Hi all,

I'm interested in hearing your beliefs on the theories of "God", or "spirituality" and how these may have been altered by your DMT experience.

I will share my own experiences in order to start the ball rolling

As a child I was brought up in a CoE school (for the Americans here this is effectively watered down Christianity) and believed that there was a classical monotheistic God as per the bible. Entering my teens (and smoking a lot of weed) I started to believe there was "something", but I didn't know what this something was, though I felt I wouldn't find the answer in a mainstream religion.

In my early 20s I had a huge blast on Salvia one time. I melted into my blanket, becoming a single thread of cotton. The blanket was "life" and every thread within it, including myself, were all the entities of life, making the whole. We were trying to achieve some purpose but I couldn't grasp what that was.

Then in my mid 20s I did a lot of research on reincarnation, something which I thought to be a ridiculous concept, and after some time (researching a lot of Dr Ian Stevensons work) I concluded it was almost irrational to refute the possibility that reincarnation in some form existed.

When doing Aya for the first time I had a profound sense of unification, very similar to the "feeling" of the experience of Salvia. The feeling was that "I" and "we" are the same, that we are all expressions of life trying to experience itself.

How does the evidence of reincarnation (if you accept it) fit within any model?

Are my beliefs drug induced? Have the drugs pulled this knowledge from my subconscious, making what I always knew, conscious? Or have the drugs themselves given me knowledge?

How have your beliefs in the concepts of creation/reality changed since taking DMT or any other psychedelic?

Very interested to hear thoughts on this!

(apologies if posted within wrong section)

I am a Buddhist. But I am also into Philosophy. One particular experience, in fact, the last one, has helped me confirm the truth of cyclic existence. I went in to the experience with the intention of embracing the unknown in the strictest sense of the word. Imagine diving into the Mariana trench to reach the depths listening to Perfido as a blind man. I vapourised more than a heroic dose because I had to make entity contact and be blown out of the chains of this earthly existence. The DMT possessed me for longer than is usual this way. I tried hard to observe things and my thoughts, and then instantly, I knew I had failed to give in. I thus entered the heart of the experience. The endless loop of recurring thoughts translating itself into involtary bodily actions on a microscopic level. That the cosmic impulse is of a benign and rational design is a delusion in construct to ease human existence. This incidentally got me to face and look the aloneness of existence in the face, and gave me the opportunity to embrace it once more. I could not because the inner child within is terrified to witness, what seems to it, an alien possibility, forget accepting it as fact. I got back into control after listening to the DMT finally, and turning the speakers off. The journey began like a potent and concentrated form of acid had been poured over my brain, because as is usually has been for me, I can feel the old Consciousness burning away as if set on fire. That troublesome and repugnant sense of reality I was inculcated with as a hapless and afraid child. It is getting destroyed, and it is being destroyed for the better, everytime the sacrament teaches a lesson. The source of all my suffering and misery will one day melt away, and I can then construct and place my own design of a fulfilling life without the need of alcoholic poisons.

I think DMT experience gave you new insights for sure. Especially when you were searching for answers. I'm Christian personally and psychedelics did not changed my core beliefs but gave me a lot of new perspectives, insights. Mainly about how time and space works, how far ( it's infinite really ) our consciousness can reach, how would eternity work, how unimaginable things like heavenly consciousness may work. And most important thing of all, it can help ( not always though ) to discover infinite love of God - core of reality and all existence, conscious loving spirit.

There was a definite beginning and end to my psychedelic journeys, and the progression of my beliefs about God and spirituality.

Born and raised in a non-religious household. Very interested in science through childhood, especially the mysterious and unknowns.. Big Bang Theory, Black Holes, the good stuff. However, at a personal level I think I always believed in God but not in an anthropomorphic sense, but more the feeling that there was something hidden and always there. Couldn't verbalise it, nor was I that attentive to it and it fell away from immediate memory before age 10.

My first mushroom trip in my mid-teens brought it (God) right back up to the surface, but again it didn't really hold the most attention. It unlocked a lot of childhood memory and feelings, which I spent subsequent years contemplating and trying to bring up to the surface. I was more fascinated at the time though by the revelation that I knew time was a complete illusion, that all there seemed to be was the present moment and any conception of time was just that, a conception.

I was already looking at conspiracy theories, social and political theories, trying to fill in a lot of blanks and questions I had about why the world is the way it is, and why I had the feeling that no-one seemed to know and apparently weren't interested as I was in these matters! After the mushroom trip it soon lead on to reading new-age stuff and all sorts.. I was looking for answers to even more questions. Thankfully I never span too far out on anything..

My first NN-DMT experience was early twenties. I had a handful more in a short period of time. They really brought into focus the God question, and all these feelings I'd had in early childhood. And by focus I mean it wasn't like I got an answer, more that I got shoved in my face the possibility that actually yes, it is possible to answer - the Truth is where you are!. I sort of knew as a result that the bright colours and whirlwinds of DMT (and psychedelics) were secondary to this forcing of attention back on itself.. that nostalgic feeling I had from early childhood was becoming more pronounced. I have never gone back or used psychedelics since.

It lead me to continue digging philosophically. Eventually I found three individuals in particular who, in their writings, were describing things and feelings I had experienced. It resonated with me on a really profound level - I'll drop one name in; Ramana Maharshi. I finally found in writing something that when I read it I was like, "This is it!", in reference to that childhood feeling. Conceptually that is where my understanding of God is now - a non-dual awareness that is at the root of all, including you.

As for reincarnation. What does it matter? When your body-mind dies, that's it. The essence may come back into another shell, but you won't be that new shell and it won't be you. Unless you find out what that essence is then reincarnation is a time-wasting exercise at best and a political tool of oppression at worst ("don't worry, next time around you'll be king!" - King, to slave)

I do not subscribe to any organized religion and will refuse to do so my entire life.

However, I think there are significant things shared within all religions; moral philosophy and the concept of being part of a larger system.

Those core concepts can be appreciated irrespective of whether or not you ascribe to a religion.

To me it always seems like many anti-religious and religious people miss the point of what religions are trying to say.

I.E. Adam and eve fornicating and eating a poisoned apple from the tree of knowledge was never meant to be a literal description of how humanity started....it is purely allegorical. The meaning of the allegory is lost when it is treated as if the intention was literal.



From what we know of physical matter, specifically in relation to quantum mechanics, there seems to be both direct evidence and ontological hints that consciousness and awareness play a fundamental role in what we call reality. To claim it doesn't, and that there exists some sort of reality independent of the mind that exists without the mind, seems ludicrous to me. Science operates under the assumption of burden of proof; therefore assuming physical reality would exist independent of the mind is an act of faith....not deductive reasoning. Given we can verify the postulate "I think therefore I am" while we can never independently verify the presence of anything without our awareness of it seems to point directly to the primacy of mind. And furthermore there is no reason to think that what constitutes "consciousness" or "awareness" is temporal; in fact our mathematical understanding of physics, which is simply a map our own conscious capacity to deductive reasoning, indicates that matter can never be created or destroyed. I would see no reason then to assume, given the primacy of mind, that consciousness is ever created or destroyed. It is eternal...and we are all a part of it. I believe consciousness is a system, much like the physical systems we observe, and it contains poles, feedback loops, and inherent properties. Much like cold water sinks and warm water rises I believe "good" and "evil," as intentions, also act as drivers of conscious systems in a similar way to gravitational or kinetic forces. Therefore, existence is not without "purpose," if you wish to call this "purposeful." You could just the same say "it is the way it is." Given this, I tend to believe that the "void" or spirit world, is the "space" one inhabits when not contained within a body. Physical reality is, then, more or less, a medium through which "spirits" or "consciousness" communicates. Divorced from this system, through death for example, you temporally are exposed to the conscious forces of what is simultaneously yourself and everything else, precisely because this state is independent of any dimension of time or space; until by necessity it is sucked back into contact with everything else and the differentiation of energy we observe through logic systems, deductive reasoning, and dimensions of time and space. I.E. reincarnation or returning from hyperspace.

of all beliefs, I fancy buddhism, as a casual fan. Like a flowing river, I think beliefs should be fluid, because facts are subject to change. So should be beliefs. I observe organized religions came from a spiritual foundation, but became a conduit for control, in societies where answers were sparse, and superstition reigned supreme. Fearmongering was the way, and the church had heirarchy, as did the ruling class. If you never bothered to question, well that's just sad. Questioning everything is what separates us from all other eukaryotes.

well said benzyme;

religions clearly have spiritual foundations, but many have become co-opted as conduits for control...and is so doing their spiritual lessons are paved over and lost.

It does seem like buddhism has steered clear of a lot of this...but there are also radicalized violent buddhists who commit ethnic cleansing of hindus, and vice versa. A lot of practitioners of many religions seem not to understand core elements of what their religions espouse.

William Blake wrote "The truth cannot be told so as to be understood and not believed."

Religions and individuals have shared their truths and those truths were never fully understood by the masses. There sure are a lot of people that will believe it for various reasons. Can you give someone your truth? I think not. If I attempted to describe my experiences both in everyday reality, and furthermore, my psychedelic experiences, the truth of it would surely fall to the wayside. I have tried to explain my experiences many times in many ways. Language is not suitable for truth. It can be twisted and turned and manipulated. Jesus, Buddha and the like have given their truth and that truth has been manipulated. Too many believed with blind faith and too little went out to put these ideas of truth into practice to understand. I see many religious folks who live wonderful lives, and I feel they understand the truth of the faith. On the other hand I see blind hate punishing those who do not believe as they do. These false believers never understood and likely never will.

You cannot give someone truth but it is very easy to give someone a belief.

x

Edited: I had uploaded two videos in which people spoke of spiritual matters, but I am so tired of people talking of spiritual matters, I dont want to contribute to the craziness. Everyone and their grandmas are gurus or belong to some sect, organization, or belief. I am so tired of it.

x

Hi Fran,

I wanted to share some ideas your comment made me think about.

I have generally differentiated intelligence and wisdom apart from each other in that I think of intelligence of having to do with manipulation of physics while wisdom has to do with morals and emotional knowledge. This is just my definition. I.E. The Nazi's were very intelligent, but extremely unwise.

In that way understanding of science has to do with intelligence, while understanding of emotion or morals is of wisdom. In that sense spirituality or religion I think of as trying to convey wisdom, not fact or science.

Because, as it stands society does not seem to think of morals or emotions as having basis in anything factual; and people usually reserve facts as referencing physically and communicable observable phenomenon. However, morals are often shared between people. It is undeniable that there are, in general, things which people would deem moral or immoral. There is a huge gray area, but at the same time I am firmly believer in the an absolute sense of morals....mostly because within myself I feel it.

What suddenly jumped out at me is that there are forces which people regard as physical, having to do with science, yet can not be seen, touched, or heard...simply felt. This of course would be gravity. Mathematically gravity is largely a fudge factor people use to explain mass attractions. But in regards to how we experience it...it is only felt. Physicists look for gravitons as discrete units of mass that somehow act on every thing else, but as our knowledge stands now...gravity simply "is."

This reminds me very much of morality. We can not see it, touch it, or hear it....only feel it....and that, like gravity, morality can undeniably have an effect on how matter is distributed, albeit in a much more nuanced way. The same could be said of intelligence, but what will fundamentally be a driver of what the end results will be is moral intention. Morality or lack thereof seem to be fundamental baggage of intelligence and vice versa. But the gist of the idea was that, minds are to morality as planets are to gravity in that perhaps morality can be viewed as a kind of factually present force in the universe.

It sounds sort of trite and pseudo-scientific, but the concept does intrigue me.

Hi Oliver,

I have a hard time believing in the disembodied soul, and so reincarnation seems more like a description of the way waves in the ocean become distinct and then fall back into the ocean they were never really separated from in the first place, but there's no way to make "That" wave again. You could similarly create a sandcastle on the beach, and it would be beautiful, but if it were destroyed, it would be impossible to create again- and it would have only "Felt" different from the beach until it fell back into it. This was imagery that came to me on DMT itself, though I'm sure its easy enough to come up with yourself.

I'm not sure anyone can say what god is. I am personally sure it's not a white male angle in the clouds playing the harp. I think of the architecture and the architect as the same thing, and so existence itself to me is God's way of giving itself form. You cant be "Something" until you have a definition. I think this is why many ancient religions did not like people to say the name of their Gods, because giving a name to a god gives it form, and how can you give form to something that is supposed to be everything?

We have to remember that, more than anything, DMT shows us that we cannot completely trust our senses. We shouldn't assume that what we experience under the effects of spice is true, but we can see clearly that what we see during our waking state isn't necessarily "true" either- - -even if its objective reality. Some people think of reality as a great "thought" rather than a "creation."


"How have your beliefs in the concepts of creation/reality changed since taking DMT or any other psychedelic?"
Well, I'm no longer an atheist, so that's something.

Take care~

Love this. Very grateful for all the responses, and for your video Fran. Lots of interesting thought provoking content here!

Great post Salem. Reading everyone's thoughts like these is exactly why I came here because I felt like this would be a good place to go.

I think something that is important to consider is that none of us, or anything in the universe, exists alone. Everything is interacting with and interdependent on everything else.

So, as for a discrete "soul" I think the analogy of the sand castle or wave in the ocean is nice in that it communicates this entanglement well, instead of thinking of it as a marble finding its way through a maze. There were never discrete units that exist independently of everything else, but rather that our minds, consciousness, or souls are components of something much greater, the beach or the ocean, and we are simply a component of something that can not exist without us and vice versa.

However, once we melt back into the ocean, we are nevertheless part of it and still in existence in some way because we always were and always will be, just as the sand that made up the castle still exists. I do not believe there is a finite end to our consciousness, but rather that it will be recycled. It is certainly unreasonable to believe that we will ever be fully aware of what is happening while it is being recycled, or what it/ we were before it was recycled, but nevertheless we could say that the "soul" has been reincarnated. Perhaps this is what the feeling of "this has happened before" we get is; we have the slightest inclination that the state of existing without a body, without space and time, is familiar and that we have been a part of it.

So, in the sand castle analogy, the force, energy, mass or whatever you wish to assume is associated with your consciousness, melts back into the beach or the sea. Isn't this when it becomes disembodied? Yet still exists? Even if we can never expect to be aware of this existence in the same manner we are now, dimensions of space and time?

Also, in this analogy, are you picturing the castle to be your body or your consciousness itself? Do you have a preference in regards to dualism or monism?

And btw, did the Jimo Hendrix song ever come to mind with this analogy, did the analogy arise from the song? I just suddenly thought of that song; but that song seems more to reference the fragility of dreams and aspiration as opposed to anything metaphysical.

I am an agnostic in the sense that i do not claim to know anything about the unknowable, and nor do i aspire to. I sometimes like to speculate. I am not any less curious than anyone else. But i figure the unknowable can never be of crucial importance in this life, otherwise we'd all be living worthless lives.

I don't know what beliefs realy are. It is actually kind of a deep question when you think about it. Are beliefs like a map that corresponds with the actual world? That is hard if not impossible to tell.

Beliefs must be a bit like a map in that they help us to navigate our way through this life. And if we always manage to find our way, then maybe we have a good map and we can assume that it in some way corresponds with the real world.

But the senses we use to navigate, are on a very basic level just things like pleasure and pain. So maybe our beliefs don't realy tell that much about the world, but more on how to avoid pain and to achieve pleasure.

So then, all our knowledge is in the end nothing more than the ability to counsciously regulate pleasure or pain. And then our degree of succes in doing so would be a measure of the accuracy of correspondance of our map, with the actual world.

Hi Scylla! Thank you for your response. I will answer your questions as best as I can, while at the same time attempting not to write a 14-page essay.

I'm not familiar with a Hendrix song which inspired this imagery. I tend to claim these things as spontaneous and of my own consciousness- but my little experience with marketing leads me to believe almost nothing we think of is 100% "Our idea." I'm sure it was inspired by the likes of Alan Watts or Mckenna or someone else much greater than I. This analogy comes from my study of Western Hermeticism and Eastern Tao, maybe a bit of Gnosticism & Sikhism as well.

You're pretty close to the philosophy I am attempting to convey with your "we're not a marble in a maze" analogy.
I say philosophy because I make no truth claims here. Just basing this off my limited scientific and spiritual understanding. I am not a psychologist, neuro-scientist, or guru (Obviously).

"Once we melt back into the ocean, we are nevertheless part of it and still in existence in some way because we always were and always will be" - It is here that I would disagree with your notion that "We" continue to exist after death. I disagree because the "I" (the feeling of separation from everything) was an illusion in life, and I don't imagine it suddenly becomes real after death. Within this philosophy, to be "Recycled" is to become again a part of the whole. It is impossible to re-create that soul or body because it was an expression of a process; like a computer. A flower may fall, break down, and be reabsorbed into the roots of the tree, but that tree will never again make that exact flower, and that's precisely why, to me, life is beautiful. The demand for permanence seems, to me, a tad silly. No disrespect if you believe that, but it seems like a form of hubris to me. I imagine a very crowded afterlife if souls exist without the body. I wonder why no one ever sees Dinosaur Ghosts?

This may be easier to think of as a cup of water taken from the ocean to experience individuality, but, once poured back into the ocean- that exact glass of water will never again exist, even if you refill the cup. We are programmed by our culture to think of the individual as essential to life and permanence as the only comforting thought, but ancient teachings can lead you down a road which says "You are not special, it is the light which you carry within you that is special." Within this line of thinking, we as individuals experience the world as the "eyes and hands" for god, but don't expect to be separated from it once you're "poured back in".... something like that. consciousness brings light to an otherwise dark universe. Light being that which illuminates and provides definition serves the same purpose as consciousness observing the universe.

To answer your questions specifically: Monism was the only rational conclusion to my spiritual teachings. My understanding of consciousness is that it is a product of complex systems, and so, without a system to be expressed from, it doesn't exist independently.
Sam Harris: The Self is an Illusion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fajfkO_X0l0 .
One could argue that a high form of consciousness arises out of the complex systems that are at work holding the multi-verse together. We could call that God? Maybe.

Dualism implies that we may separate ourselves from everything, from God. That seems like the enshrinement of the ego to me. So much so that we wish to carry it beyond death. I think the ego is important to the survival of any individual, but that it's ultimately an illusion. This is the current neuro-psychological understanding as well. So the soul cannot become disembodied because it was never separate from the body and the body's separation from the earth it came from was an illusion as well.

Though I feel like I'm talking around it, this is as close as I can get before I head off to work. Take care.

Hi Salem! So glad you replied.




As for talking around things; I feel like everyone is always constantly talking around everything. Using words to describe experience will always be imperfect. Trying to describe something to someone, no matter how precise the language, will never transfer thoughts directly between minds. For example, mentioning the name of a color to blind person doesn't go too far because they don't have context to the word. In a certain sense all of language is struggling to create universal context. I totally get it when you say you feel like you're talking around something. I as well.

But when trying to describe things which inherently are not physical things become more difficult. Such examples here include emotions such as love, lust, hate. You can't point to it the same way you can a cube or sphere or color.

What I am building up to is my strengthening belief in the primacy of mind. Simply put, to assume that the material world continues existing without your perception of it is an act of faith; all science and deductive reasoning is based on burden of proof. There can be no burden of proof for the presence of anything that you are not aware of. It seems logical to conclude that since other people die, and you know that they die, that the world will continue existing when you die. But there is a very important distinction here. You are not other people. You are you. The hypothesis is untestable and therefore beyond the realm of deductive reasoning. It is simply faith. Sure, it is faith based upon assumptions that seem reasonable. But certainly no one will ever assert that their faith is based on something unreasonable, no matter what they are placing their faith in. Religions stand as framework for moral context, and it would be just as unreasonable to claim the concept of morals does not exist the same as it would be to assert that the sun, moon, and stars don't exist.

The distinction you make in my philosophy when you say you disagree with my notion that "we" do not continue to exist after we die can be taken semantically. I have no other way to describe ourselves. I can call ourselves "it" if that makes it better.

But consider this argument. If we are not discrete entities....if we are not simply marbles...but are components of a whole.....how can "we" ever stop existing?

Because, as you are sure to admit, we are aware of ourselves. We are not philosophical zombies. If we were it would be completely reasonable to assume that our bodies are the sand castle that will melt into the sea, but if this were the case we would not be having this discussion because we would not have awareness of self.

The fact we have self awareness is a fundamental part of the universe we observe because in fact our awareness and categorization of it is the fundamental source of the structure we observe.

So where does the self awareness go? It melts back into the sea.

Now, it may not be semantically accurate to call it "I," but there is no pronoun anywhere in our language that references a disembodied consciousness lacking context of space, time, or self.

I would categorize my philosophy as either dualistic or idealistic; because I can not accept the assertion that emotions are composed of object. I have trouble entertaining emergent physicalism which states that consciousness is an emergent property of matter because, if consciousness is something, which we all realize it is, it is the only something in our universe that anyone is content with assuming is created and destroyed. The marble entering and existing the maze. But if it doesn't just disappear, then hadn't it been here the whole time?

Consider this passage from "A System of Logic" by J.S. Mill. It does not exclude the possibility of emergent physicalism, but is aimed directly at refuting physicality of awareness.

"Now I am far from pretending that it may not be capable of proof, or that it is not an important addition to our knowledge if proved, that certain motions in the particles of bodies are the conditions of the production of heat or light; that certain assignable physical modifications of the nerves may be the conditions not only of our sensations or emotions, but even of our thoughts; that certain mechanical and chemical conditions may, in the order of nature, be sufficient to determine to action the physiological laws of life. All I insist upon, in common with every thinker who entertains any clear idea of the logic of science, is, that it shall not be supposed that by proving these things one step would be made towards a real explanation of heat, light, or sensation; or that the generic peculiarity of those phenomena can be in the least degree evaded by any such discoveries, however well established. Let it be shown, for instance, that the most complex series of physical causes and effects succeed one another in the eye and in the brain to produce a sensation of colour; rays falling on the eye, refracted, converging, crossing one another, making an inverted image on the retina, and after this a motion—let it be a vibration, or a rush of nervous fluid, or whatever else you are pleased to suppose, along the optic nerve—a propagation of this motion to the brain itself, and as many more different motions as you choose; still, at the end of these motions, there is something which is not motion, there is a feeling or sensation of colour. Whatever number of motions we may be able to interpolate, and whether they be real or imaginary, we shall still find, at the end of the series, a motion antecedent and a colour consequent."

Or this quote from Isaac Newton.

…….to determine by what modes or actions light produceth in our minds the phantasm of colour is not so easie.

In fact, I think most neuroscientists agree that color is produced in the mind. Surely there are wavelengths of light there, but the color is a property of our perception of the light, not the light itself.

We hold a great many things to be external to ourselves, but I am gradually of the view that "consciousness" is not derived from matter, is not isolated marbles that engage in disappearing acts of non existence upon the death of our bodies. I belief physical reality is merely the necessary set of conditions projected into existence from "consciousness" interacting with itself through localized differences within the whole.

I can't help but notice that everything in the world boils down to concept upon inspection; deductive reasoning and manipulation of physical reality becomes a vehicle for emotional symbolism. I see good and evil as the poles of this system, with our own self awareness sorting ourselves into physical representations of concept.

Once we melt back into the ocean, we are nevertheless part of it and still in existence in some way because we always were and always will be"

Thats the most beautiful analogy I ever heard and it totally brought me back to that ocean. Thank you. and thank you all for your efforts in describing the undescribable. On the matter of colors and the eye check this The Eye, Hair Color, by Rudolf Steiner Richard Gregory's book Eye and Brain is also recomended.

The Tathāgata is liberated from reckoning of material form, he is profound, immeasurable, hard to fathom like the ocean.

"This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise.



Who is to say that no one of the past, present, or future, of this earth or beyond, never saw visions of dinosaurs.

Of all the media I have uploaded in reference to this topic this is the most important and I wish you could read it cause it goes into exactly what we are talking about. It is short and sweet and will be good for you Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta

This is a longer text and not a sutra, it analyzes hinduism in relation to buddhism and the ideas of rebirth. It will clarify much of what is being discussed here (and bring more to the table?) The Truth of Rebirth and Why it Matters

I try not to have too many beliefs but I do engage in spiritual practice, the "non-dual" kind intended to gradually get closer and closer to enlightenment, that is, seeing the world not through a separate self, instead experiencing "everything is one". Eventually, one is left completely without (intellectual) beliefs, including the belief in free will, and God is seen and felt and known. It is useless to argue about the existence of God because such arguments can only take place in the domain of intellect, and are an obstacle to direct experience of It, which is the only thing a spiritual seeker is/should be really after, at least that's what I believe

Main vehicle is self-inquiry (as taught by Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta Maharaj) while watching the breath, and in my case, also while running and basically throughout my day whenever it occurs to me.

I was introduced to this by Gary Weber's YouTube channel. He also has his own excellent material available online for free, which taught me everything I needed to know. Only much later in my practice did I become interested in the direct words from R. Maharshi and Nisargadatta.

There are many other traditions that aim for this same direct experience of "everything is one", such as (Rinzai) Zen and Dzogchen (part of Tibetan Buddhism).

I have no interest in other branches of Buddhism as I've been told they usually do not even discuss the topic of enlightenment (it's often considered only for the "elite", the select few way up in the temple hierarchy or whatever). They are just ordinary religions, with a moral and philosophical framework, and sometimes hierarchies, power and corruption. I've had discussions about this with a Zen guy who disagreed and said I did not fully comprehend the nature of these traditions. I just don't care to investigate further as practice-wise, I feel I've already found what I was looking for.

Also I'm completely done with "mindfulness" as it only provides a slight temporary relief from stress while leaving the root causes of separation untouched.

I practice solo because of lack of a proper meditation community near me.

Psychedelics have been and continue to be useful for me. My first trip was quite strong and sparked my interest in meditation. Nowadays I prefer to do them in low dosages as to "get" from them only a subtle hint to point my self-inquiry practice (which is where most of the work is done) in the right direction now and then.

Hi maestro, I wanted to share with you the recordings of this bodhisatva, she records herself reading teachings by all masters (including the two you mentioned). Here a Ramana Maharshi recording. I hope you find these useful as I have. Be As You Are

One thing you wrote struck me. You dont like mindfulness? I'm curious =) How can one practice any form of path without mindfulness? How can one breathe correctly 24/7 without being mindful of the lungs, chest, stomach, diaphragm, nose, head, and hairs...or navigate Form, Sensations, Perceptions, Mental Activity or Formations, and Consciousness, without being mindful of them? We're often told that mindfulness and concentration are two separate forms of meditation, but the Buddha never made a clear division between the two. In his teachings, mindfulness shades into concentration; concentration forms the basis for even better mindfulness. The four establishings of mindfulness are also the themes of concentration. The highest level of concentration is where mindfulness becomes pure.


"And how does a monk remain focused on the body in & of itself?

[1] "There is the case where a monk — having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building — sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness to the fore [lit: the front of the chest]. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out.
https://www.accesstoinsi...taka/mn/mn.010.than.html

Much respect my friend♡♡♡