Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Psychedelics
I'm interested in the connection between the psychedelic experience and Eastern philosophy. Psychedelics seem to bring Western minded people to "Eastern" conclusions about reality and self as well as enhance creativity; on the other hand, Eastern traditions and sages speak at times of psychedelic-like experiences encountered on the spiritual path, via meditation or even spontaneously in the case of unique individuals.
From a mainstream point of view – skeptic of mysticism, hostile to drugs and attached to the idea of a coherent, free and rational self - this connection is not mysterious: different ways to similar delusions. But for someone who happens to revere Eastern wisdom, it would appear that these might be different ways to the same Truth.
This brings up a few questions:
In Buddhism, in the practice of Anapanasati, out of the 16 steps to enlightenment, steps 5 and 6 are described as experiencing "rapture" and then "bliss", after developing deep levels of concentration. Are there any other religious traditions that seem to include "psychedelic" experiences developed through practice?
Spontaneous modes of expanded consciousness experienced by unique individuals seem universal; Jean Dark and Sir William Blake come to mind (both, consequently, spiritual and creative figures). What other examples from Western history seem to fit this phenomenon?
And if these experiences are indeed, in the right setting, conducive to spirituality and at times even to enlightenment, it would seem quite tragic if the Western setting is thwarting this potential, rendering potential sages confused, troubled and ashamed. I think for instance of the Indian Papaji. From childhood he had seen vivid visions of Krishna. As these visions became less frequent he set out on a journey to find again the Hindu god, eventually coming to deep realizations about ultimate reality. He abandoned the idea of the visions of Krishna as being reality, understanding that what appears and disappears is not real, and thus searching for that that is always present and doesn't change, the true nature behind the self, the bare awareness beyond conceptions or ego, behind the very question Who Am I. This is an inspiring and profound teaching in my opinion. Had Papaji grown up in the west, I suspect he would have ended as a miserable being on the fringes of society instead of as a great teacher. Could there be similar individuals, gifted by nature but cursed by their cultural setting, who have spontaneously experienced true reality without the proper preparation or guidance, now rotting in insane asylums? What specific mental "disorders" may fit what would otherwise be defined as spiritual, potentially enlightening modes of perception?
From a mainstream point of view – skeptic of mysticism, hostile to drugs and attached to the idea of a coherent, free and rational self - this connection is not mysterious: different ways to similar delusions. But for someone who happens to revere Eastern wisdom, it would appear that these might be different ways to the same Truth.
This brings up a few questions:
In Buddhism, in the practice of Anapanasati, out of the 16 steps to enlightenment, steps 5 and 6 are described as experiencing "rapture" and then "bliss", after developing deep levels of concentration. Are there any other religious traditions that seem to include "psychedelic" experiences developed through practice?
Spontaneous modes of expanded consciousness experienced by unique individuals seem universal; Jean Dark and Sir William Blake come to mind (both, consequently, spiritual and creative figures). What other examples from Western history seem to fit this phenomenon?
And if these experiences are indeed, in the right setting, conducive to spirituality and at times even to enlightenment, it would seem quite tragic if the Western setting is thwarting this potential, rendering potential sages confused, troubled and ashamed. I think for instance of the Indian Papaji. From childhood he had seen vivid visions of Krishna. As these visions became less frequent he set out on a journey to find again the Hindu god, eventually coming to deep realizations about ultimate reality. He abandoned the idea of the visions of Krishna as being reality, understanding that what appears and disappears is not real, and thus searching for that that is always present and doesn't change, the true nature behind the self, the bare awareness beyond conceptions or ego, behind the very question Who Am I. This is an inspiring and profound teaching in my opinion. Had Papaji grown up in the west, I suspect he would have ended as a miserable being on the fringes of society instead of as a great teacher. Could there be similar individuals, gifted by nature but cursed by their cultural setting, who have spontaneously experienced true reality without the proper preparation or guidance, now rotting in insane asylums? What specific mental "disorders" may fit what would otherwise be defined as spiritual, potentially enlightening modes of perception?
0
Comments
In fact they are specifically proscribed by all Buddhist teachers.
Your post is posited on a error.
I've never done drugs personally but have several close friends who have had many types of experiences. A couple of them are now clean and Buddhist practitioners. From what they tell me, the experiences they had under drugs, that at the time seems so reality-altering to them, were, in fact, fake. They were not real experiences compared to what they get out of actually practicing. There was an experience, yes, but it was not the same and they do not desire to go back to the drugs in order to experience it again, or to take a short cut.
My ex (who died at 35) was an alcoholic and a drug addict who was always looking for some experience. In his case, everything he experienced was anything BUT reality. Reality is simply just what IS. If you have to take drugs to see it, I'm not sure you are really seeing it.
A Buddhist practice is about waking up from our own ignorance
whereas a psychedelics path is an exploration within that ignorance.
It's the difference between unlocking one's shackles
and dreaming about unlocking them.
Quel surprise.
"First of all, when you are on a trip of any drug, say in the evening, the next morning it is over. That trip is over. This is the result with all drugs, you see: their trip is only eight hours and finished. You will come out of it. Intoxication is only for eight hours for any drugs that you take. That's why people are addicted to these drugs. But this drug is not LSD, is not any chemical, no drug! It's a very special kind of drug, you see. The effect of this drug will be deeper intoxication every next moment. There is no question of coming out of this intoxication. It increases by itself every next moment, throughout your life, you see... ."
He's talking about "intoxication" with just reality as it actually is. Not a contrived state of mind that you temporarily experience with taking psychedelics.
His teacher Maharshi has this to say:
Just as a general FYI:
According to the Mayo clinic (a trusted source, wouldn't we agree?), LSD is a (physically) non-addictive drug. It *could be* "habit forming" from a psychological POR; but then again so are chocolate chip cookies to some people.
That is all.
I don't suggest that psychedelics = enlightenmnet any more that Jahana = enlightenment. Indeed the Jahanas are just steps on the path (not even that advanced as far a Anapanasiti goes), and dwelling in their entertaining features is a possible trap and distraction. However, they are nonetheless steps, that is potentially tools for progress and insight along the way. Why couldn't psychedelics, in the right set and setting, at least in theory have similar benefits?
I feel a little bit like the resistence here to my suggestions is more dogmatic than empirical or logical. I don't understand the confident assertion that the psychedelic experience is stricly sensual, confusing and conducive to ignorance. My expereince, actually, didn't include much of the "special effects" so famously associated with the drugs, and to the extent that these occured I didn't pay much attention to them. I did experience, however, that free will is an illusion, that there is no self, that all is Dhamma, or Nature, that everything is in its place, such that the duality of right and wrong didn't apply anymore. This was a great gift that I deeply appreciate to this day: it confirmed for me through direct experience notions that hitherto were merely conceptual. It gave me tremendous confidence and joy in my practice of meditation (which indeed is far more important than any drugs). Is this sensual ignorance?
(By the way, neither I nore anyone I know have develpoed dependency on such drugs. In fact, like Alan Watts testified, after a psychedelic experience I feel like I don't even want to repeat the experience for a long time, to allow myself time to digest and comprehend the insights.)
Could it be that the resistence here to my suggestions, is actually quite egoistic, based on the western ethos that progress only comes through suffering, through the self overcoming challenges and thus fullfiling itself and proving its toughness, diligence power-of-will and so on? Could it be that "Insight in a pill" insults our sense of rational, free and coherent self? Such an egoistic "Buddhist" standpoint seems quite ironic.
But let's put it this way. Do we have any evidence that Buddha used any stimulants to reach his higher state? Do we have any evidence that Buddha approved of stimulants? No, in fact, we have evidence that he felt contrary to that.
If you want to use drugs, just go use them. Don't cloak that desire with Buddhism, and some sense that Western Buddhism is kinda new age and approves. There are no short cuts.
Very well,
psychedelics are a way to open the path to higher understanding. Anything else you require on your path? Osho had a nice line in sexual frenzy . . . Would you like to have the YinYana 'rock and roll empowerment'?
:rarr:
Thanks vinlyn for the permission to use drugs, but that's not what I'm here for. I may be mistaken, but there's no reason to doubt my sincerity, that is that I really think there's something here to look into and not just an excuse for sensual cravings...
I wonder if the confident assertions being made here about psychedelics come from personal experience.
But okay, show us the evidence in Buddhist scripture that advocates drug use.
Go and use Timothy Leary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Psychedelic_Experience
Good luck. :rarr:
You will hang around for a while trying to convince people of your view.
You will have little success.
You are not prepared to put in the effort needed to walk this path.
You will drift away...
Hunter S Thompson famously said "You cannot buy happiness at $5 a blotter" and that is basically true, you can't. You can buy a brief break from the reality you happen to be in in that particular moment, but you are just leading yourself into another state of ignorance and conditioning. True happiness, wisdom and compassion IMHO can only come from within and with A LOT of effort. If psychedelics ever gave you liberation and full awakening, you would not need to buy them more than once would you.
According to Ajahn Brahm: When the five hindrances are suppressed, the Buddha describes the mind as being "purified, bright, unblemished, rid of imperfection, malleable, wieldy, steady and attained to imperturbability” (e.g. MN 4. 27), so that deep insight can happen. Therefore, if psychedelics could actually suppress all of the five hindrances the same way samadhi can then it potentially could be beneficial. But I doubt psychedelics would have that effect and my guess is that they are more likely to actually stimulate one or more of the hindrances. Please see one of my comments on this topic on another thread at this link:
http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/comment/355747/#Comment_355747
I think it's also prudent to consider what Buddhist wise men have to say about it. Ajahn Chah for example. He is considered by many to be a highly enlightened person. He says: Of course people can believe whatever they want. But, It's always prudent to consider what real life wise men have to say.
:om:
You seem to be pushed to 'look into' it - so look into it, and set it to rest when you're done looking.
Not everyone here shares the same opinion about psychedelic drugs and plants.
My own experiences with them are in the distant past. So distant now that the memory is beginning to fade away.
The life altering effect remains or course. How could it not?
Once set onto a different course, you can't go back and unlive the experience, for better or worse. That's the gamble.
For me, it was for better. That's the way I interpreted it.
Others may see it differently but because it was my experience and my life, their opinion means nothing to me. Whether it be family, friends or strangers.
You are wasting your time talking to Buddhists about it, if you want confirmation that there is some connection to Buddhism.
The only connection, one that the inexperienced may try to deny, is that psychedelic drugs and/or plants can, have, and will set people on a path that will bring them to the teachings of Buddha.
I haven't done psychedelic drugs (unless you count weed) in over ten years but it was fundamental when I was just starting to learn of Buddhism. I may have still seen Buddhism as just another religion if not for psychedelic experience.
I see some mentioning Timothy Leary and sure, he is an easy target (even as he was a brilliant mind indeed and never talked about Buddhism all that much even if he would talk of Buddha) however, I find it funny that nobody has mentioned Alan Watts.
You perhaps have already read my 2 cents
http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/19207/meditation-and-thc/p2
You can not practice mindfulness or moral discipline while in a drugged up state the 5th precept exists for a reason.
Recreational drugs are the best example of a false worldly pleasure that Buddhism describes and get you no where on the path to liberation and a drugie is pretty much the opposite of what you would expect a Buddhist to be impho.
This is completely true.
I agree with your comments. Your points are valid to me.
But here is the thing. TheEccentric is quite young. His stance on drugs is admirable and mature. Where young people are concerned there is no middle ground when it comes to recreational drugs of any kind.
A young teenager must stay away from drugs and that is the bottom line.
" ( drugs ) create a dream within the dream, it is the opposite of waking up. ".
If you need drugs to see things as they are, then you really aren't seeing them as they are. Sure, it's more work to train the brain to do it without drugs. But then you are actually training your brain as a practice. A dog will learn not to jump on the counter if you beat it, too, but it's not the best way to train the dog.
I'm not saying don't do drugs, I'm just saying that drugs probably won't get you to where you are trying to go.
Good luck!
I agree with you here but you have missed the point of my post entirely.
I do not advocate drug use, I'm just stating a fact.
Twenty two years later I still practice and study Buddhism.
Like I said, I do not advocate the use of drugs or use them anymore. Nor do I feel they are needed to have the kinds of realizations that are conducive to the Buddhist process but without the introspection that comes with the psychedelic experience, I may not have ever bothered to explore it.
That's all I'm saying.
That and that I think Alan Watts had a good understanding of the dharma even as he was a psychedelic drug user.
You can't practice moral discipline while in a drugged up state? That's silly. You can always practice moral discipline. One could practice mindfulness training as well. If one is too drugged up then of course concentration will be lacking but there is a middle ground. If you can be aware of what you are doing, you can be mindful.
When you are in an altered state most people cannot rely on what they are experiencing. Inhibitions get lowered, we say and do things we wouldn't normally do. It makes it much harder to follow true mindfulness and awareness. Impossible for every person on the planet? No, I wouldn't go that far. But unlikely for the average person, yes. Last night my husband was out at a friend's house with his co-worker friends. He thought he had some grand comment to make that in his alcohol-addled brain seemed witty, funny and somehow wise. He made the comment and it ended up causing a fight between his friend and his wife. We often think we're super aware and smart when we're being affected by other substances. Most of the time, it's just as illusory as anything else. How many musicians and artists have claimed they cannot produce material unless they are drunk or high or altered in some way, only to find that when they stop, the things they produce are much higher in quality? We are much more deluded about our capabilities while we are under the influence. That's why it's so problematic, and why we have so many DUIs.
I don't think there would ever be a situation where it would be appropriate to introduce Buddhism to someone by suggesting they should take drugs. First, there is no guarantee that the person would have a beneficial experience and there would always be the risk of that person having a bad trip which could have long-term negative effects. There was a time long ago when I smoked weed regularly, took MDMA lots of times (taking 4 - 5 ecstasy pills over the course of an all-night rave was nothing unusual), occasional tabs of acid were a lot of fun, but then there came that one time when I got a bad trip which left me with psychological problems that had a strong impact on my mental well-being for several years. At one point I had to quit university and move to enroll in a university at another city as I developed this paranoid belief that there were some locals seeking to kill me.
Apart from that, even if someone did have a "positive" experience on drugs which triggers an interest in Buddhism, there is no guarantee that they won't want to take drugs again and again and again which may ultimately lead them to addiction and/or getting into trouble with the law. Also, prior positive experiences are no guarantee that a bad trip won't occur in subsequent uses of drugs.
So considering all of the above, if we wanted to help spread the Dhamma, it is clearly unwise to do so by condoning or promoting the use of drugs. Apart from being a breach of the five precepts, it boils down to the fact that the risks outweigh any possible benefits and there are other methods which are safe that people can make use of which don't involve use of drugs.
It's a circular/dead-end discussion we've had here in this forum a few times already.
I'm not complaining or trying to shut down discussion- I'm just trying to save you, @Danny1, some frustration....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka
We can conclude that unskilful behaviour can lead to meritorious insights. With further insights we do not discuss the merits of wife beating whilst being on drugs . . . except in passing.
In a similar way 'how LSD gave me insight into alternative realities/altered consciousness' and I became a Buddhist is self indulgent. If you continually contend that you have superior insight and worthwhile causality, all well and good. Bravo. Good. Well done. Do you have other dead end conversations you wish to regail us with? You ask for maturity. You get it, then complain. Yours is a discussion for shaman, academics and drunk dinner parties. If you do not understand the context . . . then unkindly and unskilfully drag us further along this samsara arrow examination path . . . shame on you.
http://thebuddhistblog.blogspot.co.uk/2006/08/teaching-of-poisoned-arrow.html
^^ Wow. that was a bit harsh.
and not usually like you, @Lobster....
you willl see details you never saw before.
It can open the door for some people, to reduce the conceptual
world somewhat.
It can be an eye-opening experience.
Even though it is dicouraged in buddhism, it can be a useful
tool on the spiritual path.
but the dangers a obvious, the intensity of the 1st experience
will never be reached in subsequent bouts.
hence, the need for higher dosage.
also, the danger of addiction as one crave for the
mind-state induced by drugs.
overall, it is what it is, no more, no less.
it is a powerful drug that can affect your brain.
iy is no shortcut for the spiritual path.