u/Sweetpeawl

I keep saying this, but Singer's words have such a deep familiarity to me. I'm not learning anything from them, it isn't like when I pick up my Quantum Mechanics textbook, nor like when I read a new novel. Instead, it's like what he's written was always known to me and it seems so logical and basic. Could I have written this book? God no... unfortunately, my thoughts are so clouded and unclear. It would take me years to come up with enough "clarity moments" to somehow piece together such a concise and comprehensive text. Still, I find it strange... when did I learn these things?

This chapter is about living life to it's fullest and being present in each and every second. Singer uses death as a means to achieve that; if you were going to die next week, how would you live your last days on Earth? A question I've asked myself countless of times. And if I was silly enough, I would claim I was enlightened because I would live my life exactly like I do now. (but recall, depersonalization is the evil twin of enlightenment). Oh, I might stop working out cause I dislike it, and I may want to have sex one last time, but that is literally the only 2 things I could think of when I paused my reading and contemplated.

I will say that telling someone to live like you may die tomorrow is not the greatest advice. Again, I feel Singer should have either elaborated or given examples. Because whereas the mentality to live each day like it's your last, and the practical application of it is very different. The truth is: you will most probably not die this week, nor this month for the vast majority of the population. That being said, you must do things in your everyday that will sustain a certain future that allows you to experience life to its fullest. You can experience your every second to its fullest - always, without reservation. But without a career (because you chose not to go to school cause it was hard and you suffered and so you dropped out cause you want to live like it's your last day and you sure ain't going to school if it's your last day), you'll have much less opportunities than someone educated. Maybe you end up poor, never leaving your country and seeing the world because of ill-decisions about living everyday like it's your last.

All that being said, I have faced death last year. I knew it for certainty several times. And yet, my mind that evaluated and concluded those things ended up being wrong. But what I did discover in those "final moments" was that I do fear death. Not because of things I didn't get to do, not at all in fact. Unlike most people in this sub, I have never found this Self, so when I die, I totally die. And the mind simply comprehend such a non-existent scenario, so it fears it. It isn't "unknown" that I fear (although that can happen too), it is the utter annihilation of all time and space, of the world itself, that nothing ever happened, and I never was at all. I accept that my mind (I) fear death, but it will not stop me from living. In fact, it propels my life.

Another great chapter aye?

How much do we know about what we truly resist? I paused several times during the reading of this chapter to ask myself: what is it that I am resisting, and what are my problems? I think Singer has a lot of wisdom in stating not to resist the current moment, not to attach ourselves to things beyond our control, and not to worry about the past nor the future (too much 😉). I do think a lot of suffering is from some kind of resistance. But I still struggle to understand the implication on the practical world. Take the French Revolution, a clear act of complete and utter resistance to what was. The poor were suffering at the hands of the aristocrats, and resistance happened. I wonder what Singer would say about this... would he be indifferent to the revolution (i.e. it matters not that the rich were abusing their power)? Should we have let Hitler colonize the world? Does it make a difference? Does anything matter? Is the spiritually liberated person truly ok with whatever happens? And why does it look a lot like indifference and not caring? Does the state of the world not matter?

I think a lot of the examples in this book are simply too basic and the more difficult questions are never addressed. I have no stress/anxiety in my life. I only fear unreality. So what am I resisting? I wish I knew. I am tired of being trapped, limited, disconnected, and existing in my head.

I'm not saying Singer is wrong with anything he states in this chapter; I may very well be resisting something that I'm completely unaware of (after all, the body literally resists infections via the immune system; so resistance is actually built into us - and thankfully). It's just not enough again. Maybe I'm the 1 in a million case that's too complicated for this book. I don't know. But as I'm nearing the end, it's becoming less likely that I'll ever find that Self.

Edit: Maybe someone can answer me with this simple story. I have an uncle whose wife (my aunt) decided to leave him after 15 years of marriage and 2 children. She was no longer in love she claimed, and had found a new boyfriend. My uncle resisted, and fought for months to have her back, to which he succeed. Both my aunt and uncle are very happy today, and both are thankful that my uncle fought for them (as are the children, and a lot easier for all of them because split custody is such a headache). Now I know the spiritual path it seems lies in acceptance and non-resistance, and furthermore, that happiness is something you have inside and not something you seek in external events. So perhaps if my uncle was more "spiritual" he would have let her go and been happy either way and found a new life today. Maybe he would never have found such a strong connection to another women, or maybe he would have. My question: does anything matter? was my uncle wrong for chasing his wife back? Singer seems to imply he should not have. I don't know, it all seems so arbitrary what we do if nothing is worth resisting. Are we not neglecting our very desires? Is it so wrong to want things in this life? Like I'm sure Singer sometimes really craves a pizza, but he's tired, but will still go out and drive to get it because he wants that pizza. Why do I struggle so much to understand the message? To me it seems so situational. So contextual. Should I not seek chimio treatments if I wake up with cancer tomorrow? sigh

I wasn't overly thrilled about this chapter. Again, I don't feel like I'm learning anything new; all these ideas are somehow familiar to me. But I have also lived some experiences that contradict (or seems to) the conclusion Singer reaches about leaving the walls you've made to feel safe in the world. Before that though, I want to quote a passage:

>Spirituality begins when you decide that you'll never stop trying. Spirituality is the commitment to go beyond, no matter what it takes.

I really like this quote. It describes me well; this never ending "fight" to push through the limits of what I experience and what I think. To have this belief that there is more out there, something is truly beyond. Unfortunately, dissociation has shown to be the ultimate prison.

I think it isn't clear to the reader when to let go vs when to challenge your ideas. I feel like to challenge your own inner world is actually not a form of surrendering at all. Your world that you created exists for a reason: it keeps you safe (and in the illusion of control). Beyond safety is fear, a very very natural human emotion and a very wise one. Without fear, humans would have never made it to where we are today - we'd be extinct. There is much danger in pushing your boundaries and trying new experiences and seeing where it all leads. Something it leads to death. As such, I find the message in this chapter is too "Disney" with this belief that everything always works out, trust the universe, so on.

I could share a personal experience after a psychedelic trip not too long ago, that truly broke down my walls. And beyond them was not fun. In fact, it left my body in a state of suicide for months and I (the observer mind) has to constantly distract myself from thoughts my body would send me on how it wanted it all to end. Just like when you are hungry you feel a hunger and get thoughts of slices of pizza, well I got this feeling of it being "unbearable" and a desire to end it. In some ways, my depersonalization might have saved me, by being forced to disconnect from emotion and thoughts.

Anyhow, reader beware, it's not all love and rainbows.

I've had chronic DPDR my entire adult life, never had a trigger/cause for the onset. I've never had anxiety, and whereas I feel cutoff from the experience of life, it isn't scary or something unbearable. After years of medication trials, various therapies, and alternate treatments (e.g. somatic experiencing), I've come to accept that I may be stuck in the dorsal vagal shutdown state because of non-psychological reasons.

I recently stumbled across a post in the Celiac Disease subreddit where a woman had been living with DPDR for years and had also tried all the conventional treatment methods. By a fluke blood test, she discovered she was silent celiac (asymptomatic - not having digestive symptoms), and all her DPDR symptoms disappeared completely when she stopped eating gluten.

Research is emerging now on the link between dissociation and inflammation. I talked to my doctor about it, but there are a ton of autoimmune diseases, and they can't test for them all without a primary symptom. Still, I think I will investigate this route a little bit. It would make so much sense if my the cause of my DPDR was not trauma. Welcome any comments on this.

I've been liking these chapters. They are so down-to-earth simple and with basic common sense. Singer here talks about how "thorns" can ultimately control your life (he does give a very basic example with loneliness), and the solution, as always, is to let go of the thorn. Thorns are again simply another form of samskaras (effectively). I don't mind the repetition so much, cause it's kinda presented in a new light and it might be clearer this way for some. The thought crossed my mind tonight while reading that this book was written for me; perhaps the message told in 100 ways, one way will break through to me.

When I think about my present situation, there is almost certainly some thorn at its base. I spent 12 years in therapy trying to identify a cause, or sometimes bypassing the mind (somatic experiencing), and I never gained any insight as to why I appear to be so disconnected from my self (Self?). I had a therapist who would tell me almost at every session that I was "dead". If some thorn happened when I was a child, before I started seeing my thoughts and emotions as separate, and that cascaded into layers upon layers of protection mechanisms that then shaped my reality; is there recovery from that? Science (meds, therapy, alternate treatments) have failed, and every time I read one of these spirituality books, I am never able to find this Self. I'll spend weeks (not years!) meditating daily and still come up empty (pun intended).

I'd say it's frustrating, but that is also denied to me. All I have is the thought that it should be. Which bears no weight. But what's clear, is that just like Singer said, whatever thorn(s) I have has impacted my life in all areas and has now defined my life. I walk outside in nature and don't experience; a sunset is just a orange ball going down in the sky, neither beautiful nor ugly. Everything just is, with no felt sense, no meaning, and no notice. I lack nearly all desire. I know it will consume my entire life if it continues. But how do I change? How does one let go of what we don't know? Again, Singer's idea that these things will surface given enough time and monitoring as the observer has not worked out for me. If I die tomorrow, I will only have the thought that I did not truly experience life - but it's just a thought right? Still can't see what more there is.

I like the beginning of this chapter. It talks about fear and how it can infect you, limiting your personal growth. It obviously relates to the previous chapters of closing.

But I still struggle with understanding what my fear/blockages are, and how to let go. I wish there were concrete and specific examples in this chapter; perhaps that would have helped. But as I continue reading I'm having more and more trouble relating to the material being presented. Especially the whole "seat of Self", something that still complete eludes me.

I think I may have got caught in one of those "falls" when I was young. And instead of letting go, I probably repressed or ignored it and indeed built walls to protect myself. Twenty five years later, I feel so at a loss in this whole situation. If I did take one of those falls, why can't I escape or let go? Let go of what? What fear do I have? As Singer mentions, you lose clarity (did I ever even have clarity) and you get stuck in darkness losing all sense of self and reality.

Singer seems to imply to let go of these thoughts, and that the trauma will naturally come up. But it really doesn't. Or perhaps I have no trauma and these explanations of this book simply don't cover all cases of people suffering. I don't know. But I am trying. I'll continue reading, but I haven't been able to incorporate into my life any of the previous teachings. Literally, still trying to understand how my thoughts are creating my specific suffering (chapter 2). It doesn't matter ultimately.

I don't know that this chapter brings anything new to the table, but I appreciate that it kinda summarizes the previous chapters and specifically tells us to let go. It's the same information that simply isn't getting through to me, so it's nice to see it worded differently and with some other examples.

Reading this book is like some giant test of faith in some ways. There is this promise that all your suffering will end (1), that you will know your true nature that transcends the self (consciousness) (2), that you can be open all receptive again (3), and that you can touch/feel/use this infinite energy that is blissful (4). And the price? Let go of all thoughts, all feelings, and surrender to whatever there is left. I've always seen this as a kind of self-suicide; to let go of core values and beliefs you've gathered over your life. It's like hitting the big reset switch to being human (I guess you keep your memories though). This path might make sense to those suffering so much... after all, what do they have left to lose at that point. But it would sure be nice to have something tangible to feel as to what awaits on that other side. Every time I've dived into my self and watched all thoughts and feelings for what they were, I did not sense anything else. In fact, it seemed to me that this was all there was; nothing transcendent; just void.

A particular section that I found myself agreeing with in this chapter is the notion that we are just protecting ourselves. Especially as children, we don't want to feel hurt. And so we do close. For me closing meant pretending to be someone else. Today my therapist tells me that all these protection mechanisms have become subconscious and inaccessible; i.e. I am not aware of them. But supposedly they are there and shape my reality.

Another section I found curious was the pencil example, and how the mind goes "If I let him take a pencil, what would be next? My car? My house?" And Singer says to always let go and not get involved. But is that true? Does that reflect reality? If I go tonight to Singer's home and steal his car, will he really not be worked up about it? Will he not report it to the police? Will he let me drive away with it? I struggle to understand the practical application of this. If he lived in a violent country, would he be left with nothing with no shelter and no money (cause everyone stole it?)? I understand that one can be at peace with these things happening, but are you still at peace when you are starving, or cold outside? You've gained freedom from conflict at the cost of having physical pain and discomfort.

There's some irony in me writing out my thoughts about these chapters, whereas we are kinda told not to attach ourselves to any thoughts in chapter 2. If it makes any difference: I am not overly attached to what I write.

This chapter's main message is to "let go". I have stumbled across this message several time in my existential/spiritual search; I've in fact read the entire book of Hawkins on the matter. Singer here uses a different vocabulary than I'm used to to talk about how attachment to feelings (and probably ideas) leads spiritual blockage and Samskaras. My understanding is that this is basically how the body experiences mini-traumas that then hinder us in our lives, and the solution is to allow the experience to pass through you instead of fixating on it and resisting. Singer uses a whole bunch of energy lingo, but I think this is the gist of it. It relates well with the previous chapter of being open/closed, and how these mental impressions can prevent you from being open by "clogging" the passageway for new experiences.

The two issues I have with this chapter is, first, that most of us don't know our samskaras. So many of us have so many from childhood that we just aren't aware of. It would take an extremely self aware person, with also an amazing memory, to be able to see all these clogs in the flow of energy. Singer mentions that sometimes they come up and that's when you let go, but I feel like that might be easy if you only have a few. Whereas most of our personalities seem shaped by these very samskaras (both positive and negative). Like maybe when I was 5 I woke up in the night and thought I saw a stranger in my room that scared me so badly that I subconsciously associated "dark" with threatening. This in turn steered my life in a particular direction and made choices for me, which created the person I am today. I might not even remember the event, but the trauma is stored somewhere in the body and "releasing it" is not as easy as simply saying "I let go". It's become part of us, we don't even see it. Furthermore, the fact that these traumas can be subconscious is another issue all on its own. That's why we pay a lot of money to therapists to help us uncover our hidden blockages.

And letting go isn't always "complete". I mentioned in a previous post how a partner cheated on me in the past. At the time thinking about it felt like a knife in the heart. That partner is long gone now, we've both moved on. But still, if I think about that particular night when they cheated, I still fill some form of pain. Like a wound that has healed, but has left a scar that has some sensitivity. I've thought about it plenty, hold no grudge towards them (we were kids after all), and know this is a part of life. I don't repress the emotion, I sit with it at times (I don't often think about it tbh). Still, a feeling remains. So how exactly does one let go?

My second objection is again about importance and nihilism. If we are to believe what is written in this chapter, then there is a way to live being constantly open with no samskaras forming, thereby experiencing life directly (?). But how does one value something, give it importance if it does not leave a mental impression? If truly everything is just flowing, then nothing is important; things happen, you witness it, life goes on. You see a factory farming video with animals been abused - let go of that anger and instead move on; do not fight to change it, do not donate money, or become vegetarian, or do anything. Because if it leaves an impression on you, then you've accumulated blockage and are preventing the natural flow of energy and the "living in the present". Does no one else find this ridiculous? Should we no longer help our neighbors as well? I just fail to understand how one can do any kind of action with this ever-passive, nothing affects me attitude. Won't we all be the same exact person if we all just smile and let it all go without affecting us? If nothing is important, then technically having samskaras isn't important either, right? /s

Being a long-time sufferer of indifference (and dissociation), I struggle to truly understand the ideal being of always being open and living in the present. I understand that some traumas prevent us from being happy and experience a full life, and we are better off letting go of these. - that's what I'll retain from this chapter (and the confusion as well 🥲).

Another good chapter discussing spiritual energy. I was raised with very similar notions regarding life: keep an open mind, open your heart, try new things, be positive, and the whole notion of karma (if you do good, good shall find its way back to you). The teachings of this chapter basically take these principles but reword them with terms of energy.

Once again though, I find it is lacking how to become "open". Singer says to basically never close and to remain open, but I will say that just being open is not something so intuitive. I think many of us have led long lives filled with experiences (traumas for some) where our nervous systems decided for us to close in order to protect ourselves. When I was young, there was no one there to tell me "stay open" or to talk to about emotions. Emotions were largely a taboo subject matter, and in my school it was cool to appear nonchalant and closed. And as kids, don't we all want to fit in?

So here I am in my early 40s recognizing and knowing that I have been closed for years. But how to become open is a mystery. My mind is open, as I hope is shown by me taking on this book for the 3rd time, and in general have wonderful thoughts about life (I have been very lucky in my life and blessed with many gifts). But it doesn't change that I navigate through life disconnected and not feeling almost any emotions. And the few times I did, how wonderful it was, and yet to wake up the next day and be that closed person again... why? Singer claims we have control over this; but whatever control I have seems to escape me entirely. It would help to give clear paths/procedure to return to a state of feeling and liveliness. Perhaps that will come in future chapters.

This was a nice chapter, and my mind seemed to argue less with what was being presented. The ideas Singer presents here very much reflect Plato’s ideas of the world of forms, or the movie the Matrix, whereby we are deluded to believe that the experience of life fed to us by our senses, thoughts, and feelings is all that there is – but when in truth there is more. And I really want to believe that.

But I still struggle with promoting this observer lifestyle. The movie theater is a perfect example. I remember being so engrossed and captivated by a movie when I was a child. As Singer says, it’s as if there was no theater, no one else around, I didn’t even have a body: all I was experiencing was the movie. I loved it. And now as an adult, I cannot seem to have access to such a beautiful encompassing experience. I am always aware I am watching a movie on a screen, always aware of the theatre, of the others beside me, of thoughts I am having. Consequently, the experience is kinda crappy compared to that as of a child. I find things lose meaning and importance when you are on the outside; you’re no longer living the world, you’re observing yourself living it. It’s just a movie.

The other thing I struggle with is finding this consciousness being aware of itself thing. If I truly let go of it all and just try to be aware of what is observing, I do not find this wonderful “thing” there. Instead there is a void; almost like this is all there is, and I am nothing more. It isn’t freeing, it isn’t beautiful, it isn’t life changing, it’s … nothing. No self. I remember Tolle describing the same thing as Singer and calling it Being. And for reasons I do not know, I cannot find it. I am no meditation guru, but in the absence of thoughts, there simply is no awareness. There’s no “me”, there’s no consciousness. There’s just absence.

edit: this is for chapter 3! not 2!

I didn't mind this chapter so much. I don't know that anything is useful in it, but the idea of labeling ourselves as awareness is prominent in many spiritual communities. Nonduality comes to mind.

I don't know that it is useful though... if I ask someone who they are, I want to know what their hobbies are, what their personality is like, what are their dreams and what they do for work. All that is soooo much more useful than someone telling me "I am awareness/consciousness" - because all that tells me is that they are into spirituality.

And if we really dissect it, what is awareness? It has no shape, it feels no emotions, has no thoughts, it doesn't like or dislike badminton, it isn't smart nor stupid, and it isn't tangible. So it's almost nothing. It's like the dos prompt on old computers, just awaiting information. How useful is it really to identify to that? For all we know, we all share the exact same "awareness" and all that differs is in the body and mind. And who is to say that "awareness" isn't just a construction of the mind? I'm not saying it doesn't exist, only that it doesn't necessarily need to be some transcendental thing, it might turn off when we die. Ultimately, the glamour in "awareness" is much too high.

So again, whereas I don't disagree... where are we going with this? I guess I'll see in the next chapters. But at the moment, I much prefer to identify to who I am as a person (interests, personality, goals, trauma, body, beliefs, etc) than simply some "awareness" devoid of individuality and complexity.

Last time I tried to read this book I gave up after chapter 2. And I see the reason why again today. I don't disagree with Singer that there is this non-stop voice in my head. I don't disagree that I can call it a roommate and that it can be tiresome at times. But the claim that all my problems are somehow the result of this voice seems completely false for me.

I somehow have lower back pain... is this true or just a thought? Because I'm waking up in the middle of the night and my inner voice is telling me that my lower back hurts and to change position. If I ignore the inner voice, will I go back to sleep? Will the pain go away?

My partner cheated on me a few years ago. I remember thinking many things and I was very unhappy with this. Was this again all because of my thoughts? What should I have done? Just seen myself having angry thoughts and being betrayed and simply observe it as a witness? And what, just go on with my relationship as if nothing happened?

We need to make decisions constantly in our everyday lives. What good is an "objective" witness watching an inner dialogue? If it is truly objective, then it doesn't say good or bad, it doesn't judge thoughts. All it does is observe. And how does that help me make decisions in my life? One is tempted to say that observing the thoughts allows for a more rational decision-making... but notice all that's happened is that the observer has proven itself not-objective at all in this case; it is weighing and judging the inner voice... and is thus itself a voice.

The observer/witness is just another construct of the mind, and there is always just another witness watching it. A never ending loop of witnesses watching each other, like a matryoshka doll. Personally, seeing thoughts in my head and labeling them as thoughts and being dis-identified to them has granted me only a calmness by adding a layer between me and the experience. Instead of being there experiencing something, I am instead observing it; I am observing my thoughts to the experience. How is this useful? I would argue that it actually prevents me from experiencing. Perhaps if I was a hot head and always getting angry, this stepping-back would help calm me and be less angry. Ok. So what? I still have real problems. If I don't pay my rent and completely ignore any thought that I should pay it, will reality bend itself and make it so my landlord never comes to collect? Will a new reality manifest from the absence of thoughts? Is this what Singer is claiming? I don't think so.

Again, I acknowledge that I have this voice. I acknowledge that it is speaking right now and it's being typed here. I see it. Is it right? I don't know. Who is even the "I"? Does any of it matter? If I don't type this message out, or I do, what does it matter? I'll keep reading, but this chapter was difficult to get through. It almost seems like this chapter was meant for grade school kids with no self-awareness. We all know since a young age that our minds produce thoughts (the classic "don't think of a red apple" experience), and that they aren't always right, and that they happen regardless of if we wish it or not. No one is out there claiming that all they are are these thoughts. And I sure as hell ain't saying that these thoughts are the source of my problems.

This is my 3rd time trying to get through reading The Untethered Soul; I promised myself to read it to completion this time. The intro I really liked: it implies that there is something deeper to myself (and possibly to life) than anything I've ever known and experienced. I hope to discover that.

Chapter focused on identifying the voice in our heads, which I've always observed and which is constantly in motion in my mind. The part I have trouble with is actually Singer's claim that there is an experience of the self without the voice. Or that one can have experiences without narration. Time and time again I have failed to see this. I was reading this chapter by the canal with trees and people around and just quieted the mind and looked ahead. The only things I was capable of noticing came with thoughts "tree", "biker", "kayak", etc. I will not here put into question the existence of these things if I had not had these thoughts, but I can say that I would not have noticed them if not for a thought to label it. I've ran this experiment twenty times if not more, meditating with an empty mind or with a mind focused on the breath.

I went skateboarding this morning, and the thoughts were so heavy (depressive stuff like, "why am I doing this? To what ends? I don't like this. I'm so miserable"), I had to shut them out and try as best as I can to ignore them. Eventually I was focused on the action of skating, but only by moments. I wondered after if I had enjoyed my experience, and I don't know... I hadn't stopped to ask myself the question. Can I enjoy something without being aware of it, and if so, does it matter if "I" am not there to experience it? Endless self analysis.

Perhaps in the later chapters I will find a self independent of this voice. Something capable of experiencing something directly and not filtered through my mind to being with (I have doubts though...). At the moment, "I" am simply a construction of the mind. Hoping that there is more 💛

Sometimes I walk in my neighborhood and if I feel good, the world around me seems happy, people smile and are enjoying their life. When I feel disconnected (say "bad"), then that very same world seems tired, struggling, and faking their smiles. So clearly, how I feel affects how I perceive reality. The question is, which reality is "true"? None?

The same goes for thoughts. I walk around my neighborhood and feel safe because I have thoughts that we have such a thing based on statistics and personal experience. Or perhaps I see it as unsafe because my grandma keeps telling me stories of rapes and murders. Again, my perception of reality is dependent on the ideas which constructs my internal world.

I don't know why exactly, but I am striving to live in a reality that is independent of subjectivity. That is, a reality that is not influenced by my daily emotional fluctuations, nor my ideas on how things work. Does such a thing exist? If it is, is it possible to see this "objective" truth or reality that simply "is" without my personal kaleidoscope filtering/altering it? Is this what enlightenment is? And how does one go about getting there? (I know it's a lot of questions! ☺️)

I have lived over 2 decades trapped in depersonalization. I have no anxiety, no fear (I feel safe all the time); it is more a numbness, apathy, anhedonia, a lack of desires, and a general disconnection from the elusive self and the world. I am always on the outside as an observer to a world and the self. Professionals believe that my state is possibly a result of childhood emotional neglect, where I was isolated from receiving emotions, both good and bad, and never shown how to express them.

I spent 12 years in therapy, trying meds, traveling, somatic experiencing, being active, meditating, forcing myself to have the "normal" life. All in an effort to break out of my mental prison. Later I stumbled into spirituality as there was a striking resemblance between my ideas and those proposed by spiritual gurus. I began thinking that enlightenment was the key to breaking out of this prison and to be able to feel alive and in my body again.

But this is where I think I got it wrong. I was under the impression that my thoughts formed the container for my prison - after all, my thoughts form my reality. But I was surprised last year when a large dose of psychedelic left me in a psychotic state in a different reality, and yet still depersonalized as always. I have since reflected a lot on this and come to realize that my thoughts are not my enemy. They do not create the disconnection with the self and others.

It is the body that creates this prison. Much like a person who has lost an arm to amputation cannot change his thoughts/perception to regrow that arm, I cannot think myself out of depersonalization. Much like someone sick with covid cannot suddenly be healthy by thinking, I cannot escape DP. And much like the enlightened, they are still prone to disease and physical accidents.

The body dissociates under intense emotions as a survival mechanism. In depersonalization, the issue lies that once the threat is gone the body does not return to the un-dissociated state but gets stuck. It is a mechanism (dorsal vagal shutdown) that bypasses the mind and is governed by the unconscious nervous system.

I am surrounded by love and safety - I simply cannot feel it. But I know it (atm, all I am are ideas). And with that my spiritual path might be at an end; I do not know that any additional "ideas" or dropping of ideas can help me on my recovery path. In fact, the reason I never connected with any spiritual books and messages testifies that depersonalization prevents any further spiritual growth. Because ultimately the path is one in which you feel and connect to.

I would like to hear what are your thoughts on this. Also on the idea that I have to find/connect the self before no-self can ever be realized. Thank you

I used to think reality had an objective and solid structure - like an online game where one logs in to a character and interacts with others in a basis of rules and structures (the universe, the laws of nature (science), causality and time, etc).

But recently I experienced something on a mushroom trip that has suggested that reality is formed from my own beliefs. That is, I create my own reality based on ingrained beliefs about the world. And as such, if I can change my beliefs, my reality in turn will change. So in my previous online game example, I am only a logged in user in a game because that is what I believe in. But if I believe that I shape reality, then I can be the programmer of the game if that is what I truly believe in.

Now I understand the issue (irony) with asking a question on this topic. But am I simply manifesting my own world? And, perhaps more importantly, why does this knowledge scare me? It's like my entire perspective of what "is" gets wiped and I feel fear. Shouldn't I feel freedom at life being whatever I want it to be?

I believe it is common among schizoids to feel like life is missing something. Somehow we were grown incorrectly and don't quite fit in the current world and struggle to find our way.

I spent years looking for some kind of reason to my existence; perhaps to justify the hardships I lived through and perhaps to give me hope that there was more. I looked into so many philosophies and religions. Nihilism, existentialism, nonduality, buddhism, etc. And yet I still couldn't find my way.

I realized recently that I had been looking for a cognitive construct. But I had it wrong - what I actually wanted was not cognitive in nature. What I actually needed was a feeling that gave my life purpose. I realized that I didn't require life to make sense, I didn't need to be smart and understand the greater mechanisms and find the ultimate truth. No. All I needed was to feel that I was needed and had a function.

And perhaps this is the true search for the self. Because it seems what would make me feel needed and purposeful is very specific. It isn't piloting a 747 Boeing, raising a family, nor is it working at a animal rescue sanctuary.

I know the feeling "exists" I just don't know if I will ever find it in my current reality.

Last year I took too much shrooms and ended up suffering from psychosis for some months afterwards. I am mostly better now, although I cannot say 100% that I know what reality is.

I was thinking of trying MDMA and would like to know from those with experience if this could re-trigger a psychosis episode. Does MDMA make you lose your sense of reality like shroom do? I am mostly seeking to break through ongoing dissociation and feel strong emotions again. My mindset is not good (depressive, anhedonia, apathy) and looking to change that. Thanks.