Drugs and spirituality

[Tariki]

As a contribution to the original questions posted on this thread I would like to quote from a letter of Thomas Merton (to Aldous Huxley) as published in the book "The Hidden Ground of Love".............

"Are you not endangering the whole concept of genuine mystical experience in saying that it is something that can be 'produced' by a drug? I know, you qualify that statement, you say that a drug can induce a state in which mystical experience can be occasioned; a drug can remove obstacles in our ordinary everyday state of mind, and make a kind of latent mysticism come to the surface. But I wonder if this accords with the real nature of mystical experience?..................

Ought we not to distinguish between an experience which is essentially aesthetic and natural from an experience which is mystical and supernatural. I would call aesthetic and natural an experience which would be an intuitive 'tasting' of the inner spirituality of our own being - or an intuition of being as such, arrived at through an intuitive awareness of our own inmost reality. This would be an experience of 'oneness' within oneself and with all beings, a flash of awareness of the transcendent Reality that is within all that is real. This sort of thing 'happens' to one in all sorts of ways and I see no reason why it should not be occasioned by the use of a drug.......

What would I call a supernatural and mystical experience, then? I speak hesitantly................

It seems to me that a fully mystical experience has in its very essence some note of a direct spiritual contact of two liberties, a kind of flash or spark which ignites an intuition of all that has been said above, plus something much more which I can only describe as 'personal', in which God is known not as an 'object' or as 'Him up there' or 'Him in everything' nor as 'the All' but as - the biblical expression - I AM, or simply AM. But what I mean is that this is not a kind of intuition that smacks of anything procurable because it is a presence of a Person and depends on the liberty of that Person. And lacking the element of a free gift, a free act of love on the part of Him Who comes, the experience would lose its specifically mystical quality.

But now, from the moment that such an experience can be conceived of as dependent on and inevitably following from the casual use of a material instrument, it loses the quality of spontaneity and freedom and transcendence which makes it truly mystical."

On other forums I have raised the issues surrounding the phrase that Merton has used.............."The contact of two liberties"...........many good discussions have followed! It does seem to get to grips with profound difference between religions, as least as they are expressed within history - time and space. Between "duality" and "non-duality".............and the true meaning of "personhood" and its essence.

Anyway, hope this helps in moving the dialogue along!

Derek

[I, Brian]

Hi Tariki, and welcome to CR.

And good points, too - the distinction is certainly interesting. But I'm curious whether there's room to overlap. In a way, if the hallucinagenic process deals with the sensory processes, and Divinity remains observable through the sensory process, then is there room to argue that Divinity is merely observed through a more "purified" sensory process in the drug-induced state?

[samabudhi]

Are you not endangering the whole concept of genuine mystical experience in saying that it is something that can be 'produced' by a drug?

Are you are able to accept that the reason one experiences mystical states is because of your own efforts and not simply a divine blessing which you try to invoke from a superior being, like a beggar would ask for money?
If so, then yes, drugs are not your path of choice.
If however, you believe the potential is fully within yourself, and that you are responsible for your own 'salvation', then I don't see psychedelics as a problem.

Psychedelics don't 'add' mystical experience to your present state of mind. They change the way you think. If you couldn't have that mystical experience in the first place, drugs would not help. It's like computer software. It can do amazing things. But it can never go outside the boundaries of computer hardware. Reseachers found that when someone trips of LSD, the LSD is removed from one's system by the body, and the trip continues. So LSD is just the catalyst which starts an inherent, though truly remarkable process.

Remember that whatever we think, whatever is going on in our heads is just a serious of chemical reactions. There is nothing 'magical' about it. It may seem that way since we can't explain them, but it's not.

[Tariki]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Hi Tariki, and welcome to CR.

And good points, too - the distinction is certainly interesting. But I'm curious whether there's room to overlap. In a way, if the hallucinagenic process deals with the sensory processes, and Divinity remains observable through the sensory process, then is there room to argue that Divinity is merely observed through a more "purified" sensory process in the drug-induced state?

From my own perspective "observing divinity" has no meaning. Perhaps you could expand on this? Are we speaking of visions?

The world I DO observe - and act within - is tainted by my own "self", by constant self-reference, desires and egoistical demands. Perhaps drugs can clean such perceptions momentarily? Yet I feel that it is only within the totality of the human situation that perception can truly be "cleansed", by awakening to true reality*. I think the use of drugs can get us "ahead of ourselves", in the sense that our "cleansed/purified" perceptions overtake our actual lived morality and total embodiment of truth and our total capacity for it. I hope this makes sense!!

*My own path is Shin - Pure Land - so for me "true reality" is double sided..............being grasped by infinite compassion "never to be abandoned"......and becoming totally aware of myself as a foolish being forever motivated by blindly self-centred desires and ignorance. Two sides of one coin.

(Another quote has come to mind in reading through this.............from one of my favorites.........William Blake.........

From memory..................."To the eyes of a miser an old bag worn with the use of money is far more divine than grapes hanging on the vine..........the tree that brings tears of joy to one man is just a green thing that stands in the way of another...........as a man is so shall he see.......What! you may ask.....when you see the sun appear do you not see a round disc somewhat like a coin in the sky? O! no no no! I see a whole company of the heavenly host singing Holy! Holy! Holy! Lord God Almighty!"

Blake certainly "observed divinity"!!!)

Thanks
Derek

[samabudhi]

Perhaps drugs can clean such perceptions momentarily? Yet I feel that it is only within the totality of the human situation that perception can truly be "cleansed", by awakening to true reality*. I think the use of drugs can get us "ahead of ourselves", in the sense that our "cleansed/purified" perceptions overtake our actual lived morality and total embodiment of truth and our total capacity for it.

You're saying you become enlightened for however long the trip lasts?
I agree if this is so. I've always felt that the states of mind achieved during a trip can be entered by more gradual means. This is because I feel like tripping is not actually a different state of mind. It may seem so, but in fact, it is just a different position on the same continuum of sensory perception/awareness.

I do believe that occasionally experiencing a trip can keep us on course and remind us of where we're heading. I've felt this on many occasions. For instance, my goal as a Buddhist is to achieve enlightenment. I got involved in Tantra which is very complex, and as such I got caught up in the details of everything and forgot about my basic meditation practice. Then I tripped and realised, 'Hey dude. You're aiming for enlightenment all the way over there. I'm accusing you of looking at my finger when I point to the moon. (a common Buddhist saying.) What about these people right here right now. Be good to them.'
The mushrooms allowed me to take a step back and look at myself objectively. It allowed me to criticise myself openly and without prejudice.

After the trip, things slowly slip back into old/bad habits, but not completely, and you find you've moved one notch closer to enlightenment. Little by little, deed by deed, waking moment by waking moment. This is why I try to avoid politics. People never get anywhere cause they're so focused on the future they don't deal with the immediate issues. If you don't deal with immediate issues they become the future. (babbling. cheers)

[Marsh]

Originally Posted by samabudhi

Psychedelics are in a field of their own and should be treated as such.
Pure psychedelics (LSD, Mescaline, Mushrooms) have no known long lasting effects on one's body. Peoples ideas about things may change, sure, but there is no conclusive evidence against them from years of use by modern and ancient cultures. I won't go into the real reason why governments are perpetually on their case. You can look it up if you want. If you haven't done any research of your own, then remember that probably all you've ever heard about drugs is what the government has told you.

You might say that I have done, um, extensive field research in the study of Shroomology during my university days. My initial response, having come out of this knowledge, stands. The whole fact of the matter is that drugs-- no matter what kind-- throw new information into a balance equation. This unbalances the equation. For a long time I tried to make myself believe that I was smarter and more enlightened when I was lit up, but in the end the truth became clear to me.

Personally, I think a sober human mind is already a spiritual mind, and that the "fine tuning" that people do with drugs is not necessary.

[samabudhi]

Originally Posted by Marsh

You might say that I have done, um, extensive field research in the study of Shroomology during my university days. My initial response, having come out of this knowledge, stands. The whole fact of the matter is that drugs-- no matter what kind-- throw new information into a balance equation. This unbalances the equation. For a long time I tried to make myself believe that I was smarter and more enlightened when I was lit up, but in the end the truth became clear to me.

Personally, I think a sober human mind is already a spiritual mind, and that the "fine tuning" that people do with drugs is not necessary.

I too have done extensive field research, but my interest has frequently slid into the social dynamics of psychedelics.
Because 'drugs' are considered 'cool' by many young people, and since one's status is of prime importance these days, you will find a lot of people who say they have taken psychedelics, when in fact they haven't.
If and when they do actually try psychedelics, the pressure is off, and they think, 'Oh. Is this what it's all about. OK. So what's for lunch.' The issue of being cool or trying to impress people is removed. This is because during ego-death, you understand for the first time, your true nature. Things like status and being cool are thrown away like botched maths equations.

The problem is that you can't lie to someone who is experienced in psychedelics. Psychedelics have a 'profound' effect on one's personality, and there are many tell-tale signs of experience. The choice of words when discussing psychedelics is particularly revealing.
For instance. A 'veteran' does not generalise when he speaks of drugs.

The whole fact of the matter is that drugs-- no matter what kind-- throw new information into a balance equation. This unbalances the equation.

And what new information have you come across while being sedated, if you've ever been under general anaesthetic?

Because it is so hard to try and understand what a person is experiencing when they trip, people trying to mimick their behaviour miss out on the subtleties. Someone who is experienced can easily spot them.

Because psychedelic culture (Yes. It has it's own culture) is looked down upon these days, people might even lie (can you believe it!! ) in order to turn others away. They feel they are justified and that there lie is for the better, so it doesn't matter.
I could go into the whole government misinformation thing and why they do it, but I'm sure you're not that interested.
If you want to try and understand what psychedelics are all about, I recommend visiting www.psychedelic-library.org. It has many papers which were written at the dawn of psychedelics in the west before people became conditioned by blanket 'don't do drugs' campaigns.
They also have numerous books including 'My problem child' by the chemist Aldous Huxley who first isolated LSD.

It should be noted that since psychedelics are generally underground these days, the qualities of the drugs are not monitored, and it is a frequent occurance to take drugs that don't actually work.
Mushrooms are particularly volatile since they vary greatly in potency when picked, and gradually lose their effectiveness through contact with air.
So someone who has not taken psychedelics that often, might have a rather weak view of them.

The effects of mushrooms can be seen at comparatively low doses, and so a standard dose (2g) is as low as possible (mushroom for your money.)
2g will rarely lead to ego-death. 4g or more will produce the desired level for a mystical experience to take place. Before this, it is more-or-less just a fireworks display. Another point on mushrooms is that they're very dreamy and so trying to understand what is going on is quite hard, since you're so distracted and the flood of thoughts is difficult to navigate through. LSD on the other hand is one-pointed. You can focus your attention without it being too painful. It took a lot of mushrooms for me to get anywhere. I recommend LSD.

Footnote:
I really didn't know how to approach this reply other than by saying exactly what I think. You may or may not be experienced in this field. A personally don't think you are. People might say this is short-sighted and complain that there isn't nearly enough material on which I can draw a conclusion about. I don't 'quite' know where you're at, but experienced psychonaut? Nah.
If you're going to reply with facts to support your authenticity (not that you have to prove anything to anyone here), you're wasting your time. It's not what you know, it's your personality that shows it. No hard feelings and apologies in antecedence to Brian.

[mcedgy]

Hello Samabudhi - First let me say that I am a product of the sixties. That should tell you something of my opportunities to experience mind-altering substances. Now, as proof of my honesty, I admit to NOT being at Woodstock!

I will never forget the shock and awe I experience when I was first around people smoking wacky weed. I could not believe what I was seeing. I had read in Compton’s Encyclopedia that people committed such violent acts as rape and murder under the influence of that drug yet these people were being anything but violent. Well, some did display violent tendencies while opening their Snicker’s candy bar! Anyway, the point is, I do agree that people tend to lie about many things under the guise of the better good. However, I don’t have to go to the psychedelic library to know that you can only relate YOUR experience. You’ve never taken MY trip and promoting something that is so volatile as a one size fits all is not right.

Comparing my experience to your experience I suppose I could say that I don’t believe you ever tried a psychedelic but you and I both know that is an impossible judgment for me to make and we both know that a small cultural choir is singing behind you. However, MDA, LSD, peyote, mescaline nor mushrooms ever brought me any enlightenment and I’ve never been a cat, a grasshopper or an eagle while on a trip. Based on my experience each trip is individual and one never knows what he will experience. I recommend a sober approach to enlightenment through pray or meditation. That gets the natural brain chemicals working! I’ve never known anybody to crash and burn from a meditation trip! mcedgy

[samabudhi]

Originally Posted by mcedgy

I’ve never known anybody to crash and burn from a meditation trip! mcedgy

You haven't been on a 10 Vipassana retreat then! (hee hee)

(peyote=mescaline)

[samabudhi]

One last personal question if you don't mind?
Were you interested in spirituality when you were taking those substances and what level do you think you were at?
Like, give me an example of what arguments you were having with people. What concepts were you grappling with?

However, MDA, LSD, peyote, mescaline nor mushrooms ever brought me any enlightenment

If you pick up the carpet and just put it down again, the dust isn't just going to disappear. You have to sweep.
I attribute so much of what I have learnt to psychedelics because at the time when I was taking them, I was well and truly into spirituality. If I took them now, I wouldn't expect to many revelations. I'd just enjoy.

[mcedgy]

hello samabudhi - Hedonistic comsumption only. Sex, drugs and rock-n-roll...make love not war. You know, that sixties stuff. Your point is well taken but I express my opinion based on the sum total of my experiences and my reflection on those experiences. I contend that trying to steer an acid trip is like trying to steer a boat without a rudder. The acid decides your trip...you don't. I'm not trying to dust the rug I'm just offering a second experienced opinion for anyone that gives an iota. mcedgy

[samabudhi]

Some final words. I believe taking Marijuana at the same time as normal psychedelics (which is more commonly done than not these days,) seriously limits the realisations that one could/would have.

And yes, Hedonistic comsumption only.
This is like an act of kindness where the real reason it's being done is selfish. The act is there, in the one case giving, in the other consumption; but the intent is not, kindness for the first and the quest for the truth in the second.
So no good can come from an act of kindness without the right intent. The same with drugs.
This fits in with the Buddhist understanding of Karma, which is that it is not so much the act as the intention.

[Marsh]

The last time I did shrooms, I remember not being able to get a complete sentence out. We'll have this discussion again in twenty years. You'll either prove your point, or prove mine.

[Pathless]

Wow, Samabhudi, for someone professing to be Buddhist and talking about "ego-death," you certainly do not hesitate to judge other people, which, I must say, seems egotistical.

I'm gonna have to agree with mcedgy's assertion:

Originally Posted by mcedgy

However, I don’t have to go to the psychedelic library to know that you can only relate YOUR experience.

Example: when you say:

Originally Posted by samabhudi

LSD on the other hand is one-pointed. You can focus your attention without it being too painful.

that goes against my own experience with LSD. In my experience, I think it would be more acurate to say that LSD took possession of my faculty of attention and sent it splintering in thousands of directions all at once.

So, if you are sure that you were able to focus your attention on LSD and I am sure that LSD completely took control of my attention and had its way with it, then we are simply two different people who have had two different experiences using the same general psychedelic substance, which given the varieties of LSD available and the varities of human personality and consciousness, should not be too surprising. Therefore, when you make a statment like:

Originally Posted by samabhudi

Someone who is experienced can easily spot them ["them" referring to psychedelic 'posers' or imitators, I believe--P].

without taking into consideration that psychedelic experiences can be of different varities and intensities, you are making just as much a generalization as you accuse mcedgy of making when he says:

Originally Posted by mcedgy

The whole fact of the matter is that drugs-- no matter what kind-- throw new information into a balance equation. This unbalances the equation.

I, personally, agree with mcedgy again there, although I don't think the unbalancing is always a bad thing. I doubt that without experimenting with psychedelics I would view the world with the same color that I do today; I would probably be a more static and boring person without the psychedelic experience, and also more close-minded.

So, I am not criticizng you for being "a psychonaut," but rather for discounting the possibility that others who have come to different conclusions about psychedelics than you have ever had any genuine psychedelic or spiritual psychedelic experience.

Do I think psychedelics can lead to a new, liberated perception of reality? Absolutely.

Do I think psychedelics can be dangerous? Absolutely.

Do I need to reconcile my appreciation for psychedelics with my apprehension towards them? No; life is too complex to simplify things in that way.

By the way, I think you've got some misinformation here, probably nothing more than a brain fart:

Originally Posted by samabhudi

They also have numerous books including 'My problem child' by the chemist Aldous Huxley who first isolated LSD.

Albert Hoffman is the chemist who first isolated LSD. Alduous Huxley wrote about his experience with mescaline, which was with what I believe is a rather small dose ("four-tenths of a gram of mescalin dissolved in half a glass of water") and in a controlled environment, in the book The Doors of Perception.

[samabudhi]

Wow, Samabhudi, for someone professing to be Buddhist

I wouldn't want to tarnish the reputation that Buddhists have. I must admit that I am the most unconventional Buddhist I know. You should see the poo I get into at E-Sangha. I'm not a good example of a Buddhist.

Originally Posted by Pathless

and talking about "ego-death," you certainly do not hesitate to judge other people, which, I must say, seems egotistical.

You're not the first to say that. I know that with psychedelics, there are many MANY charlatans. It's amazing how many people say they've experienced them. There are many reasons for this. My point is that I am always on the lookout for these people, not in an attacking way, but simply because if someone hasn't taken psychedelics, then they really hold no ground in an argument. There is no substitute for experience. When I discuss psychedelics with people, I'm frank about my feelings. I don't like the idea of me sitting here thinking the other person is not truthful and then talking to them as if they were. That, to me, seems like a lie. So I tell them my 'insecurities.' If they are truthful, then fine. If not, then they will hopefully give up, since the spotlight is on them. If you've got nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear.

About being able to pick out forked tongues; it is true that psychedelic experiences are a very difficult subject to talk about.
'Every visionary experience is unique as every human being is unique' (TIP world)
It is not so much the content but how it is conveyed. Just as the content of dreams is less important as compared to the feelings.

Albert Hoffman is the chemist who first isolated LSD. Alduous Huxley wrote about his experience with mescaline, which was with what I believe is a rather small dose ("four-tenths of a gram of mescalin dissolved in half a glass of water") and in a controlled environment, in the book The Doors of Perception.

Yes. A brain fart. That's what it was.

If you'd like join a more active thread on this topic, try this link: http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/ind...showtopic=5135
which has been closed by the censors and continued in http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/ind...showtopic=2026 so that it doesn't get so much attention. Really! This is what we're dealing with these days.