who never had it before. In the first few days, they start from nothing and have to learn everything. They can't visually identify shapes or even tell the difference between light and dark. Similar to this is the case of people let to live in the wild without language, they don't have a sophisticated theory of mind or self-awareness. However, what makes the psychedelic experience special? What if I snort ketamine and genuinely believe I'm an infinite god creating my surroundings? Under what basis do I actually reject this notion, if I give credence to the other? I want to say it's because the psychedelic experience can be reconciled with the natural one, and also that people (buddhists) have come to the same conclusion for thousands of years, but I'm not completely satisfied with this answer.
Another less complicated example of a shift in experience is free will-most people take it for granted and operate under the assumption it exists, even if they don't have a concept of it. But with meditation some come to experience the absence of free will. Sam Harris has said that he can "turn off" his feeling of free will, at will. However, others argue, *from intuition,* that free will does indeed exists, but it is consciousness that is an illusion (Dan Dennett). This seemingly irreconcilable clash of experiential philosophy is disconcerting and makes me have doubts about the veracity of claims about enlightenment (of course both have arguments to back up their intuition, but the point stands).
Lastly, on enlightenment- those who reasonably claim to be enlightened say that they're more sure of it than anything else they've ever believed. But how can they be sure, really? Aren't delusional people sure they're not crazy? I do think a lot of points of nonduality, anatta make sense (intellectually), but ultimately they cannot be proven or argued since enlightenment fundamentally transcends ideas and language. One of my biggest fears is living a life in delusion. Living a fulfilling or pragmatic life, but not truthful, seems repugnant, which is why I must be skeptical of experiential philosophy.

>>18588743
I love all of this.
Dont have anything helpful to add in the way of solving the problem but will say that it's comforting to read these things. In a way the psychedelic experience feels like an absolute miracle. It feels like liberation from the question because you are dropped into the answer-- ego death. Ego death being the answer in the way that it removes all context creating question in the first place. But without that context you no longer exist as you. So in a way YOU can only truly appreciate it in a peripheral way when you come back down. But by that point it's no longer taking up your entire "field of vision" so to speak so, at least for me, it only serves to taunt. The shit about the flower and the car used to literally drive me insane and so deep into solipsistic numbness. I mean it still does from time to time but I guess I've let go for better or for worse. Better because I'm happier but worse because like you said I may not be living a truthful experience. Ignorance is bliss :(

I don't think there will ever be a way to truly say any of these modes of thinking (substances, transcendental meditation) are really "The way it is". I believe this is where faith comes in and humility and humbleness. Humility for the fact that we as humans are constantly chasing our tails and fail to realize that the the answer is to stop searching. Humbleness to go with humility because I'm obviously not hot shit in the light of this information. And faith in a broad sense of love and an attempt at understanding. Sorry not trying to derail what you were initially getting at. Maybe faith is like a filter for dipshits like me who've become complacent in their search. Idk it helps me not kill myself.

Ego death is an annihilationist trap. Believing that to be the highest possible state you can reach immediately outs you as being clueless. The highest mystical states are related to theopoesis i.e. divinization, not eastern dissolution.

>>18589304
Theopoetics. I never new what to call that area of feeling and learning you get from reading fiction. Thanks.

>>18587473
>what if repeated meditation just causes a flavor of psychosis like solitary confinement
"If you are meditating and a devil appears, make the devil meditate too"

what you call reality is qualia. all experiences are different parts of the qualia field. no one part is more real than another, the same way utah isnt more real than bremen. then again, you can see more from different altitudes

>>18587473
They can't be any more real than each other because none of them are real at all. The seat of emotions is the body, not the soul. Eventually the body will pass on, and the emotions and memories will pass with it. What happens to the soul at that point is a matter of speculation. The world is the dream of the soul, and when we wake it will seem like an inconsequential figment (it's hard to describe how a soul without a body would feel).

>>18589676
How do you know the soul exists

>>18588743
based fronkposter

>>18589304
Ego death is not a state, it's a transition. At least within the psychedelic experience.

>>18590477
Does fronk mean nigger

>>18587473
>How can we determine whether certain mindstates, like normal sobriety vs psychedelic ego death vs bhuddist enlightenment are more "real" than another?
What do you mean by "more real"? They are all real. It's just that most mental states are lacking in awareness.
>I find myself interested in those states but what if repeated meditation just causes a flavor of psychosis like solitary confinement, for example?
How could that possibly be the case?
>Are all mindstates just different manifestations of whatever consciousness is, but some are more pragmatic than others?
In a way, yes. I would use the word "complete" rather than "pragmatic", but depending on your perspective you could use "pragmatic" too.
>How much faith can we have in experiential truth?
You do not need to have faith in experiential truth, as it is the one and only thing which you can, in fact, directly know.
>Literature that discusses this?
Read Evola, Guenon, the Trads etc.
>>18589304
Ego death isn't an Eastern thing either, it's just New Age schlock. No Eastern religion aims at "ego death".

>>18587473
>what if repeated meditation just causes a flavor of psychosis like solitary confinement
Sounds like someone trying to find an excuse not to meditate. Once you really practice it and see what it is that question will sound silly to you.

>>18587473
The mind is the seat of your experience of reality, your state of mind being a filter on the lense. The shared perception between all minds is reality. Only after death will you know if your mind may also dictate your reality beyond your experience of it--to truly become a god or to incarnate/manifest again onto reality. I personally believe the soul is one and experience both times and divides it (adds another dimension). One soul can experience all lives at once yet experience each one individually at the same time.

>>18589997
If I didn't have a soul I'd have no self. My intuition tells me that I have a consistent self, and I also know from research and varied thought experiments that a consistent self is inconsistent with a materialist worldview. Therefore I conclude that there is a non-physical portion of a human. I call this portion the soul - it is simply an experiencer, neither giving nor taking.

>>18590957
>Ego death [...] (is) just New Age schlock
It's a description of a mental process that happens under the influence of sufficient doses of psychedelics. The experience of it is in the end an awesome (in the original sense of the word) clarity. Only without having experienced this ability of the senses could you devalue it like that. It's a profound experience.

>>18587473
There is most certainly an outside world, anon. Those other states are real, but they're for the most part your brain spazzing out or shutting its predictive system down. You'd still "come down" if someone hit you with a baseball bat and the state would end if you suddenly died. I'm not a materialist, but I really don't think those states can tell us much about whether a soul or something greater exists, they're just our brains' ground states, so to speak.

>>18591008
I have the same feeling. Conscience is obviously something inherent in the universe, like gravity, like quantum fields - there is only one conscience as there is only one electromagnetic field.

>>18587473
>are all mindstates just different manifestations of whatever consciousness is, but some are more pragmatic than others?

>>18591054
Yes

>>18591022
>It's a description of a mental process that happens under the influence of sufficient doses of psychedelics.
Yeah, that's not what you want with pursuit of enlightenment.
>The experience of it is in the end an awesome (in the original sense of the word) clarity. Only without having experienced this ability of the senses could you devalue it like that. It's a profound experience.
Can you have clarity without awareness? What is such clarity worth?

>>18591035
I agree with this post, people taking drugs to 'experience God' or some shit are highly misguided. Rational inquiry is the best way to obtain knowledge of the divine.

>>18591073
>Yeah, that's not what you want with pursuit of enlightenment.
That may or may not be the case, that's not what I am arguing. I am saying ego death is that^ not "new age schlock"
>Can you have clarity without awareness? What is such clarity worth?
Ego death is the "death" of the "ego", not an end to awareness.

>>18587473
>Are all mindstates just different manifestations of whatever consciousness is, but some are more pragmatic than others?
yes
relative to the environment
im thinking reality can be a lot more than it is. or rather, we can access different 'levels'? to it

>How much faith can we have in experiential truth?
how are we to measure "truth" in any other fashion? thats why defining such a word is kind of a meme

just seek out a broader experience with reality friend. keep growing. it's the ride not he destination

>>18591137
>That may or may not be the case, that's not what I am arguing. I am saying ego death is that^ not "new age schlock"
I know it from New Age sources only, including New Age sources on drugs.
>Ego death is the "death" of the "ego", not an end to awareness.
If there is no ego, then what is experiencing awareness?

>>18591151
>If there is no ego, then what is experiencing awareness?

Exactly.

And in this decoupling/stopping to identify with the mental process "ego" the experience on sufficient doses of psychedelics is comparable to what happens after getting deep into meditation. Is it what you want in pursuit of enlightenment? That's only for you to say. It can give a glimpse of a clearer view of Reality, that may open your mind to a possibility of being that may have been completely unfathomable before.

>>18591180
>And in this decoupling/stopping to identify with the mental process "ego" the experience on sufficient doses of psychedelics is comparable to what happens after getting deep into meditation. Is it what you want in pursuit of enlightenment? That's only for you to say. It can give a glimpse of a clearer view of Reality, that may open your mind to a possibility of being that may have been completely unfathomable before.
It is the antithesis of what happens in deep meditation. It is not the same at all. There is a difference between going above consciousness and going below consciousness.

>>18591190
My experience differs immensely. I found many similarities.

>>18591190
How is stopping to identify with the ego the antithesis of what happens in deep meditation. That's a truly misguided statement. You don't know what you are talking about here.

>>18591151
these become word games
does a deer have an "ego"?

i chop it up as
ego- perceiving in 'better than', when everything is just opinion and all ways are only ways
identity- call this a more 'current iteration' of yourself. what you are currently focused on and harbor. what you are identifying with. attention.
self- something deeper, but can still be changed. like the compounding of yours and your ancestral efforts resonating inside you

when you enter deconstructionism, words can only really take you so far, because you are trying to describe existentialism. you'd have better luck with poetry over classification.

>>18591180
enlightenment is perhaps the biggest ego trip there is
even ego has merit

>>18591195
Sure, there may be similarities, but it is not the same thing at all. Moreover, if you have prior effort, preparation and luck on your side, your experience will vary greatly from that of other people.
>>18591201
>How is stopping to identify with the ego the antithesis of what happens in deep meditation.
This does not mean "death of the ego" at all. In fact, this statement here precludes the possibility of an "ego death", because otherwise there would be no ego to identify with.
>>18591214
I cannot respond to this post.

>>18591261
>Sure, there may be similarities, but it is not the same thing at all.
If there are similarities then 'at all' is meaningless in the sentence, can only be one or the other.
>>Sure, there may be similarities, but it is not the same thing
Yes, this is what I said.
>This does not mean "death of the ego" at all. In fact, this statement here precludes the possibility of an "ego death", because otherwise there would be no ego to identify with.
that doesn't make sense to me. Can you express what you mean here more clearly?

>>18591214
The "ego is hard and complicated to define, but there is a consensus to what it is.

>>18591309
for the sake of conversation, but conversation on existential pursuits always shows its limits
when you enter these states, you are in a state of nothingness, so much as one can be anyway. enlightenment is "nothing", hence the comment "ignorance is bliss".
its a wordless thing/place. from there, you are fresh to receive knowledge, but this is a birth into "something"

there is still a bodily composition experiencing reality once you enter the "nothing" place. but it is able to experience the bliss underlying all of reality because more of the filter has been broken down. but this is an infinite process. theres no limit on enlightenment. theres no limit on ego. theres no limit on egolessness.
and so we stretch. "under" or "above" (2D is obv limited expression)

>>18591300
>If there are similarities then 'at all' is meaningless in the sentence, can only be one or the other.
I chose to write it this way specifically because I wanted to emphasise the categorical difference between the two states. To give a somewhat poorly suited example, both epilepsy and multiple sclerosis can fuck with your motor control, but that does not make them the same.
>that doesn't make sense to me. Can you express what you mean here more clearly?
The egoic experience is the typical human way of being. It is possible to transcend it, if conscious awareness expands to encompass more than the ego and the body. Having an ego is the precondition to going above the ego. If you dissolve the ego, you can not expand your awareness beyond it. Instead, deprived of its usual basis, awareness collapses to a lower level. Both non-egoic state allow you to grasp "oneness", but that oneness is of completely different kind. One is you encompassing everything, the other is you encompassing nothing. This is as well as I can put this in words. The reason this difference exists is that when oneness is achieved naturally, it is through the gradual strengthening of awareness and wisdom. The possibility to transcend the ego appears and is then realised actively. In contrast, drugs modify the conditions for this experience and induce this state passively - the self lacks both the agency and the strength necessary to attain the realisation, so when it is freed of the typical conditions of operation, it collapses. Drugs can be used to obtain positive effects in terms of spiritual growth, but drugs are not the magic bullet people pretend they are. On the contrary, they can contribute something positive in these pursuits only in rare cases.

>>18591393
I am sure you know what you are trying to say here and I don't doubt your experience of it. It doesn't explain the statement
>This does not mean "death of the ego" at all. In fact, this statement here precludes the possibility of an "ego death", because otherwise there would be no ego to identify with
in any clearer way though.


There is no limit to ego is wrong. The mental process 'ego' can "fall away" as awareness stops identifying with it.

>>18591456

Epilepsy and multiple sclerosis are not categorically different.

>Having an ego is the precondition to going above the ego. If you dissolve the ego, you can not expand your awareness beyond it
This now is indeed the antithesis of what happens in deep meditation. As long as you are are stuck at identifying your self as the ego you cannot expand your awareness beyond it. As long as you identify with the ego your awareness will be limited by it.

>>18591512
>Epilepsy and multiple sclerosis are not categorically different.
This is wrong. However, I am more surprised that you thought to object to this.
>This now is indeed the antithesis of what happens in deep meditation. As long as you are are stuck at identifying your self as the ego you cannot expand your awareness beyond it. As long as you identify with the ego your awareness will be limited by it.
Nothing in the quoted segment mentions actively identifying with the ego, so we are in agreement.

>>18591538
So how can you not see a similarity between the loss of identification with the ego in one state and the loss of identification with the ego in the other? They have put actual Buddhist monks, heavy decade long meditators in MRIs meditating and on psychedelics, the brainscans resemble each other and they say the experience of ego loss is identical. But you come up with some mumbo jumbo of arriving at it from 'above or below" whithout being able to clearly explain what it even means. Just seems to me have either not experienced one or the other, or none or them.

>>18591077
>Rational inquiry is the best way to obtain knowledge of the divine.

Not sure if you are talking about mathematics/logic, but last time I was in a mind-altered state, I felt that the sum total of material reality was unimportant and trivial because it was just a part of the passing show (like the Hindu concept of Maya), and I gained a reverential attachment to eternal concepts like mathematical objects, logical truths, and the laws of nature. I think that for us the Divine is out of reach, but we can discern its shadows through these mentally unchanging things.

>>18591008
>reality. Only after death will you know if your mind may also dictate your reality beyond your experience of it--to truly become a god or to incarnate/manifest again onto reality.
Hopefully

>>18591538
>Epilepsy and multiple sclerosis are not categorically different.
>This is wrong. However, I am more surprised that you thought to object to this.
It is not, it depends on the categorization. The reason I object to it is you use this fallacy as an explanation, and it doesn't work.

>>18591558
>So how can you not see a similarity between the loss of identification with the ego in one state and the loss of identification with the ego in the other?
One implies the loss of the actual ego, the other does not. In the state I prefer, identification shifts away from the ego, it does not simply cease.
>They have put actual Buddhist monks, heavy decade long meditators in MRIs meditating and on psychedelics, the brainscans resemble each other and they say the experience of ego loss is identical.
I don't care about brain scans, but sure I can imagine they would feel their experiences are identical. I don't see how that advances your argument at all, though.
>But you come up with some mumbo jumbo of arriving at it from 'above or below" whithout being able to clearly explain what it even means.
I have explained it pretty clearly, I think.
>Just seems to me have either not experienced one or the other, or none or them.
You are free to think what you like, it is of no relevance to me.

>>18591589
>It is not, it depends on the categorization. The reason I object to it is you use this fallacy as an explanation, and it doesn't work.
Well they are classified as two separate phenomena with two separate names. So I think they qualify as being categorically different. I do not think my analogy is a fallacy, but if you had simply said you do not agree about it being applicable, I would have accepted that.

>>18591596
>in the state I prefer, identification shifts away from the ego, it does not simply case.
It is irrelevant if you prefer a different state, that doesn't change the definition of the state we are talking about, and that encompasses the stop of identification with and consequent ceasing of the ego process that happens at deep states of meditation.

> I can imagine they would feel their experiences are identical. I don't see how that advances your argument at all, though.
People having spent decades exploring the state of ego loss at deep meditation experiencing ego death and describing it as the same doesn't advance my argument that there are profound similarities between ego death and ego loss at deep states of mediations? I am getting the feeling you are not seriously discussing here.
>i have explaind it pretty clearly, I think
ubviously not, as it was basically a non sequitur.

>>18591612
If being two separate phenomena with two separate names would make terms Categorically different the concept of "category" would logically not exist.

>>18591642
>It is irrelevant if you prefer a different state, that doesn't change the definition of the state we are talking about
Figure of speech.
>and that encompasses the stop of identification with and consequent ceasing of the ego process that happens at deep states of meditation
I am with you for the first half, no idea where you got the second half from.
>People having spent decades exploring the state of ego loss at deep meditation experiencing ego death and describing it as the same doesn't advance my argument that there are profound similarities between ego death and ego loss at deep states of mediations? I am getting the feeling you are not seriously discussing here.
I do not think monks experiencing Nirvana has anything to do with ego death, is the thing.
>ubviously not, as it was basically a non sequitur.
It's almost starting to become tempting to start taking some shots back at you now. It's not like you make it very hard.
>>18591650
I just went to check the definition of the word "categorically" in a dictionary just to make sure I hadn't somehow misspoken. I have not. It seems I have to disagree with you.

>>18591681
>I am with you for the first half, no idea where you got the second half from.
From direct experience while meditating
>I do not think monks experiencing Nirvana has anything to do with ego death, is the thing
Yes, that is precisely the thing. My own experience combined with the testimony of specialists on the subject day that ego death has something to do with the state of nirvana. As a counter argument you, as someone who believes that transcending the ego while clinging to the ego is possible, say "I just don't think they're related". It's just unconvincing that you could have experienced these states and hold this opinion.

There is no definition of "categorically" that would make Epilepsy and MS, two diseases that negatively influence the function of the nervous system, categorically different. As long as both belong to the category "disease that can negatively impair the function of the nervous system" they logically cannot be categorically different.

>>18591820
*day=say

>>18591820
>From direct experience while meditating
Are you sure?
>As a counter argument you, as someone who believes that transcending the ego while clinging to the ego is possible
This is your own creative writing exercise, it is not something that I believe. It is hard to comprhend how you can twist my words in this way even though I very clearly explained that transcending the ego specifically refers to going beyond it. Clinging would be the exact opposite, namely remaining within the ego. You are just stubbornly refusing to make room for any interpretation other than your own limited dichotomy.
>There is no definition of "categorically" that would make Epilepsy and MS, two diseases that negatively influence the function of the nervous system, categorically different.
"categorically - in a way that is unambiguously explicit and direct"
>As long as both belong to the category "disease that can negatively impair the function of the nervous system" they logically cannot be categorically different.
If we arbitrarily assume that the only way to categorise them is in this specific way and by default exclude the possibility that they might be categorised as two separate diseases for a reason because they are distinct from one another, I suppose so.

>>18591486
what i meant was that there is no limit on an egos reach, and there is no limit on an egos dissolve, and there are in all likelihood infinite possible egos

when people talk of ego death they essentially refer to shattering a filter that leads them into selflessness and love
however, this can get pretty nuanced
for example, perhaps there are some 'types' of 'groups' out there that love humanity in such a way that they agitate us with the most profane, horrific, evil, and challenging things that set the stage for us to step up or fade away. they may even be doing this in a state of bliss and love for all that reality has to offer

i said earlier that enlightenment can be like the biggest ego trip because you think you are completely right for being a genuinely (traditionally speaking) loving person, but that's not all that is at play, and bliss underlies it all.
shattering the filter, or going through an ego death, is being able to see more and more, the merit of all things at play more and more, and understanding and appreciating all facets of reality.
there truly is no limit to dissolve and no limit to formation

>>18591558
there are probably as many paths as there are people as there are points in time to that state

>>18591567
you are not separate from the divine
'out of reach' is, imo, the 'wrong' way to look at it

>>18591876
I'd argue that
>enlightenment can be like the biggest ego trip because you think you are completely right for being a genuinely (traditionally speaking) loving person, but that's not all that is at play
is not true enlightenment.

>>18591896
enlightenment is an infinite thing. there's no way to make this comment 'true enlightenment'
buddha is not the all encompassing aspect of reality. neither is jesus. etc. bliss underlays all of reality.
they are one component. they took what we refer to as "holy" paths. even buddha said he did not express all of what he knew (afaik)
if you look at some hindu art, you can see the 'enlightened' image while they are off at war, slaughtering thousands of people.

why i say it can feel like the biggest ego trip, especially first time, is because you feel like the 'love and light' stuff is really one dimensional in what 'good' means, and you think that it is the innately right and true aspect of life
but there is only a wheel
and i have to imagine down every direction is utter bliss, even what we call 'evil'

"true enlightenment" as you are expressing it would be like merging with and becoming the creator again, but even that keeps on rolling

>>18591870
>Are you sure?
Yes.
>This is your own creative writing exercise, it is not something that I believe
Is contradicting your statement here:
>Having an ego is the precondition to going above the ego. If you dissolve the ego, you can not expand your awareness beyond it

My "own limited dichotomy" is not just based on my personal experience of the mental states in question but additionally on people with extensive experience of meditation whose entering both states has been proved scientifically as far as it is possible with today's technology making statements to the same effect. Your argument so far amounts to "I personally don't think that's so, because of [insert vague term at odds with following vague term ]" I'm trying to help you realize there is a deeper level to be reached in whatever you are doing right now to get there.

>categorically - in a way that is unambiguously explicit and direct
Categorically
Dictionary. Com - 1:without exception; unconditionally/2:by means of or with respect to a category
Merriam webster: 1:absolute, unqualified/2:of, relating to, or constituting a category

As long as you categorize them both as diseases that negatively influence the nervous system, which was an axiom of the point you were trying to make, they can not be categorically different.
This may seem like a minor nitpick, but your refusal to realize this makes me doubt you are seriously engaging in a conversation here and are just impotently defendind an increasingly untenable position, to keep face or something.

>>18591924
My definition of enlightenment differs from yours in that case. I explicitly mean a state that is not an ego trip, which is the exact opposite I would say. categorically different ; )

>>18591975
>Is contradicting your statement here:
There is absolutely no contradiction there. I am sorry, but there is no polite way to say this - how is your reading comprhension?
This:
>If you dissolve the ego, you can not expand your awareness beyond it
Does not imply identification or attachment to the ego. In fact, my phrasing very clearly shows that I am talking abouty transcending the ego, i.e. going beyond it, not being attached to the ego, not clinging to the ego. I simply do not believe it is necessary to "dissolve" the ego in order to do that. Your fixation on this idea is what prevents you from seeing the obvious meaning of my words.
>My "own limited dichotomy" is not just based on my personal experience of the mental states in question but additionally on people with extensive experience of meditation whose entering both states has been proved scientifically as far as it is possible with today's technology making statements to the same effect. Your argument so far amounts to "I personally don't think that's so, because of [insert vague term at odds with following vague term ]" I'm trying to help you realize there is a deeper level to be reached in whatever you are doing right now to get there.
Incidentally, that's what I am trying to do for you. You are also wrong, this isn't just my opinion, in fact it is chiefly not my opinion. I have contact with two spiritual teachers, one of whom is a Tantrika, the other a Western occultist of repute. Both have very clearly told me not to use drugs, because they are not only unhelpful, but dangerous to most. The tantrika downright refuses to teach people who have taken drugs in the past five years. This in addition to all the materials I have been referred to in regard to the unsuitability of drugs for spiritual pursuits.
>
As long as you categorize them both as diseases that negatively influence the nervous system, which was an axiom of the point you were trying to make, they can not be categorically different.
There is no reason at all as to why that should be the case and even the definitions you have posted seem to support what I am saying.
>This may seem like a minor nitpick, but your refusal to realize this makes me doubt you are seriously engaging in a conversation here and are just impotently defendind an increasingly untenable position, to keep face or something.
On the contrary, I told you that I don't care if you want to nitpick my example or not, since it does not impact the validity of my points either way. The fact remains that you are still wrong, so I won't just randomly tell you otherwise.

>>18591992
whats happening in your state, exactly
is there any knowledge to receive

>>18592021
If you had reached a sufficiently deep level of meditation you would have witnessed the dissolution of the ego process, I can not tell it to you more plainly than that. It is something that happens, because it has not happened to you does not mean it does not.
Also, you do not dissolve the ego, it dissolves, a "you" with agency that acts on something "not you" does not exist at this point, which you would realize as well if you had a more than academic understanding of what you are talking about here.

Your being in touch with some new age dudes who may or may not be deluded about the nature of enlightenment as you are changes nothing about your argument.
Nobody is telling you to do drugs, the topic is still if ego death on psychedelics and loss of ego in meditation have similarities. So now you are saying you have no experience of the first and I doubt your level of experience with the latter, so what are we even talking about here? Worüber man nicht sprechen kann, darüber soll man schweigen.

>There is no reason at all as to why that should be the case and even the definitions you have posted seem to support what I am saying.
This Finally convinces me you are either playing a game or are entirely unfit to engage in a conversation like this. To understand dictionary definitions of basic expressions is the minor prerequisite I expect or a conversation partner.

>>18589439
that's not what he's referring to. apotheosis, theopoesis, and theosis are Greek terms we can render in latin as divinisation. so, not poetry, anon.

>>18587473
>bhuddist enlightenment
Not a mind state. Mind states are not self

>>18592112
Doh!

>>18590986
Why are allegedly experienced meditators always so smug and conceited?

>>18591137
>>18591180
>>18591201
Another new ager who fell for the "ego bad" meme and now believes annihilating himself is the height of spirituality.
This kind of dissolution is an inferior state. Read hermetic texts.

They're both equally real and your assumption is wrong from the beginning and you're only seeking books that will validate your wrong assumption

>>18592708
No one said its the height of spirituality. The conversation was about if ego death and ego loss on psychedelics are comparable mind states, literally nothing else. Your inability to gel this information makes sense regarding your adherence to a ridiculous stone age philosophy like hermeticism.

>>18592698
>someone who says he knows about plumbing says: shit should come out of the faucet
>plumber: think about it clearly! Here are many reasons and ways for you to understand why shit shouldn't come out of the faucet
>"why are experienced plumbers always so conceited?"

>>18592698
>SMILES DALITLY.

>>18589143
>Better because I'm happier but worse because like you said I may not be living a truthful experience
this is a dangerous trap you can fall into if you pursue this way of thinking, speaking from experience it makes you think that even your own past self is out to get you and I don't recommend it one bit, the idea to chase every possible thought simply to avoid being "inauthentic" or "coping" are further delusions of the ego
then again it is this ceaseless self disection that, unlike psychedelics, offered me the most direct revelation of the problem of consciousness
experiential sure but you could just as well never make any statements about the world again and it would be equally correct

>>18593041
>>18593083
kek, case in point
westerners who follow pajeet philosophy are so pathetic

>>18593032
>a ridiculous stone age philosophy like hermeticism.
Yeah, you have absolutely no idea what the fuck you're talking about, your opinion can be very safely disregarded. Pause the Sam Harris podcasts about how buddhism is scientific and pick up an actual book, pseud.

>>18593155
Sure thing buddy. Sam Harris.

>>18593155
Literally did not make a statement about Buddhism at all. You can meditate believing in any ideology you want, if you do it deeply enough you will transcend the ego process. This is just empirical, an experience shared by millions and would be shared by you if you practiced it. It's not eastern mysticism, it's something that occurs Naturally to your self when you calm your mind.