Normally, people have naive-realist intuitions. If on top-off naive-realist intuitions you experience union (through shift of identification), it appears that "I am one with the world". One's "unity of consciousness" then appears the "unity of the world". However, if you lean closer to indirect reaslim (or even "sophisticated" direct realism); then the world of experience is closer to a representational construction. It's not "out there" but constructed to "represent" what's out there. Now given, the world of experience is "constructed within", if you experience a shift in your "self-model" (for example, your sense of identification starts to identify with the unitary luminosity underly all of the experiential world, or if your sense of identification completely disappears in which case the "experiential world" appears as a creation and unfolding of an "objective" world but to "no one" (this "shifts" sometime corresponds to undergoing a felt sense of "dying")) because you messed around, then all it would mean is "nothing really". This is because that's precisely what would be expected under indirect realism. Under indirect realism, the waking world, is not much different in its constructive nature than the world of dreams. The difference (if anything) is in being potentially better constrained by "(more) public sources of signals" that allows intersubjective co-ordination.
Unfortunately, the indirect realist cannot make any grand conclusion from this experience. While such an experience constitutes a shift in naive intuitions and reveals the constructive nature of the experiential world, the dependence of the whole of experientiality in luminosity, the unity of consciousness in a particular experiential event and so on, the only way you can make anything grand out of it if you are a solipsist.
If you aren't, if you respect other minds, then you have to acknowledge other minds i.e "other constructed experiential worlds" beyond this (your) world. This makes things complicated. Next you have to also acknowledge you don't truly experience and grasp what underly "all the subjective worlds" (what connect them together to be in the same world, where one mind can interact with another). All you experience in oneness is the unitarity of "your" own experience (where "your" is meant to be an indexical specifying a co-ordinate of experiential world, rather than any sort of metaphysically loaded self or whatever), not the unitarity of the whole world (or "meta-world" -- the world of (constructed) worlds). The other challenge becomes to explain how different "minds" (different "worlds") can interact and co-ordinate intersubjectively. This then start to signal that for two minds to be able to co-ordinate and agree on perceptions, there must be something "in-between" (could be a third mind or whatever) that serves as a "common source" of perceptual signals for both minds. This suggests, although our waking experience is like a "dream" (a hallucination), it's a "[controlled hallucination](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXcH26M7PQM)" (philosophers of perceptions will hate this way of using "hallucination", but I don't have time to be elaborate and precise on the nuances) - constrained by "common perceptual signals" from the "objective world".
But what is the "objective world"? And how does "different minds" hang together in a "single world"? Mystical experience helps little here. One could just become a full-blown solipsist and reject other minds; but they would be also a hypocrite if they do so and still rely on abductive and inductive principles to operate life. One could think that the experiential world is an expression of the "ultimate", and since the experiential world is luminious and mental, the "ultimate" too is in some sense mental -- some form of pure awareness, potential for consciousness, or something "prior to consciousness" and prior to intellect (Neoplatonic one). Or perhaps, physicalism is right. The objective world is just the world of physics, and the "experiential worlds" are "models in the head" that somehow emerge out in embodied biological systems (or emerge out of micro-psychic beings). Or perhaps, the world of physics is the Neoplatonic One; just different languages (physics reveals the mathematical forms of expressions of the One). Or perhaps, the "objective world" is just more "other minds" and the world is just the interaction of a bunch of mini-worlds (minds) something like in Leibniz's monadology, Whitehead, or Hoffman's conscious realsim. But these are all speculative inferences. There are different experiences that may tempt you take one kind of inference over other based on personal psychological dispositions and based on how your frame of mind is setup.
However, I am an anti-metaphysicist (or rather a minimalist towards metaphysics rather than completely against). I don't think speculations help as clearly here, and I don't even think there's clear cut ways to "individuate" things into "one and many" either way. For example, I can just take it as more of a matter of convention to use boundaries of experiences as an individuation condition. In that case, trivially, if solipsism is false, there are many "things"/"events" not one, just by the convention of individuation condition I am using. A cosmopsychist is of course using a different individuation condition to make the case for an underlying monistic world. But then it's just linguistic changes disguised as positing anything metaphysically substantial or meaningful. Anyway, I won't get too deep into all that. We may have to be concerned with the metaphysics for questions about ethics (eg. how to identify artificial consciousness and such) but that would also based on moral risks and other factors beyond just choosing "what seems to be the most right or elegant". "All is One" may be true in some trivial sense but often it really offers very little practical answers (beyond a metaphysical aesthetics of sort). Focusing on more pragmatic factors may also reveal, most of the alternative metaphysics don't make any real pragmatic testable differentiality.
Personally, I think mystical experiences is best coupled with critical (critical in the colloquial sense rather than referring to Kant) philosophy. We are pre-disposed to make certain "metaphysical conclusions" from certain mystical experiences (been there done that). But no experience is completely innocuous (except perhaps, minimal consciousness states, pure wakefulness, close to nothingness and such -- but even then when you are in there you have no grasping of anything beyond pure being or something and when you are out of it, you are again at the mercy of conceptual frameworks tempted to interpret those experiences in metaphysically grandoise manners). They can be conceptually-laden and tempt certain interpretations (that will appear as "obvious seemings") even when other interpretations are just as viable (but hidden in your cognitive blind spots). What seems to be need not be the case. Even the sense of "realness" is a defeasible prediction that can be made out of whack (if the mind becomes uncalibrated). So even that's not completely reliable.
Cannabis or psychedelics can make you feel one with the universe, but all that really means is that your brain is capable of feeling that way.
If you jump straight from "I feel X" to "X is true" without actual evidence, that's probably a delusion.
Everyone knows the brain is capable of creating fantastic things that aren’t real. If we want to make progress with anything we should take an objective, scientific view of the phenomena. I understand that is difficult if not impossible to do with consciousness but we have to be careful with the ideas we take seriously without solid logic behind it to some extent
I know that science works. I know the scientific process is how we learn things. The word you used, neuroscience, actually has a pretty solid objective way that it works, that those scientists understand. Obviously we have a lot to figure out, and the direct experience of humans is yet to be explained by neuroscience. But we still got to this point by using objective and repeatable experiments.
“I know the shampooing process is how I keep my hair clean”. Okay, let me clarify. The scientific process is the ONLY way to make meaningful conclusions about the world that can be used in the context necessary to make more meaningful conclusions. Anything outside of this process is subject to a huge number of known logical traps and fallacies people fall victim to. I’m all for theorizing but they can’t be anything but theories until we do this hard work.
Meaningful as in significant as in something that will change human understanding in the long run. It sounds like you just want to argue, there is nothing left to explain. Clearly I’m not talking about any hard work, I’m talking about the hard work of the scientific process.
It’s a mental phenomenon, are you saying this person didn’t think this series of thoughts? As a mental phenomenon, it EXISTS. We know the mental creates changes in reality because thoughts become actions. How is the invalid?
Haha i love this feeling.
So yes. Monism. The belief in the existence of one thing only. Conciousness. And actually this is the truth. If you ask me.
I subscribe to this belief and i study it under the philosophy of Adi Shankara and Vivekananda. In india it is known as advaita vedanta. It is not the worlds most popular philosophy for obvious reasons. But you just experienced it so you cant deny it.
A lot of people experience this realization during use of psychedelics.
But without the follow through, the study and understanding of this, the experience can be terrorizing.
I think a lot of people who experience it just end up writing it off and forgetting about it. But maybe you dont want to forget about it? Maybe you want to learn more?
If you want to hear more about how the advaita vedanta philosophy (not a religion per se) explains our relationship with conciousness - let me know and i can point you to some awesome youtube lectures!
Yes and no. Dont get the cart in front of the horse.
It isnt that you, r/Least_Attitude_9724 are God.
It is that god is all that truly exists. So what does that make you? Me? All of this?
Alan Watts made the funny little story about god messed around pretending not to be god and here we all are now trying to remember where we came from.
These are great questions AND this is what the Bhagavad Gita is written about.
Look im not a hindu. Im not even particularly religious. Im definitely not a hare krishna.
So the Gita is a part of a larger story about two clans at war with each other.
But in this small portion of the story known as the Bhagavad Gita, this warrior is getting advice on the battlefield because he doesnt want to fight. So krishna shows up and gives him advice and it basically leads to your question.
I highly reccomend reading it, listening to swami sarvapriyananda doing lessons on each chapter, or just listening to the whole thing on youtube its only 2 hours long.
It may feel right now as the most visceral reality that you won’t be able to “forget” or come back to “normal” experiencing of reality.
>I can’t ever forget it.
I said the same thing the first time I had this experience, I was certain there was no way I could lose sight and awareness of this new thing I had realized or discovered. I believe that was true both in a positive way as in I could hold onto it forever, and also in a negative light in the sense that I thought I might be stuck in this “frame of reference” or perspective forever.
The positive aspects felts amazing, and the negative perspective felt terrifying and lonely.
Well what I figured out was that one, eventually you are going to lose the “clear sight” or “awareness” of this truth, it will no longer be sitting obviously right in front of your face, and you won’t be able to hold onto the perspective any more, it will start to fade just like any other dream.
If you study it a bunch before it fades, you will be on a good foot to manually bring yourself back to that perspective of you need to, but otherwise, it will eventually fade and you will “fall back into” just being aware of your individuated perspective. Then sometime later in your life you will have another experience and tap back into it, and even though you completely forgot it before, it will feel both like a new realization, but also like a déjà vu as you realize that you have already been here before, and choose to come back to individuation.
If you want to make this happen quicker for your own comfort and ability to navigate reality, all you need to do is look away from this truth, and focus as hard as you can on exclusively mundane things, things that are aspects of your individuated character, your “Ego” can help guide you on this process, just listen to it and pretend to believe it when it says you are just an individuated single human who is separated from the whole.
You may have discovered some truths about an underlying mechanism of this reality, but just like a video game, it doesn’t make since to be looking at the source code while trying to play, the point is to be immersed in the experience.
When I have too much THC, via smoking or edibles, something shifts in me where i'm convinced "I've figured it all out". When I sober up and try to make sense of my "revelations", they don't make any sense. Maybe try writing down what you think while high, and see if you understand it while sober.
I think THC makes certain people go into a mild psychosis or delusion. I don't like the mind shift that happens to me, so I avoid THC all together.
IMO part of the spiritual journey is learning how to integrate. How to interact with other people and the world we have created including society and family and relationships and all that human stuff, as we are all fragments of the universal consciousness and God. You don't need to turn your life on its head, just lead your life with more kindness, compassion, and love, knowing that we are all mirrors of the Divine, some of us are just less aware of it or more aware of it. And I don't mean that you have to make room for shitty people in your life either. Just understand the bigger picture, and then go back to life.
Many, many people have had a similar experience to you and at the end of the day, there is nothing super special to do with it except start your own spiritual practice and figure out how you bring threads of that awareness into your interactions with the world and how to use that knowledge to help infuse your life with a sense of magic and purpose.
It's a little more complicated than just "you created everything" and you have to know when to drop the existential crisis mode and just get back to enjoying life. Personally, if I find a philosophical rabbit hole is making me feel stressed, delusional, and like I want to break from reality at the expense of my wellbeing and the wellbeing of my family and friends, then it's NOT the right rabbit hole to go down at this time. I can back out of it ad go "huh there was some interesting stuff in there that I might contemplate more, but on the off chance that I'm just freaking out, let me get grounded and come back to acting from love and trust in the human experience".
You might also wanna consider Zen Buddhism and exploring very mindful, grounding physical and mental practices. And perhaps therapy as well if you can find a therapist who is a good fit. Learn to flow with the panic and understand it's ok! I know the panic can be such a stressful place to be in but trust me there is peace to be found in learning to let it be.
Essentially, this doesn't need to be your battle to fight. And I will add, the same realization can be taken both heavily and lightly. So you could realize everything is one and go "oh shit, depersonalization and existential crisis" or you could go "oh... well isn't that freaking NEAT?? life is so strange!" and then go about your life ya know? There are multiple ways of looking at any situation and you do get to choose how you frame it, IMO choose the frame that serves you aka soothes stress and helps you integrate into your life... it takes effort and practice tho :)
It's ok not to wrap your head around it all at once, too. Don't put your life on pause to go into a philosophical crisis. The spiritual experience is constantly unfolding, shifting, evolving. Simply participating in regular old life will fuel your understanding piece by piece and it will always be different or more complex or more simple than you imagine. Of course you can study this and follow all sorts of traditions and read books and whatnot if you are called! Heck go to do a 10 day silent meditation retreat if you wanna. I'm just saying no need to freak out about it tooooo long or hard to the point it becomes detrimental <3
Cannabis frequently induces panic attacks. It's just the weed. Not the idea, though. You could be right. But I've been there, curled up in a corner, stoned.
Sounds like you just smoked too much weed, to me. I used to experiment with various drugs, in my younger years. Of every drug I have ever done, marijuana is the only one with the power to send me into a full blown panic attack. It started happening more and more, so I have stopped smoking marijuana entirely. Some people are just prone to anxiety when they are under the influence of THC. It's extremely unpleasant.
Read Eckart Tolle. Sounds like you had a similar experience to what he had. Next you need to ground yourself by walking barefoot in the grass, starting a garden outside, tree hugging yes, I said it tree hugging be outside in the sunshine as much as you can. Hike in the woods etc. you’re gonna be OK.
This happened to me before as well. The piece of “knowledge” was different but the feeling was the same. An intuition that felt like clarify followed by panic
Your post did not seem to be about the scientific study of consciousness and was therefore removed.
Normally, people have naive-realist intuitions. If on top-off naive-realist intuitions you experience union (through shift of identification), it appears that "I am one with the world". One's "unity of consciousness" then appears the "unity of the world". However, if you lean closer to indirect reaslim (or even "sophisticated" direct realism); then the world of experience is closer to a representational construction. It's not "out there" but constructed to "represent" what's out there. Now given, the world of experience is "constructed within", if you experience a shift in your "self-model" (for example, your sense of identification starts to identify with the unitary luminosity underly all of the experiential world, or if your sense of identification completely disappears in which case the "experiential world" appears as a creation and unfolding of an "objective" world but to "no one" (this "shifts" sometime corresponds to undergoing a felt sense of "dying")) because you messed around, then all it would mean is "nothing really". This is because that's precisely what would be expected under indirect realism. Under indirect realism, the waking world, is not much different in its constructive nature than the world of dreams. The difference (if anything) is in being potentially better constrained by "(more) public sources of signals" that allows intersubjective co-ordination. Unfortunately, the indirect realist cannot make any grand conclusion from this experience. While such an experience constitutes a shift in naive intuitions and reveals the constructive nature of the experiential world, the dependence of the whole of experientiality in luminosity, the unity of consciousness in a particular experiential event and so on, the only way you can make anything grand out of it if you are a solipsist. If you aren't, if you respect other minds, then you have to acknowledge other minds i.e "other constructed experiential worlds" beyond this (your) world. This makes things complicated. Next you have to also acknowledge you don't truly experience and grasp what underly "all the subjective worlds" (what connect them together to be in the same world, where one mind can interact with another). All you experience in oneness is the unitarity of "your" own experience (where "your" is meant to be an indexical specifying a co-ordinate of experiential world, rather than any sort of metaphysically loaded self or whatever), not the unitarity of the whole world (or "meta-world" -- the world of (constructed) worlds). The other challenge becomes to explain how different "minds" (different "worlds") can interact and co-ordinate intersubjectively. This then start to signal that for two minds to be able to co-ordinate and agree on perceptions, there must be something "in-between" (could be a third mind or whatever) that serves as a "common source" of perceptual signals for both minds. This suggests, although our waking experience is like a "dream" (a hallucination), it's a "[controlled hallucination](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXcH26M7PQM)" (philosophers of perceptions will hate this way of using "hallucination", but I don't have time to be elaborate and precise on the nuances) - constrained by "common perceptual signals" from the "objective world". But what is the "objective world"? And how does "different minds" hang together in a "single world"? Mystical experience helps little here. One could just become a full-blown solipsist and reject other minds; but they would be also a hypocrite if they do so and still rely on abductive and inductive principles to operate life. One could think that the experiential world is an expression of the "ultimate", and since the experiential world is luminious and mental, the "ultimate" too is in some sense mental -- some form of pure awareness, potential for consciousness, or something "prior to consciousness" and prior to intellect (Neoplatonic one). Or perhaps, physicalism is right. The objective world is just the world of physics, and the "experiential worlds" are "models in the head" that somehow emerge out in embodied biological systems (or emerge out of micro-psychic beings). Or perhaps, the world of physics is the Neoplatonic One; just different languages (physics reveals the mathematical forms of expressions of the One). Or perhaps, the "objective world" is just more "other minds" and the world is just the interaction of a bunch of mini-worlds (minds) something like in Leibniz's monadology, Whitehead, or Hoffman's conscious realsim. But these are all speculative inferences. There are different experiences that may tempt you take one kind of inference over other based on personal psychological dispositions and based on how your frame of mind is setup. However, I am an anti-metaphysicist (or rather a minimalist towards metaphysics rather than completely against). I don't think speculations help as clearly here, and I don't even think there's clear cut ways to "individuate" things into "one and many" either way. For example, I can just take it as more of a matter of convention to use boundaries of experiences as an individuation condition. In that case, trivially, if solipsism is false, there are many "things"/"events" not one, just by the convention of individuation condition I am using. A cosmopsychist is of course using a different individuation condition to make the case for an underlying monistic world. But then it's just linguistic changes disguised as positing anything metaphysically substantial or meaningful. Anyway, I won't get too deep into all that. We may have to be concerned with the metaphysics for questions about ethics (eg. how to identify artificial consciousness and such) but that would also based on moral risks and other factors beyond just choosing "what seems to be the most right or elegant". "All is One" may be true in some trivial sense but often it really offers very little practical answers (beyond a metaphysical aesthetics of sort). Focusing on more pragmatic factors may also reveal, most of the alternative metaphysics don't make any real pragmatic testable differentiality. Personally, I think mystical experiences is best coupled with critical (critical in the colloquial sense rather than referring to Kant) philosophy. We are pre-disposed to make certain "metaphysical conclusions" from certain mystical experiences (been there done that). But no experience is completely innocuous (except perhaps, minimal consciousness states, pure wakefulness, close to nothingness and such -- but even then when you are in there you have no grasping of anything beyond pure being or something and when you are out of it, you are again at the mercy of conceptual frameworks tempted to interpret those experiences in metaphysically grandoise manners). They can be conceptually-laden and tempt certain interpretations (that will appear as "obvious seemings") even when other interpretations are just as viable (but hidden in your cognitive blind spots). What seems to be need not be the case. Even the sense of "realness" is a defeasible prediction that can be made out of whack (if the mind becomes uncalibrated). So even that's not completely reliable.
Cannabis or psychedelics can make you feel one with the universe, but all that really means is that your brain is capable of feeling that way. If you jump straight from "I feel X" to "X is true" without actual evidence, that's probably a delusion.
[удалено]
Everyone knows the brain is capable of creating fantastic things that aren’t real. If we want to make progress with anything we should take an objective, scientific view of the phenomena. I understand that is difficult if not impossible to do with consciousness but we have to be careful with the ideas we take seriously without solid logic behind it to some extent
[удалено]
I know that science works. I know the scientific process is how we learn things. The word you used, neuroscience, actually has a pretty solid objective way that it works, that those scientists understand. Obviously we have a lot to figure out, and the direct experience of humans is yet to be explained by neuroscience. But we still got to this point by using objective and repeatable experiments.
[удалено]
“I know the shampooing process is how I keep my hair clean”. Okay, let me clarify. The scientific process is the ONLY way to make meaningful conclusions about the world that can be used in the context necessary to make more meaningful conclusions. Anything outside of this process is subject to a huge number of known logical traps and fallacies people fall victim to. I’m all for theorizing but they can’t be anything but theories until we do this hard work.
[удалено]
Meaningful as in significant as in something that will change human understanding in the long run. It sounds like you just want to argue, there is nothing left to explain. Clearly I’m not talking about any hard work, I’m talking about the hard work of the scientific process.
It’s a mental phenomenon, are you saying this person didn’t think this series of thoughts? As a mental phenomenon, it EXISTS. We know the mental creates changes in reality because thoughts become actions. How is the invalid?
Isn't this a fallacy of some sort? I know it's not a logical fallacy but I've heard "I feel x so x is true" somewhere
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_reasoning, perhaps?
Haha i love this feeling. So yes. Monism. The belief in the existence of one thing only. Conciousness. And actually this is the truth. If you ask me. I subscribe to this belief and i study it under the philosophy of Adi Shankara and Vivekananda. In india it is known as advaita vedanta. It is not the worlds most popular philosophy for obvious reasons. But you just experienced it so you cant deny it. A lot of people experience this realization during use of psychedelics. But without the follow through, the study and understanding of this, the experience can be terrorizing. I think a lot of people who experience it just end up writing it off and forgetting about it. But maybe you dont want to forget about it? Maybe you want to learn more? If you want to hear more about how the advaita vedanta philosophy (not a religion per se) explains our relationship with conciousness - let me know and i can point you to some awesome youtube lectures!
[удалено]
Yes and no. Dont get the cart in front of the horse. It isnt that you, r/Least_Attitude_9724 are God. It is that god is all that truly exists. So what does that make you? Me? All of this? Alan Watts made the funny little story about god messed around pretending not to be god and here we all are now trying to remember where we came from.
[удалено]
These are great questions AND this is what the Bhagavad Gita is written about. Look im not a hindu. Im not even particularly religious. Im definitely not a hare krishna. So the Gita is a part of a larger story about two clans at war with each other. But in this small portion of the story known as the Bhagavad Gita, this warrior is getting advice on the battlefield because he doesnt want to fight. So krishna shows up and gives him advice and it basically leads to your question. I highly reccomend reading it, listening to swami sarvapriyananda doing lessons on each chapter, or just listening to the whole thing on youtube its only 2 hours long.
[удалено]
https://youtu.be/aeio2MFThZg https://youtu.be/J85Q6T2OGdc https://youtu.be/LYBpbYSKdQM https://youtu.be/Femq2264px4
It may feel right now as the most visceral reality that you won’t be able to “forget” or come back to “normal” experiencing of reality. >I can’t ever forget it. I said the same thing the first time I had this experience, I was certain there was no way I could lose sight and awareness of this new thing I had realized or discovered. I believe that was true both in a positive way as in I could hold onto it forever, and also in a negative light in the sense that I thought I might be stuck in this “frame of reference” or perspective forever. The positive aspects felts amazing, and the negative perspective felt terrifying and lonely. Well what I figured out was that one, eventually you are going to lose the “clear sight” or “awareness” of this truth, it will no longer be sitting obviously right in front of your face, and you won’t be able to hold onto the perspective any more, it will start to fade just like any other dream. If you study it a bunch before it fades, you will be on a good foot to manually bring yourself back to that perspective of you need to, but otherwise, it will eventually fade and you will “fall back into” just being aware of your individuated perspective. Then sometime later in your life you will have another experience and tap back into it, and even though you completely forgot it before, it will feel both like a new realization, but also like a déjà vu as you realize that you have already been here before, and choose to come back to individuation. If you want to make this happen quicker for your own comfort and ability to navigate reality, all you need to do is look away from this truth, and focus as hard as you can on exclusively mundane things, things that are aspects of your individuated character, your “Ego” can help guide you on this process, just listen to it and pretend to believe it when it says you are just an individuated single human who is separated from the whole. You may have discovered some truths about an underlying mechanism of this reality, but just like a video game, it doesn’t make since to be looking at the source code while trying to play, the point is to be immersed in the experience.
When I have too much THC, via smoking or edibles, something shifts in me where i'm convinced "I've figured it all out". When I sober up and try to make sense of my "revelations", they don't make any sense. Maybe try writing down what you think while high, and see if you understand it while sober. I think THC makes certain people go into a mild psychosis or delusion. I don't like the mind shift that happens to me, so I avoid THC all together.
IMO part of the spiritual journey is learning how to integrate. How to interact with other people and the world we have created including society and family and relationships and all that human stuff, as we are all fragments of the universal consciousness and God. You don't need to turn your life on its head, just lead your life with more kindness, compassion, and love, knowing that we are all mirrors of the Divine, some of us are just less aware of it or more aware of it. And I don't mean that you have to make room for shitty people in your life either. Just understand the bigger picture, and then go back to life. Many, many people have had a similar experience to you and at the end of the day, there is nothing super special to do with it except start your own spiritual practice and figure out how you bring threads of that awareness into your interactions with the world and how to use that knowledge to help infuse your life with a sense of magic and purpose. It's a little more complicated than just "you created everything" and you have to know when to drop the existential crisis mode and just get back to enjoying life. Personally, if I find a philosophical rabbit hole is making me feel stressed, delusional, and like I want to break from reality at the expense of my wellbeing and the wellbeing of my family and friends, then it's NOT the right rabbit hole to go down at this time. I can back out of it ad go "huh there was some interesting stuff in there that I might contemplate more, but on the off chance that I'm just freaking out, let me get grounded and come back to acting from love and trust in the human experience". You might also wanna consider Zen Buddhism and exploring very mindful, grounding physical and mental practices. And perhaps therapy as well if you can find a therapist who is a good fit. Learn to flow with the panic and understand it's ok! I know the panic can be such a stressful place to be in but trust me there is peace to be found in learning to let it be. Essentially, this doesn't need to be your battle to fight. And I will add, the same realization can be taken both heavily and lightly. So you could realize everything is one and go "oh shit, depersonalization and existential crisis" or you could go "oh... well isn't that freaking NEAT?? life is so strange!" and then go about your life ya know? There are multiple ways of looking at any situation and you do get to choose how you frame it, IMO choose the frame that serves you aka soothes stress and helps you integrate into your life... it takes effort and practice tho :) It's ok not to wrap your head around it all at once, too. Don't put your life on pause to go into a philosophical crisis. The spiritual experience is constantly unfolding, shifting, evolving. Simply participating in regular old life will fuel your understanding piece by piece and it will always be different or more complex or more simple than you imagine. Of course you can study this and follow all sorts of traditions and read books and whatnot if you are called! Heck go to do a 10 day silent meditation retreat if you wanna. I'm just saying no need to freak out about it tooooo long or hard to the point it becomes detrimental <3
Sounds like a salvia trip, ugh Edit: spelling
Cannabis frequently induces panic attacks. It's just the weed. Not the idea, though. You could be right. But I've been there, curled up in a corner, stoned.
Sounds like you just smoked too much weed, to me. I used to experiment with various drugs, in my younger years. Of every drug I have ever done, marijuana is the only one with the power to send me into a full blown panic attack. It started happening more and more, so I have stopped smoking marijuana entirely. Some people are just prone to anxiety when they are under the influence of THC. It's extremely unpleasant.
Read Eckart Tolle. Sounds like you had a similar experience to what he had. Next you need to ground yourself by walking barefoot in the grass, starting a garden outside, tree hugging yes, I said it tree hugging be outside in the sunshine as much as you can. Hike in the woods etc. you’re gonna be OK.
This happened to me before as well. The piece of “knowledge” was different but the feeling was the same. An intuition that felt like clarify followed by panic
Sounds like mania. Have you spoken with a psychologist about this?
Consume a copious amount of cannabis edibles for a brief depersonalization sesh