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.
You no longer live in the past, no longer are ignorant, no longer skeptical, no longer have greed, ill will, no longer have a self, no longer see others as separate from yourself, no longer have to convince yourself to stop repeating bad habits, no longer have lustful feelings, no longer feel bored, and no longer are conceited ever.
Sorry, I'm a bit late on this, but may I ask if you have any recommended meditation techniques to get rid of the illusion of seperation?
Mhm, and who are you to decide what is a fact and what isn't?
The World Health Organization decided it and do you think you have more personal knowledge than people who actually research the drugs themselves?
You have your opinion and I have mine, whether truth is objective or subjective, neither of us are all-knowing.
Mine isn't made from a subjective opinion which is a personal point of view. It's a fact because objectively between health professionals who have tested the drugs, they intersubjectively agree that the results from their studies have proven beyond reasonable doubt that it is harmful.
The drug often results in severe dehydration and heat stroke in the user, since it has the effect of “short-circuiting” the body’s temperature signals to the brain. MDMA can heat your body up to temperatures as high as 117 degrees can cause hypothermia, muscle breakdown, seizures, stroke, kidney and cardiovascular system failure, as well as permanent brain damage during repetitive use, and sometimes death. All of these are measured in labs and repeated over and over again. The psychological effects of Ecstasy include euphoria, confusion, depression, anxiety, sleeplessness, drug craving, and paranoia.
Your looking at it in an all or nothing way.
Yes I am, because this is relatively simple to understand. The drug is harmful.
I could say that when you eat junk food, or aren't exercizing, you are killing yourself and hurting others.
That is actually true, and it is hurting and harming others. Heart disease is the number one killer of men and women in developed nations. To eat junk food and not exercise IS killing yourself and hurting others. You think I'm being brutal, but this is something that takes honest introspection to understand. If you can't see how it is harmful, then you aren't paying attention. Now does this mean that I think that all fast food joints should be abolished? No. But people who eat fast food every day or feed their children fast food everyday are neglecting their child's nutritional needs and in some cases I think it merits social services. It reminds me of that story of a 400 Pound 7 year old girl whose mother basically stuffed the poor child's face with junk food in order to get her to stop crying. It's almost criminal neglect, and harmful.
It's about weighing the good and bad points against eachother.
What are the unselfish, nonharming, wholesome points of drug use?
And I think that if one does it, but not regularly, the good factors outweigh the bad, and ultimately it has more of a chance of benefiting others and self.
How? You never tell me what the unselfish, nonharming, wholesome aspects of drug use are.
How would you, or could you know, what every person seeks when they take drugs?
Because they take drugs to get high. What do you think they take them for?
And how come you dictate these facts any more than me?
Because you have no facts. You have opinions, and facts trump them. You can try and pull up cross-sectional studies for therapeutic uses of the drug, but sadly there ARE none. They've been looking for some, but there aren't any conclusive results. Not even in the one mentioned with mental disorders.
How could you, or would you know what my reason and common sense knows?
Because either your common sense is beliefs or propositions that most people would consider prudent and of sound judgment. To take drugs is anything but, and the basic precepts explain exactly why "it leads to heedlessness and detracts from mindfulness and awareness".
Sorry, I'm a bit late on this, but may I ask if you have any recommended meditation techniques to get rid of the illusion of seperation?
Oooh good question. It's empathy you need. Try and creating new ways of relating to others and the world.
Think about it in terms of Indra's net which is a metaphor used to illustrate the concepts of emptiness, dependent origination, and interpenetration in Buddhist thought.
All phenomena are intimately connected; Indra's net symbolizes a universe where infinitely repeated mutual relations exist between all members of the universe. This idea is communicated in the image of the interconnectedness of the universe as seen in the net of the Vedic god Indra, whose net hangs over his palace on Mount Meru, the axis mundi of Vedic cosmology and Vedic mythology. Indra's net has a multifaceted jewel at each vertex, and each jewel is reflected in all of the other jewels. Meditate on this idea in detail.
The psychological effects of Ecstasy include euphoria, confusion, depression, anxiety, sleeplessness, drug craving, and paranoia.
Is this long-term use?
Because most of the people I know who have done it in moderation, are pretty balanced thinkers afterwards and claim that they go back to normal thinking afterwards.
That is actually true, and it is hurting and harming others. Heart disease is the number one killer of men and women in developed nations. To eat junk food and not exercise IS killing yourself and hurting others. You think I'm being brutal, but this is something that takes honest introspection to understand. If you can't see how it is harmful, then you aren't paying attention. Now does this mean that I think that all fast food joints should be abolished? No. But people who eat fast food every day or feed their children fast food everyday are neglecting their child's nutritional needs and in some cases I think it merits social services. It reminds me of that story of a 400 Pound 7 year old girl whose mother basically stuffed the poor child's face with junk food in order to get her to stop crying. It's almost criminal neglect, and harmful.
I agree but that wasnt really my point.
What I mean is that when you stop excersizing, or don't do a perfectly balanced amount of excercise, I could claim that you are 'hurting people'. Based on the logic you were using earlier.
What are the unselfish, nonharming, wholesome points of drug use?
I know people who have done MDMA and are much kinder after.
Because they take drugs to get high. What do you think they take them for?
People can take drugs to try and gain insight, like what has been discussed repeatedly throughout the thread.
Try and increase your sensitivity and understanding into the needs of all living beings. by taking the precept vow to not harm any life form, meditate on how everything you do in your daily life affects others including even the smallest insects and vegetation. Think of how the Buddha's teaching of mutual interdependence is that ultimately there is no demarcation between what appears to be an individual creature and its environment. Harming the environment (the nexus of living beings of which one forms but a part) is thus, in ultimately harming oneself.
Is this long-term use?
Because most of the people I know who have done it in moderation, are pretty balanced thinkers afterwards and claim that they go back to normal thinking afterwards.
Which means that on the drug they were unable to think normally anymore, and afterward it wears off that means they're ultimately unreliable narrators. They wouldn't know how they were different from before but like the Hedonic treadmill and Anicca indicate, once the high pans out they settle back into habitual ways of thinking but subtleness and research has shown that they have actually created unfixable brain and nerve damage even from a single instance of use. So they slowly decline each time they use it, but like when a person slowly goes blind or deaf, they compensate for the damage that they themselves created until it's manifest states are no longer subtle anymore. By that time it's too late.
I agree but that wasnt really my point. What I mean is that when you stop excersizing, or don't do a perfectly balanced amount of excercise, I could claim that you are 'hurting people'. Based on the logic you were using earlier.
And that logic would be completely correct. You have to understand I'm totally removing my own personal emotions from this because as I told you, I had done it before, and I enjoyed it then, but stopped immediately after watching an acquaintance of mine die so I saw the hard truth of it and then I forswore it. I don't want any of you ending up as shells of your former selves, nor dying in a puddle of your own waste. I love you guys.
I know people who have done MDMA and are much kinder after.
After the drug wears off they become cruel, paranoid and anxious. Worse off than they were before they took the drug. Taking the drug didn't make them kinder, it made their inhibitions lift. People who are actually naturally kind will be more openly kind, but people who are naturally cruel or nervous will either become overwhelmed by cruelty or anxiety. MDMA also has other problematic issues that I'm naturally not going into too much detail about, but you know what happens when the drug wears off, and even what happens to their body when they're on it.
People can take drugs to try and gain insight, like what has been discussed repeatedly throughout the thread.
I said this is impossible due to the very definition of insight according to Buddhism. You might think a person sounds philosophical or insightful on drugs, but most of the time they sound like bumbling thought trains spoken aloud which is no more insightful when the thought trains overwhelm in meditation but the worst part about that is on the drugs you cannot control it at all, it gets more disorganized.
People do not get spiritual benefit from drugs. More common is an apparent impoverishment of character (“spaciness”), a pervasive restlessness (uddhacca in Abhidharmic terminology), and inability to relax or find enjoyment with their own resources. These traits are the opposite of the comfort with one’s own mental content and patience which meditation develops. So, even if we grant that drugs can have spiritual benefits for a few (I don't agree still not one of you has yet gave me a legit case), for the majority they appear to have the opposite effect.
I think it depends on the specific person. Like any psychiatric drug, sometimes it takes some trial and error to find one that benefits that person. MDMA would be no different.
Actually I don't think so, clinical trials have shown that there's no pharmacological uses of MDMA as of yet.
Thats why I agree it is dangerous to dabble in psychedelic substances without the supervision of a doctor.
They should never be used without the supervision of a doctor, even if recreational.
When taking them recreationally, there is potential for them to cause more harm then good.
There's no potential for good either according to pharmacological research either. They ruled most of the uses out. They're grasping at straws now in clinical trials. :skeptical
I've had friends that I've introduced to psychedelic drugs, and I always tell them they should take them in a safe environment and with people they are comfortable with, and not to mix them with other substances.
You give drugs to your friends? You're literally killing your friends, and you know that, because you know they're unsafe and yet you still claim to not be harming others! What do you think nonharming is? :facepalm:You are knowingly giving your friends poison.
I would never advise someone who is suffering a mental illness to take psychedelics to cure their problems, I would refer them to a doctor. Maybe I would ask them to ask their doctor about it.
That's good at least. :skeptical but just who do you think it is okay to give drugs to?
In my personal experience, I would say psychedelics have made me more neurotic then I used to be
That's because you messed up your body little by little, so it overcompensates.
but I have made several changes in my life based on realizations I have had from these substances, and I am in a much better place because of those changes.
You know, the more I hear this the more I don't think you understand what realizations of insight are. They're understandings of how the world works, and how you can better yourself. Ask yourself in your next meditation session what are the values of giving my friends poison, and poisoning my body? :facepalm:
In my experience, I haven't been harmed very much. But..maybe i'm just not seeing the harm, who knows.
Have you checked with your doctor full disclosure? :skeptical
Okay to everyone here continuing this issue about drugs, even if we allow that some people were helped along by drugs, many, perhaps far more, were harmed either biologically or legally. We must remind ourselves that non-harming is central to Buddhist ethics. For this reason, I think we should accept that drug use is HARMFUL. We should not encourage drug use, either on a personal level or on a media outlet. This does not mean on the other hand, that drugs should not be discussed honestly. My suggestion is that psychedelic use is an unwholesome choice, but it does not make people bad. Encouraging others to try psychedelics or persist in their use is ethically questionable and harmful. I say questionable now rather than unequivocally wrong because you keep trying to justify it on the grounds that you think I think I am saying I am somehow morally superior. I am not. The ethical question is not whether adults should be permitted to alter their consciousness; I see little justification for suppression of choice of any kind. Rather the issue is whether the price paid for achieving altered states with drugs is too high? The cost too wasteful?
So far there is no question that those incapacitated by drug use, especially those whose impairment may affect the welfare of others should be pressed into treatment and convinced to stop taking drugs. This seems beyond argument. And those whose drug use is associated with violence must be accountable for the harm they inflict as well. But for those whose drug use does not harm others, however, I think perhaps you've also overlooked the obvious harm that you can realize that affects others CRIMINAL PENALTIES. Then there's the other part in that they actually have to witness you make your health and mind decline for selfish unwise reasons.
Harming oneself due to drug is no big deal, but the detrimental effect of encouraging production because of personal consumption in itself causes enormous harm to others and the environment. Taking drug is mainly for excitement, challenge, curiosity and bliss, there are many other more intriguing methods to induce this wonder. Buddhism is the right choice that challenging your pure within :cool:
Anatta - no self.
A wonderful metaphor is dream - for instance, in your dream, it appears this forum of newbuddhist that you are engaging earnestly, there are so many diverse practitioners, icons, design in your dream. Do you not aware that these are all a lovely dream of yourself (anatta) that even while you are earnestly engaging on it, you did not realise that you have lost (anatta) unknowingly in view of "dusts". Unlike Buddha or awakened, that fully awareness of it.:cool:
Harming oneself due to drug is no big deal, but the detrimental effect of encouraging production because of personal consumption in itself causes enormous harm to others and the environment.
It is a big deal because people like me care about the people who are harming themselves. I don't want them getting hurt, and they can and will get hurt.
Taking drug is mainly for excitement, challenge, curiosity and bliss, there are many other more intriguing methods to induce this wonder.
Yes, but drugs cause physical harm, damage mindfulness, and encourage heedlessness.
Buddhism is the right choice that challenging your pure within :cool:
I challenge every thought I have, but I know this deep down is not conducive and is harmful. Self-harm and self-destruction is not wholesome.
Anatta - no self.
A wonderful metaphor is dream - for instance, in your dream, it appears this forum of newbuddhist that you are engaging earnestly, there are so many diverse practitioners, icons, design in your dream.
I haven't forgotten for a moment, and I'm trying to save these aspects of myself from making harmful decisions. It's not out of selfishness that I do so either. They're hurting themselves, so all I can and will do is try my hardest to let them see that they're harming themselves and others by engaging in this unwholesome act.
Do you not aware that these are all a lovely dream of yourself (anatta) that even while you are earnestly engaging on it, you did not realise that you have lost (anatta) unknowingly in view of "dusts". Unlike Buddha or awakened, that fully awareness of it.:cool:
I haven't forgotten at all, I am loving to every aspect of myself and every aspect of rupaloka and arupaloka. I have not reached Nirvana yet, but it isn't because I am not aware of Anatta. We are interdependent, and to not protect my brothers and sisters in the sangha from self-harm, I am harming them too willfully. We are not 2 sides of a coin, we're both the same human beings who want to be happy but no amount of excitement, challenge, curiosity and temporary bliss will bring them back to life when they die early from these drugs. Some of these kids haven't lived even to a quarter of their lifespan before they're trying to kill themselves for a sense of happiness that they can't achieve with drugs.
TFPW. You seem to be totally ignoring the insight, what psychedelic trips can provide. Maybe you have not experienced it, but that does not mean, that it hasn't or can't happen to others.
When ingesting a psychedelic drug, my motivation was never to 'just get high off my ass for the fun of it'. It had nothing to do with experiencing some desired pleasure. It actually included months of research beforehand and thinking over it for long.
If you really believe that everyone's using psychedelics with hedonistic intentions, I suggest you to do some more research on psychedelic drugs.
TFPW. You seem to be totally ignoring the insight, what psychedelic trips can provide.
No I am not. There's no insight there. People do not get spiritual insight from drugs. People actually end up with an lack of character (“spaciness”), a pervasive restlessness (uddhacca in Abhidharmic terminology), and inability to relax or find enjoyment with their own resources. These traits are the opposite of the comfort with one’s own mental content and patience which meditation develops. So, even if we grant that drugs can have spiritual benefits for a few, for the majority they appear to have the opposite effect. I said that before.
Maybe you have not experienced it, but that does not mean, that it hasn't or can't happen to others.
Oh there's none to be found as I said before.
When ingesting a psychedelic drug, my motivation was never to 'just get high off my ass for the fun of it'.
Why did you take it then? What was the purpose?
It had nothing to do with experiencing some desired pleasure.
I have a feeling you are lying to me.
It actually included months of research beforehand and thinking over it for long.
What was there to think over? What was the intention behind taking such a drug? :rolleyes:
If you really believe that everyone's using psychedelics with hedonistic intentions, I suggest you to do some more research on psychedelic drugs.
I have, and I have discerned from multiple studies that there's no therapeutic use for it even after a lot of trials. This tells me it is not to treat illness, so if not to treat illness why take a substance that is a poison if you don't need it?
TFPW asked for some perceived benefits of drug use:
From my experience, I would say yes, even with seemingly pure intentions, my taking of psychedelic drugs was unwholesome because I was craving an altered state. The experiences sent me through my deepest fears and anxieties because the identity I held seemed to fall apart. Instead of the same old habitually narrow person I usually carry around, I found myself being reborn every moment, and I became overwhelmed with my place in reality. After the panic and fear subsided, the contrast seemed to be a very heightened awareness where I remained in a blissful state where I carried no ill-will, because I couldn't, and everything was beautiful.
So, speaking for myself, I think the only benefit from these drugs is that it has the potential to shake an individual out of their shell. The world seems to overwhelm you with its mystery and completeness, and that can seem very fulfilling to someone that's seeking for contentment.
But, these drugs can be dangerous, physically and mentally. I don't think it's wise to make any deal with the devil. Even when I was feeling this sense of joy on them, I was a neurotic mess. There are other safer routes to gaining insights. I do not think these were some deep spiritual states because they were still mainly self-centered. I learned nothing if I believe that these blissful drugged states are my liberation. I don't think it's very smart to encourage any individual to jump into this kind of experimentation because of the complete unpredictability of the outcome.
I can't believe what I just read. You should learn some respect for people FPW. This is getting ridiculous. And for a messiah you don't seem to be helping anyone.
I urge people to question everything FPW is talking as if it were fact in the domain of scientific research. Research for yourself because FPW has been throwing a lot of misinformation and personal bias into it.
EDIT: Moonbeans - be careful with the umbrella terms "drugs". MDMA is not a psychedelic drug.
I can't believe what I just read. You should learn some respect for people FPW.
Respect is not granted. It is earned, and it is also ultimately meaningless.
This is getting ridiculous. And for a messiah you don't seem to be helping anyone.
I don't claim to be a messiah, but I am honored that you feel like deeming that kind of title upon me. I do not feel like one, and I would prefer not to be called one. And I said I cannot help you if you will not help yourself.
I urge people to question everything FPW is talking as if it were fact in the domain of scientific research.
I urge people to question everything, including Epicurus who is talking as if conclusive evidence suggests that MDMA has any other pharmacological purpose as if it were fact in the domain of scientific research. Because what is in the domain of scientific research is ultimately exactly what I said. Intersubjective agreement over the harmfulness of MDMA and inconclusive evidence in clinical trials testing them for pharmacological benefits by people who want to market the drug.
Research for yourself because FPW has been throwing a lot of misinformation and personal bias into it.
That is a lie. There's facts, and then there's statistics. Statistics can potentially have a bias, but facts cannot because they're repeatable observable phenomenon.
EDIT: Moonbeans - be careful with the umbrella terms "drugs". MDMA is not a psychedelic drug.
Wrong again. It's classified as one. Those studies you also are talking about are done by MAPS, and as I said, inconclusive.
TFPW asked for some perceived benefits of drug use:
From my experience, I would say yes, even with seemingly pure intentions, my taking of psychedelic drugs was unwholesome because I was craving an altered state. The experiences sent me through my deepest fears and anxieties because the identity I held seemed to fall apart. Instead of the same old habitually narrow person I usually carry around, I found myself being reborn every moment, and I became overwhelmed with my place in reality. After the panic and fear subsided, the contrast seemed to be a very heightened awareness where I remained in a blissful state where I carried no ill-will, because I couldn't, and everything was beautiful.
I actually appreciate your honesty. When the high ran out what happened?
So, speaking for myself, I think the only benefit from these drugs is that it has the potential to shake an individual out of their shell.
The way that facing self-destruction bare in the face can.
The world seems to overwhelm you with its mystery and completeness, and that can seem very fulfilling to someone that's seeking for contentment.
But, these drugs can be dangerous, physically and mentally. I don't think it's wise to make any deal with the devil. Even when I was feeling this sense of joy on them, I was a neurotic mess.
That's also my point, and I also point out the other implications so commonly missed. How it affects people who care about you too.
There are other safer routes to gaining insights. I do not think these were some deep spiritual states because they were still mainly self-centered. I learned nothing if I believe that these blissful drugged states are my liberation. I don't think it's very smart to encourage any individual to jump into this kind of experimentation because of the complete unpredictability of the outcome.
I think it has a pretty good predictability of hurting more people than it helps.
Since we're on a Buddhist thread, I think it should be pointed out that liberation found in drugs and it found in Buddhism are completely different subjects. Teachers are clear that discipline, morality, and insight are key requisites. A pill offering a few hours of altered states isn't relevant to what Buddhism is about. The right causes are necessary for a Buddhist practitioner, and taking a drug doesn't circumvent that truth.
I don't claim to be a messiah, but I am honored that you feel like deeming that kind of title upon me. I do not feel like one, and I would prefer not to be called one. And I said I cannot help you if you will not help yourself.
Who said I want help?
I urge people to question everything, including Epicurus who is talking as if conclusive evidence suggests that MDMA has any other pharmacological purpose as if it were fact in the domain of scientific research. Because what is in the domain of scientific research is ultimately exactly what I said. Intersubjective agreement over the harmfulness of MDMA and inconclusive evidence in clinical trials testing them for pharmacological benefits by people who want to market the drug.
You stated no fact. And no shit drugs can be harmful. Everybody knows that. No one is saying otherwise. You know what else is harmful? Life.
That is a lie. There's facts, and then there's statistics. Statistics can potentially have a bias, but facts cannot because they're repeatable observable phenomenon.
Then go check what the statistics say about how many people ever died of MDMA consumption. I never said there are no negative effects to frequent consumption of MDMA. And you don't care about observable phenomenon because you are ignoring people's own personal opinion about it. Besides, scientific studies, if they are truly scientific, never label things as harmful or non-harmful. They mention the possible effects of a substance in short-term and long-term. In your world alcohol consumption might be a crime, but thankfully everyone can test for themselves and truly understand it. Alcohol can even kill you ya know? Now if you perpetuate that alcohol is harmful and say scientists agree with you....you are still not convincing anyone. Harm is subjective. People should have the information to see what risks they are willing to take. There is risk in everything.
Wrong again. It's classified as one. Those studies you also are talking about are done by MAPS, and as I said, inconclusive.
Psychoactive, not psychedelic. At least by psychadelic I'm considering hallucinogenic. Semantics aside, it's quite different from LSD or shrooms.
My opinion is that we shouldn't make, or try to make, other people's decisions for them. It's wrong. I don't say this because anybody's doing this, but to try to give some perspective.
My recommendation to anyone who is considering any path is to check out a diversity of others who have already taken that path. Talk to them, if you can, and get their story. Sort through what they tell you, looking for cause and effect.
You want to know where they were before, what they did, and what effect it had on them. It's better to talk to a number of people, because you want to get a sense of what effects are pretty reliable and certain, which are idiosyncratic, and which depend on some aspect of the person's personality.
Doing this gives you a kind of radar. You see the pattern of human life better. You get a kind of foresight that helps you play the game further ahead, and make better decisions.
It also comes to mind--
The decision to take a certain drug or not is not the same as the decision to take drugs as a lifestyle, or not. I know people who say they'll take a drug one time, have the experience, and if they like it, make it a goal to become more like that naturally.
Epicurus, you might be interested in reading up on something called the "Chemical Enlightenment" movement, which was big in America a few decades ago. You can search for that term or for people in the movement. Timothy Leary is one person to look up. Babba Ram Das is another.
Mainstream society heavily condemns people who take drugs in the desire for spiritual fulfillment or development, but not people who take drugs in the desire to become less depressed, less agitated, more focused, or so on. This leads to some odd effects.
For example, Dorothy Tennov declared that romantic love is not actually the emotion called "love." It's "limerence," a term she coined, and which she introduced to the world in her book, "Love and Limerence."
Now, because she's a doctor, and because she considered it medically, this has opened the door for two other doctors to conduct more research. This research is being done with the aim of including limerence in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. When that is done, romantic love will officially and legally be a disease.
And this will allow doctors to medicate accordingly. The world is becoming a very strange place.
You stated no fact. And no shit drugs can be harmful. Everybody knows that. No one is saying otherwise.
Oh so you admit so, well Ahimsa is the idea of avoiding what is harmful unless it is reasonably practical, but it does not make an exception for selfish desire, hedonism, nor greed for the immaterial. It's the core of Buddhist ethics.
You know what else is harmful? Life.
Untrue, life can be harmless if you make the effort to do so. That's what right effort, right livelihood and right actions are meant to be leading you to think about.
Then go check what the statistics say about how many people ever died of MDMA consumption.
When? What year? Which country? You know what I said about statistics. You can lie with statistics, but you can't lie with facts. As for the body count to put this in perspective, less than people who take LSD, Benzodiazepemes, Meth, Ketamine, GHB, and PCP and I don't need to warn you about how physically harmful they are too do I?
I never said there are no negative effects to frequent consumption of MDMA.
It's not just frequent, it's immediate harmful effects.
And you don't care about observable phenomenon because you are ignoring people's own personal opinion about it.
I didn't ignore them, I said they're unreliable narrators.
Besides, scientific studies, if they are truly scientific, never label things as harmful or non-harmful.
Untrue, they do label things harmful and nonharmful, and which schedule they belong in whether to make them illegal or not, which newsflash here? They're illegal because scientists found that they were harmful and had little to no pharmacological uses.
They mention the possible effects of a substance in short-term and long-term.
And these effects are classed by how dangerous and lethal they can be. Which is how drugs are classed.
In your world alcohol consumption might be a crime
Oh it is more dangerous than MDMA because it is legal.
but thankfully everyone can test for themselves and truly understand it.
And die using it too. I'm glad we've cleared that up too. Alcohol is also harmful.
Alcohol can even kill you ya know?
Yes, and it should be sanctioned and taxed.
Now if you perpetuate that alcohol is harmful and say scientists agree with you....you are still not convincing anyone.
Actually that's why the surgeon general is cracking down on alcohol, but all they can do now is the warning labels, but it'll be like cigarettes soon. The Cigarettes are really being cracked down upon as well. They're going to put pictures of tarred up lungs on the label.
Harm is subjective. People should have the information to see what risks they are willing to take. There is risk in everything.
No it is not. Harm is not subjective, it's an either or thing. Either something causes harm or it is non-harming. There's a risk in everything that is ultimately harmful, and many, many, things are harmful, but that's why there's the middle way to teach us the right way to find the midway point between extremes, but drugs are not one of them. Buddha was specific when NONE is the middle way. It's precribed :rolleyes:
Psychoactive, not psychedelic. At least by psychadelic I'm considering hallucinogenic. Semantics aside, it's quite different from LSD or shrooms.
Ironic because LSD has a lesser body count than MDMA.
I don't believe drugs are the "deus ex machina" for our problems. But only a fool would not research these substances in great depth. There is still a lot we can learn. They are powerful. Like anything powerful it all depends on your intention and ability when harnessing it.
That being said, I'm instinctively wary of Timothy Leary and friends to be honest. Hippies and yuppies are my biggest enemies
I definitely agree with you when you say we shouldn't make, or try to make, other people's decisions for them, Conrad. That's the heart of the issue here.
FPW, I'm afraid I'm going to have to consider you an unreliable narrator. Since you have admitted to experiencing with these substances.
And newsflash, in Portugal since drugs have been decriminalized to an extent, drug consumption as dropped considerably. The US is studying our model even. So, taxing or whatever is not gonna stop people. That's the whole issue here. You can't make people do what they want to do.
Alcohol might be harmful, but only a fool is incapable of measuring the impact it has on one's life. There's so much wrong with your posts now that I'm just gonna give up on clarifying why I disagree with most of the things you say. And harm is subjective. Don't talk me about the Buddha. "It's prescribed". Who are you again? The Buddha didn't live in a context where MDMA and LSD existed.
Besides, the 5th precept is "I undertake the training rule to abstain from fermented drink that causes heedlessness". It isn't open war on alcohol and drugs or even in the health issues it might provoke in our own bodies....but on heedlessness and the wrong actions that might ensue.
My opinion is that we shouldn't make, or try to make, other people's decisions for them. It's wrong. I don't say this because anybody's doing this, but to try to give some perspective.
I'll agree on that one, but I also think tunnel vision is stupid. If you know something is harmful to the majority of people, you don't do it for kicks.
My recommendation to anyone who is considering any path is to check out a diversity of others who have already taken that path.
He only wants to see what he wants to see.
The decision to take a certain drug or not is not the same as the decision to take drugs as a lifestyle, or not. I know people who say they'll take a drug one time, have the experience, and if they like it, make it a goal to become more like that naturally.
Yes, but you see to try something isn't the same as becoming a user.
Epicurus, you might be interested in reading up on something called the "Chemical Enlightenment" movement, which was big in America a few decades ago. You can search for that term or for people in the movement. Timothy Leary is one person to look up. Babba Ram Das is another.
Oh those guys were a Mockery of Western Buddhism. Many Westerners like them were first drawn to Zen, and Buddhism generally, through a misconception: that meditation would induce a state similar to a drug high. There seems to be a near-consensus now that this is not the case. Now even those idiots abandoned the misconception that Buddhist practice as akin to psychedelic drug experience, we seem to be leaving behind the anti-intellectualism of sixties "Zen" and returning to actual Buddhism.
As Westerners learned more about actual Buddhist practice, drugs no longer were a way to enlightenment or insight because it turned out that practice was not really about getting high at all. Most teachers slotted drugs into the mind-intoxicant category of the precepts.
The fifth precept for lay Buddhists:
"I undertake the training-precept to abstain from alcoholic drink or drugs that are an opportunity for heedlessness."
This precept was not mentioned much, if at all, by early counterculture Buddhists like Alan Watts and Jack Kerouac, both of whom were alcoholics. Now that the ethical aspects of Buddhism, including the five lay precepts have become familiar to Western Buddhists, the only teachers who use drugs rationalize their use by declaring that they are not intoxicants and hence not contrary to the precepts. So for example Jack Kornfeld, in what is a generally balanced series of comments, notes that there is little mention of psychedelics in Buddhist tradition and, while conceding that they would be included in the category of intoxicants, goes on to say, “there is no traditional point of view about their use”. Which is BS. Psychedelics impair awareness, as do most other mind-altering substances, and are exactly the sort of substances specified by the term “intoxicant”.
Like religious rules generally, this precept is as often ignored as followed. Nor is this the only precept which modern Western Buddhists have set aside. I'm sure you all remember the embarrassment of the Tantric sex movement which was basically the same type of ignoring of the actual teachings to promote a wrong view to benefit the teachers who would use sex as a means to try and achieve enlightenment, which is also not part of the practices.
Addiction can be rationalized within any system of belief, including Buddhism, despite the primary goal of Buddhism being the abolition of "tanha", craving. Most teachers but a few who struggle with addiction abandoned their belief that psychedelics can be spiritually beneficial and those who haven't have come to see their value as insignificant.
For example, Dorothy Tennov declared that romantic love is not actually the emotion called "love." It's "limerence," a term she coined, and which she introduced to the world in her book, "Love and Limerence."
Whoa, this is interesting. What is limerence?
Now, because she's a doctor, and because she considered it medically, this has opened the door for two other doctors to conduct more research. This research is being done with the aim of including limerence in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. When that is done, romantic love will officially and legally be a disease.
A disease, really? I've gotta check that out because it sounds sketchy to me.
And this will allow doctors to medicate accordingly. The world is becoming a very strange place.
FPW, I'm afraid I'm going to have to consider you an unreliable narrator. Since you have admitted to experiencing with these substances.
You'd have to be a nutter not to consider me an unreliable narrator for that, but you missed the point that I've supported what I've said. That makes it less about me, and more about reality.
And newsflash, in Portugal since drugs have been decriminalized to an extent, drug consumption as dropped considerably.
Where are you getting your news from? It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem, but Portugal had a drug emergency. They had so much drugs on the street uncontrolled that they would have been more irresponsible not to legalize it than to keep it illegal.
A professor of criminology and public policy at my University,made the point that while Drug use did not rise, Portugal is a small country and that the cyclical nature of drug epidemics occur no matter what policies are in place. It also may account for the declines in heroin use and deaths in kids. All the data shows is that decriminalization does not result in increased drug use.
The US is studying our model even. So, taxing or whatever is not gonna stop people.
That will make them contribute more at least and make them consciously think what they're doing.
That's the whole issue here. You can't make people do what they want to do.
No actually the point is that drugs are harmful and selfish. When a Buddhist needs to avoid harm, and cultivate selflessness. They're a classical evasion of the topic which is self-deconstruction not self-destruction.
Alcohol might be harmful, but only a fool is incapable of measuring the impact it has on one's life.
You're absolutely barking mad. If you can't consider drunk fights, fetal alcohol syndrome, operation of vehicles while intoxicated, then it's just you choosing to be unaware of how one's choices affects more than just themselves. To disrespect the 5th precept is to disrespect them all.
There's so much wrong with your posts now that I'm just gonna give up on clarifying why I disagree with most of the things you say.
Because most of what you said didn't hold water.
And harm is subjective.
No, it's objective.
Don't talk me about the Buddha. "It's prescribed". Who are you again? The Buddha didn't live in a context where MDMA and LSD existed.
Don't look down on the Buddha.
Besides, the 5th precept is "I undertake the training rule to abstain from fermented drink that causes heedlessness". It isn't open war on alcohol and drugs or even in the health issues it might provoke in our own bodies....but on heedlessness and the wrong actions that might ensue.
You're wrong again. It's:
"Sura meraya majja pamadatthana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami."
LITERALLY FROM THE PALI:
I undertake the precept of abstaining from taking intoxicants which lead to heedlessness.
Geez, if you're going to say a lot of nonsense at lease have the decency to support it.
There's no subjective facts. There's objective facts, and subjective opinions. Objective facts are inter-subjective agreements like language, logical reasoning(math), and empiricism (science). There's objective facts also about moral reasoning related to language as well.
ALL HAIL TFPW!!! KNOWER OF FACTS, REPRIMANDER OF FOOLS!!!
Oh boy. Yes, every person out there who claims to have gotten positive effects from drugs spiritually and in their interactions are liars. TFPW knows more about what happens to other people than other people do, didn't you know? She knows more than the buddha. Also everyone who claims to be taking drugs for spiritual purposes and purposes besides "getting fucked up" were lying too! How ignorant are you to think that a person knows more about there own motivation than TFPW!?
The study showing mdma causes brain damage is, like so many other studies trying to dissuade people from drug use, bias. To say that there isn't a bias among these people against drugs is laughable.
You know TFPW, since i've noticed you start posting multiple people have pointed out your unbelievable arrogance, your holier-than-thou attitude, and your attitude that you know more and are better than other people. Of course, you know more than all of the people who say such and they are probably lying.
I feel compassionate for you as there must be some serious inadequacy issues for you to act like this, but nonetheless people aren't gonna sit back and let you act the way you do without saying something. Hopefully you can for once actually listen to someone other than yourself.
*sigh* why did I remove her from my ignore list...
edit: This was written before TheJourney's comment; there is no connection to it.
"My recommendation to anyone who is considering any path is to check out a diversity of others who have already taken that path."
He only wants to see what he wants to see.
Actually, that was directed at you. Also at myself; and indeed at anyone.
I think it's a noble intention to want to help people. But when we try to give people help they don't want, we end up like the cartoon character, who tries to help the little old lady across the street, with her shouting and objecting, and beating him with her umbrella the whole way. When he finally gets her to the other side, he stands there with lumps sprounting out of his scalp and says, "Here you are, safe and sound!"
She replies, "But I was waiting for the bus!"
edit: Or maybe there is a connection to TheJourney's reply. If you imagine that comment as an umbrella--!
Part of not making other people's decisions for them is not foisting help on them that they don't want.
You are correct, that the Buddha gave us the precept to avoid drunkenness. But there is no precept to criticize others for drunkenness, if you catch my drift.
Regarding neotantra...
I've never participated in this (darn it!), so I'm not an expert. From what I understand, I'm inclined to agree with you. I don't feel it's respectable. But I believe in freedom of religion. If consenting adults want to create a sex cult and see what happens, I will not tell them they shouldn't be free to do that. (I will urge them to protect their health.)
It doesn't actually work to promote spiritual growth, and people have regrets? It was a sham and it's therefore exploitative? -- Most religions are a sham of spirituality. Religious institutions are inherently exploitative.
Catholic clergy have been telling people what to do for many hundreds of years, with the threat of hell and the promise of Heaven. Catholics are strongly encouraged to give ten percent of their income, if I understand right. They give it to an institution run by a guy who lives in a palace, in the name of a man who was penniless. This is exploitative.
But, if you have good luck, you might find a Catholic priest who is truly spiritually awake, and who can help you on your path.
That woman who you used to follow, who calls herself a Dakini and the reincarnation of someone important -- looks to me like a real bad apple. Reading the subtext of some of her writing, I think she's not interested in helping her followers spiritually awaken, and if she were interested she wouldn't be qualified.
But as long as they're not hurting children or abducting adults, my opinion doesn't count.
(I can still express it, a'course.)
Buddha bless,
Conrad.
ps - For more info on limerence, check out Wikipedia and read Tennov's book. I have a low regard for the theory; you may think differently on reading her presentation.
This thread is getting a bit messy. The question at hand is whether or not drugs like mdma or other psychedelic drugs are more useful or harmful to genuine seekers. It's no doubt that these types of drugs have opened people to new possibilities of lifestyle perspectives. They can open up individuals that harbor deep-seated suffering, but is it worth seeing these possibilities through a delusional state? Time and time again, I've come across people drawn to Buddhism after experiences with these drugs, but most seem to have put it away for real devotion.
I strongly recommend you reading this, TFPW. And of course others might find it interesting and eye-opening as well.
I think it would be hard to claim, that states of consciousness, which can arise from psychedelic drug ingestion, cannot give one any insights on reality, after you have read this one.
But of course there's the "he's a liar" or "these insights were not related to psychedelics" argument. (just a hint ^^)
I give up FPW. The funniest part is that you think you supported your ideas with facts backing you up. You don't deserve any more attention on this subject.
Fuck well I just typed a huge reply and the website logged me out so I lost it....
So guess I'll summarize.
I'm not perfect, most people here aren't. I'm not even striving to be perfect, I just want to be a good person and enjoy life. I don't care if I die when I'm 60 or 80 or 100, I just want to enjoy my time here on Earth. Everything is impermanent, everything dies. My brain is going to wither away eventually anyway. Theres no need to be so god damned serious about it. RELAX, HAVE FUN. Its OK! No, really...its OK. You can have a beer. Its fine.
My grandpa died at age 65 because he smoked too many cigarettes. I was very sad about it, it caused me a lot of pain. My grandma is 85 and in a nursing home with Alzheimer's, she doesn't remember any of her family. That is causing me MORE pain than when my grandpa died of lung cancer. Am I angry at my grandpa for smoking cigarettes?? No, I loved him, he cared so much for his family. I don't care if he enjoyed smoking cigarettes, what I care about is...was he a good person?
We're all in this same struggle together, and you can spend your entire life trying to become a perfect person...or you can just relax and enjoy your time here. I'm not saying don't try to improve yourself...everybody should try to be the best person they can be. But seriously, RELAX. Have fun.
epicurus, what do you think people will gain from mdma other than a sense of euphoria that dissipates when the drugs wear off?
Moonbeans, I'm not promoting MDMA. My experience has been that while on it and after the effects wearied off, I consciously thought about everything I had experienced and realized the importance of empathy and living in the now, even more so.
I realized how things could be even more beautiful, and that it was all in the mind. So I consciously made a promise to myself to try and mimic that state as much as possible in real life without any drug-aid.
I'm not saying people will gain anything from it. I saw a lot of mindless fools consuming large doses of MDMA in drum'n'bass underground clubs and in trance festivals...and realized they were really not paying attention to the benefit of the experience. They were just taking it to get high.
But when I first tried it certainly wasn't with that intent. In fact I carefully planned it, made sure I was with my best friend, and read all about the possible side effects and repercussions. I took it to learn form the altered state of consciousness and what it had to say about my mental barriers and the world around me.
Thank you epicurus for your openness on the subject. The reason I'm so curious is because I had the same kind of attitude toward lsd when I was experimenting. I researched and tripped in serene settings hoping to learn more about myself. I'm just wary now of extolling those states. I found myself pursuing ideal states that I could only vaguely recall during drug experiences, and were only the outcome of the drugs alone. I'm not saying an open and intelligent person can't learn from drugs like mdma or acid, but I really believe those things should be put away eventually. To me, it's painful to see people under the influence of any kind of mind-altering drug. They only appear to be running from themselves.
Moonbeans : They should definitely be put away eventually. Usually sooner rather than later.
As for seeing people under the influence....that too was a humbling experience for me. Being quite judgmental of people who take drugs, it took me actually being there to put it under perspective. I still think most people take it for the wrong reason. But then again my view of the general population in most areas of their lives isn't very flattering. The majority of people are dumb. A better word for it might be unwise. I'm certainly wary of extolling any kind of drug to anyone.
Comments
Sorry, I'm a bit late on this, but may I ask if you have any recommended meditation techniques to get rid of the illusion of seperation?
The World Health Organization decided it and do you think you have more personal knowledge than people who actually research the drugs themselves?
Mine isn't made from a subjective opinion which is a personal point of view. It's a fact because objectively between health professionals who have tested the drugs, they intersubjectively agree that the results from their studies have proven beyond reasonable doubt that it is harmful.
The drug often results in severe dehydration and heat stroke in the user, since it has the effect of “short-circuiting” the body’s temperature signals to the brain. MDMA can heat your body up to temperatures as high as 117 degrees can cause hypothermia, muscle breakdown, seizures, stroke, kidney and cardiovascular system failure, as well as permanent brain damage during repetitive use, and sometimes death. All of these are measured in labs and repeated over and over again. The psychological effects of Ecstasy include euphoria, confusion, depression, anxiety, sleeplessness, drug craving, and paranoia.
Yes I am, because this is relatively simple to understand. The drug is harmful.
That is actually true, and it is hurting and harming others. Heart disease is the number one killer of men and women in developed nations. To eat junk food and not exercise IS killing yourself and hurting others. You think I'm being brutal, but this is something that takes honest introspection to understand. If you can't see how it is harmful, then you aren't paying attention. Now does this mean that I think that all fast food joints should be abolished? No. But people who eat fast food every day or feed their children fast food everyday are neglecting their child's nutritional needs and in some cases I think it merits social services. It reminds me of that story of a 400 Pound 7 year old girl whose mother basically stuffed the poor child's face with junk food in order to get her to stop crying. It's almost criminal neglect, and harmful.
What are the unselfish, nonharming, wholesome points of drug use?
How? You never tell me what the unselfish, nonharming, wholesome aspects of drug use are.
Because they take drugs to get high.
Because you have no facts. You have opinions, and facts trump them. You can try and pull up cross-sectional studies for therapeutic uses of the drug, but sadly there ARE none. They've been looking for some, but there aren't any conclusive results. Not even in the one mentioned with mental disorders.
Because either your common sense is beliefs or propositions that most people would consider prudent and of sound judgment. To take drugs is anything but, and the basic precepts explain exactly why "it leads to heedlessness and detracts from mindfulness and awareness".
Oooh good question. It's empathy you need. Try and creating new ways of relating to others and the world.
Think about it in terms of Indra's net which is a metaphor used to illustrate the concepts of emptiness, dependent origination, and interpenetration in Buddhist thought.
All phenomena are intimately connected; Indra's net symbolizes a universe where infinitely repeated mutual relations exist between all members of the universe. This idea is communicated in the image of the interconnectedness of the universe as seen in the net of the Vedic god Indra, whose net hangs over his palace on Mount Meru, the axis mundi of Vedic cosmology and Vedic mythology. Indra's net has a multifaceted jewel at each vertex, and each jewel is reflected in all of the other jewels. Meditate on this idea in detail.
Because most of the people I know who have done it in moderation, are pretty balanced thinkers afterwards and claim that they go back to normal thinking afterwards.
I agree but that wasnt really my point.
What I mean is that when you stop excersizing, or don't do a perfectly balanced amount of excercise, I could claim that you are 'hurting people'. Based on the logic you were using earlier. I know people who have done MDMA and are much kinder after.
People can take drugs to try and gain insight, like what has been discussed repeatedly throughout the thread.
Which means that on the drug they were unable to think normally anymore, and afterward it wears off that means they're ultimately unreliable narrators. They wouldn't know how they were different from before but like the Hedonic treadmill and Anicca indicate, once the high pans out they settle back into habitual ways of thinking but subtleness and research has shown that they have actually created unfixable brain and nerve damage even from a single instance of use. So they slowly decline each time they use it, but like when a person slowly goes blind or deaf, they compensate for the damage that they themselves created until it's manifest states are no longer subtle anymore. By that time it's too late.
And that logic would be completely correct. You have to understand I'm totally removing my own personal emotions from this because as I told you, I had done it before, and I enjoyed it then, but stopped immediately after watching an acquaintance of mine die so I saw the hard truth of it and then I forswore it. I don't want any of you ending up as shells of your former selves, nor dying in a puddle of your own waste. I love you guys.
After the drug wears off they become cruel, paranoid and anxious. Worse off than they were before they took the drug. Taking the drug didn't make them kinder, it made their inhibitions lift. People who are actually naturally kind will be more openly kind, but people who are naturally cruel or nervous will either become overwhelmed by cruelty or anxiety. MDMA also has other problematic issues that I'm naturally not going into too much detail about, but you know what happens when the drug wears off, and even what happens to their body when they're on it.
I said this is impossible due to the very definition of insight according to Buddhism.
People do not get spiritual benefit from drugs. More common is an apparent impoverishment of character (“spaciness”), a pervasive restlessness (uddhacca in Abhidharmic terminology), and inability to relax or find enjoyment with their own resources. These traits are the opposite of the comfort with one’s own mental content and patience which meditation develops. So, even if we grant that drugs can have spiritual benefits for a few (I don't agree still not one of you has yet gave me a legit case), for the majority they appear to have the opposite effect.
Actually I don't think so, clinical trials have shown that there's no pharmacological uses of MDMA as of yet.
They should never be used without the supervision of a doctor, even if recreational.
There's no potential for good either according to pharmacological research either. They ruled most of the uses out. They're grasping at straws now in clinical trials. :skeptical
You give drugs to your friends? You're literally killing your friends, and you know that, because you know they're unsafe and yet you still claim to not be harming others! What do you think nonharming is? :facepalm:You are knowingly giving your friends poison.
That's good at least. :skeptical but just who do you think it is okay to give drugs to?
That's because you messed up your body little by little, so it overcompensates.
You know, the more I hear this the more I don't think you understand what realizations of insight are. They're understandings of how the world works, and how you can better yourself. Ask yourself in your next meditation session what are the values of giving my friends poison, and poisoning my body? :facepalm:
Have you checked with your doctor full disclosure? :skeptical
So far there is no question that those incapacitated by drug use, especially those whose impairment may affect the welfare of others should be pressed into treatment and convinced to stop taking drugs. This seems beyond argument. And those whose drug use is associated with violence must be accountable for the harm they inflict as well. But for those whose drug use does not harm others, however, I think perhaps you've also overlooked the obvious harm that you can realize that affects others CRIMINAL PENALTIES. Then there's the other part in that they actually have to witness you make your health and mind decline for selfish unwise reasons.
Anatta - no self.
A wonderful metaphor is dream - for instance, in your dream, it appears this forum of newbuddhist that you are engaging earnestly, there are so many diverse practitioners, icons, design in your dream. Do you not aware that these are all a lovely dream of yourself (anatta) that even while you are earnestly engaging on it, you did not realise that you have lost (anatta) unknowingly in view of "dusts". Unlike Buddha or awakened, that fully awareness of it.:cool:
It is a big deal because people like me care about the people who are harming themselves. I don't want them getting hurt, and they can and will get hurt.
Yes, but drugs cause physical harm, damage mindfulness, and encourage heedlessness.
I challenge every thought I have, but I know this deep down is not conducive and is harmful. Self-harm and self-destruction is not wholesome.
I haven't forgotten for a moment, and I'm trying to save these aspects of myself from making harmful decisions. It's not out of selfishness that I do so either. They're hurting themselves, so all I can and will do is try my hardest to let them see that they're harming themselves and others by engaging in this unwholesome act.
I haven't forgotten at all, I am loving to every aspect of myself and every aspect of rupaloka and arupaloka. I have not reached Nirvana yet, but it isn't because I am not aware of Anatta. We are interdependent, and to not protect my brothers and sisters in the sangha from self-harm, I am harming them too willfully. We are not 2 sides of a coin, we're both the same human beings who want to be happy but no amount of excitement, challenge, curiosity and temporary bliss will bring them back to life when they die early from these drugs. Some of these kids haven't lived even to a quarter of their lifespan before they're trying to kill themselves for a sense of happiness that they can't achieve with drugs.
When ingesting a psychedelic drug, my motivation was never to 'just get high off my ass for the fun of it'. It had nothing to do with experiencing some desired pleasure. It actually included months of research beforehand and thinking over it for long.
If you really believe that everyone's using psychedelics with hedonistic intentions, I suggest you to do some more research on psychedelic drugs.
No I am not. There's no insight there. People do not get spiritual insight from drugs. People actually end up with an lack of character (“spaciness”), a pervasive restlessness (uddhacca in Abhidharmic terminology), and inability to relax or find enjoyment with their own resources. These traits are the opposite of the comfort with one’s own mental content and patience which meditation develops. So, even if we grant that drugs can have spiritual benefits for a few, for the majority they appear to have the opposite effect. I said that before.
Oh there's none to be found as I said before.
Why did you take it then? What was the purpose?
I have a feeling you are lying to me.
What was there to think over? What was the intention behind taking such a drug? :rolleyes:
I have, and I have discerned from multiple studies that there's no therapeutic use for it even after a lot of trials. This tells me it is not to treat illness, so if not to treat illness why take a substance that is a poison if you don't need it?
From my experience, I would say yes, even with seemingly pure intentions, my taking of psychedelic drugs was unwholesome because I was craving an altered state. The experiences sent me through my deepest fears and anxieties because the identity I held seemed to fall apart. Instead of the same old habitually narrow person I usually carry around, I found myself being reborn every moment, and I became overwhelmed with my place in reality. After the panic and fear subsided, the contrast seemed to be a very heightened awareness where I remained in a blissful state where I carried no ill-will, because I couldn't, and everything was beautiful.
So, speaking for myself, I think the only benefit from these drugs is that it has the potential to shake an individual out of their shell. The world seems to overwhelm you with its mystery and completeness, and that can seem very fulfilling to someone that's seeking for contentment.
But, these drugs can be dangerous, physically and mentally. I don't think it's wise to make any deal with the devil. Even when I was feeling this sense of joy on them, I was a neurotic mess. There are other safer routes to gaining insights. I do not think these were some deep spiritual states because they were still mainly self-centered. I learned nothing if I believe that these blissful drugged states are my liberation. I don't think it's very smart to encourage any individual to jump into this kind of experimentation because of the complete unpredictability of the outcome.
I urge people to question everything FPW is talking as if it were fact in the domain of scientific research. Research for yourself because FPW has been throwing a lot of misinformation and personal bias into it.
EDIT: Moonbeans - be careful with the umbrella terms "drugs". MDMA is not a psychedelic drug.
Respect is not granted. It is earned, and it is also ultimately meaningless.
I don't claim to be a messiah, but I am honored that you feel like deeming that kind of title upon me. I do not feel like one, and I would prefer not to be called one. And I said I cannot help you if you will not help yourself.
I urge people to question everything, including Epicurus who is talking as if conclusive evidence suggests that MDMA has any other pharmacological purpose as if it were fact in the domain of scientific research. Because what is in the domain of scientific research is ultimately exactly what I said. Intersubjective agreement over the harmfulness of MDMA and inconclusive evidence in clinical trials testing them for pharmacological benefits by people who want to market the drug.
That is a lie. There's facts, and then there's statistics. Statistics can potentially have a bias, but facts cannot because they're repeatable observable phenomenon.
Wrong again. It's classified as one. Those studies you also are talking about are done by MAPS, and as I said, inconclusive.
I actually appreciate your honesty.
The way that facing self-destruction bare in the face can.
That's also my point, and I also point out the other implications so commonly missed. How it affects people who care about you too.
I think it has a pretty good predictability of hurting more people than it helps.
You've got that right.
Who said I want help?
You stated no fact. And no shit drugs can be harmful. Everybody knows that. No one is saying otherwise. You know what else is harmful? Life.
Then go check what the statistics say about how many people ever died of MDMA consumption. I never said there are no negative effects to frequent consumption of MDMA. And you don't care about observable phenomenon because you are ignoring people's own personal opinion about it. Besides, scientific studies, if they are truly scientific, never label things as harmful or non-harmful. They mention the possible effects of a substance in short-term and long-term. In your world alcohol consumption might be a crime, but thankfully everyone can test for themselves and truly understand it. Alcohol can even kill you ya know? Now if you perpetuate that alcohol is harmful and say scientists agree with you....you are still not convincing anyone. Harm is subjective. People should have the information to see what risks they are willing to take. There is risk in everything.
Psychoactive, not psychedelic. At least by psychadelic I'm considering hallucinogenic. Semantics aside, it's quite different from LSD or shrooms.
My recommendation to anyone who is considering any path is to check out a diversity of others who have already taken that path. Talk to them, if you can, and get their story. Sort through what they tell you, looking for cause and effect.
You want to know where they were before, what they did, and what effect it had on them. It's better to talk to a number of people, because you want to get a sense of what effects are pretty reliable and certain, which are idiosyncratic, and which depend on some aspect of the person's personality.
Doing this gives you a kind of radar. You see the pattern of human life better. You get a kind of foresight that helps you play the game further ahead, and make better decisions.
It also comes to mind--
The decision to take a certain drug or not is not the same as the decision to take drugs as a lifestyle, or not. I know people who say they'll take a drug one time, have the experience, and if they like it, make it a goal to become more like that naturally.
Epicurus, you might be interested in reading up on something called the "Chemical Enlightenment" movement, which was big in America a few decades ago. You can search for that term or for people in the movement. Timothy Leary is one person to look up. Babba Ram Das is another.
Mainstream society heavily condemns people who take drugs in the desire for spiritual fulfillment or development, but not people who take drugs in the desire to become less depressed, less agitated, more focused, or so on. This leads to some odd effects.
For example, Dorothy Tennov declared that romantic love is not actually the emotion called "love." It's "limerence," a term she coined, and which she introduced to the world in her book, "Love and Limerence."
Now, because she's a doctor, and because she considered it medically, this has opened the door for two other doctors to conduct more research. This research is being done with the aim of including limerence in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. When that is done, romantic love will officially and legally be a disease.
And this will allow doctors to medicate accordingly. The world is becoming a very strange place.
Buddha bless,
Conrad.
I also cannot help you if you do not want it.
Oh so you admit so, well Ahimsa is the idea of avoiding what is harmful unless it is reasonably practical, but it does not make an exception for selfish desire, hedonism, nor greed for the immaterial. It's the core of Buddhist ethics.
Untrue, life can be harmless if you make the effort to do so. That's what right effort, right livelihood and right actions are meant to be leading you to think about.
When? What year? Which country? You know what I said about statistics. You can lie with statistics, but you can't lie with facts. As for the body count to put this in perspective, less than people who take LSD, Benzodiazepemes, Meth, Ketamine, GHB, and PCP and I don't need to warn you about how physically harmful they are too do I?
It's not just frequent, it's immediate harmful effects.
I didn't ignore them, I said they're unreliable narrators.
Untrue, they do label things harmful and nonharmful, and which schedule they belong in whether to make them illegal or not, which newsflash here? They're illegal because scientists found that they were harmful and had little to no pharmacological uses.
And these effects are classed by how dangerous and lethal they can be. Which is how drugs are classed.
Oh it is more dangerous than MDMA because it is legal.
And die using it too. I'm glad we've cleared that up too. Alcohol is also harmful.
Yes, and it should be sanctioned and taxed.
Actually that's why the surgeon general is cracking down on alcohol, but all they can do now is the warning labels, but it'll be like cigarettes soon. The Cigarettes are really being cracked down upon as well. They're going to put pictures of tarred up lungs on the label.
No it is not. Harm is not subjective, it's an either or thing. Either something causes harm or it is non-harming. There's a risk in everything that is ultimately harmful, and many, many, things are harmful, but that's why there's the middle way to teach us the right way to find the midway point between extremes, but drugs are not one of them. Buddha was specific when NONE is the middle way. It's precribed :rolleyes:
Ironic because LSD has a lesser body count than MDMA.
That being said, I'm instinctively wary of Timothy Leary and friends to be honest. Hippies and yuppies are my biggest enemies
I definitely agree with you when you say we shouldn't make, or try to make, other people's decisions for them, Conrad. That's the heart of the issue here.
And newsflash, in Portugal since drugs have been decriminalized to an extent, drug consumption as dropped considerably. The US is studying our model even. So, taxing or whatever is not gonna stop people. That's the whole issue here. You can't make people do what they want to do.
Alcohol might be harmful, but only a fool is incapable of measuring the impact it has on one's life. There's so much wrong with your posts now that I'm just gonna give up on clarifying why I disagree with most of the things you say. And harm is subjective. Don't talk me about the Buddha. "It's prescribed". Who are you again? The Buddha didn't live in a context where MDMA and LSD existed.
Besides, the 5th precept is "I undertake the training rule to abstain from fermented drink that causes heedlessness". It isn't open war on alcohol and drugs or even in the health issues it might provoke in our own bodies....but on heedlessness and the wrong actions that might ensue.
I'll agree on that one, but I also think tunnel vision is stupid. If you know something is harmful to the majority of people, you don't do it for kicks.
He only wants to see what he wants to see.
Yes, but you see to try something isn't the same as becoming a user.
Oh those guys were a Mockery of Western Buddhism. Many Westerners like them were first drawn to Zen, and Buddhism generally, through a misconception: that meditation would induce a state similar to a drug high. There seems to be a near-consensus now that this is not the case. Now even those idiots abandoned the misconception that Buddhist practice as akin to psychedelic drug experience, we seem to be leaving behind the anti-intellectualism of sixties "Zen" and returning to actual Buddhism.
As Westerners learned more about actual Buddhist practice, drugs no longer were a way to enlightenment or insight because it turned out that practice was not really about getting high at all. Most teachers slotted drugs into the mind-intoxicant category of the precepts.
The fifth precept for lay Buddhists:
"I undertake the training-precept to abstain from alcoholic drink or drugs that are an opportunity for heedlessness."
This precept was not mentioned much, if at all, by early counterculture Buddhists like Alan Watts and Jack Kerouac, both of whom were alcoholics. Now that the ethical aspects of Buddhism, including the five lay precepts have become familiar to Western Buddhists, the only teachers who use drugs rationalize their use by declaring that they are not intoxicants and hence not contrary to the precepts. So for example Jack Kornfeld, in what is a generally balanced series of comments, notes that there is little mention of psychedelics in Buddhist tradition and, while conceding that they would be included in the category of intoxicants, goes on to say, “there is no traditional point of view about their use”. Which is BS. Psychedelics impair awareness, as do most other mind-altering substances, and are exactly the sort of substances specified by the term “intoxicant”.
Like religious rules generally, this precept is as often ignored as followed. Nor is this the only precept which modern Western Buddhists have set aside. I'm sure you all remember the embarrassment of the Tantric sex movement which was basically the same type of ignoring of the actual teachings to promote a wrong view to benefit the teachers who would use sex as a means to try and achieve enlightenment, which is also not part of the practices.
Addiction can be rationalized within any system of belief, including Buddhism, despite the primary goal of Buddhism being the abolition of "tanha", craving. Most teachers but a few who struggle with addiction abandoned their belief that psychedelics can be spiritually beneficial and those who haven't have come to see their value as insignificant.
Whoa, this is interesting. What is limerence?
A disease, really? I've gotta check that out because it sounds sketchy to me.
You said it, brother.
You'd have to be a nutter not to consider me an unreliable narrator for that, but you missed the point that I've supported what I've said. That makes it less about me, and more about reality.
Where are you getting your news from? It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem, but Portugal had a drug emergency. They had so much drugs on the street uncontrolled that they would have been more irresponsible not to legalize it than to keep it illegal.
A professor of criminology and public policy at my University,made the point that while Drug use did not rise, Portugal is a small country and that the cyclical nature of drug epidemics occur no matter what policies are in place. It also may account for the declines in heroin use and deaths in kids. All the data shows is that decriminalization does not result in increased drug use.
That will make them contribute more at least and make them consciously think what they're doing.
No actually the point is that drugs are harmful and selfish. When a Buddhist needs to avoid harm, and cultivate selflessness. They're a classical evasion of the topic which is self-deconstruction not self-destruction.
You're absolutely barking mad. If you can't consider drunk fights, fetal alcohol syndrome, operation of vehicles while intoxicated, then it's just you choosing to be unaware of how one's choices affects more than just themselves. To disrespect the 5th precept is to disrespect them all.
Because most of what you said didn't hold water.
No, it's objective.
Don't look down on the Buddha.
You're wrong again. It's:
"Sura meraya majja pamadatthana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami."
LITERALLY FROM THE PALI:
I undertake the precept of abstaining from taking intoxicants which lead to heedlessness.
Geez, if you're going to say a lot of nonsense at lease have the decency to support it.
There's no subjective facts. There's objective facts, and subjective opinions. Objective facts are inter-subjective agreements like language, logical reasoning(math), and empiricism (science). There's objective facts also about moral reasoning related to language as well.
I don't think he wants to listen, but I suppose you know what I was getting at.
http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/mdma/mdma_neurotoxicity3.shtml
The study showing mdma causes brain damage is, like so many other studies trying to dissuade people from drug use, bias. To say that there isn't a bias among these people against drugs is laughable.
You know TFPW, since i've noticed you start posting multiple people have pointed out your unbelievable arrogance, your holier-than-thou attitude, and your attitude that you know more and are better than other people. Of course, you know more than all of the people who say such and they are probably lying.
I feel compassionate for you as there must be some serious inadequacy issues for you to act like this, but nonetheless people aren't gonna sit back and let you act the way you do without saying something. Hopefully you can for once actually listen to someone other than yourself.
*sigh* why did I remove her from my ignore list...
Actually, that was directed at you. Also at myself; and indeed at anyone.
I think it's a noble intention to want to help people. But when we try to give people help they don't want, we end up like the cartoon character, who tries to help the little old lady across the street, with her shouting and objecting, and beating him with her umbrella the whole way. When he finally gets her to the other side, he stands there with lumps sprounting out of his scalp and says, "Here you are, safe and sound!"
She replies, "But I was waiting for the bus!"
edit: Or maybe there is a connection to TheJourney's reply. If you imagine that comment as an umbrella--!
Part of not making other people's decisions for them is not foisting help on them that they don't want.
You are correct, that the Buddha gave us the precept to avoid drunkenness. But there is no precept to criticize others for drunkenness, if you catch my drift.
Regarding neotantra...
I've never participated in this (darn it!), so I'm not an expert. From what I understand, I'm inclined to agree with you. I don't feel it's respectable. But I believe in freedom of religion. If consenting adults want to create a sex cult and see what happens, I will not tell them they shouldn't be free to do that. (I will urge them to protect their health.)
It doesn't actually work to promote spiritual growth, and people have regrets? It was a sham and it's therefore exploitative? -- Most religions are a sham of spirituality. Religious institutions are inherently exploitative.
Catholic clergy have been telling people what to do for many hundreds of years, with the threat of hell and the promise of Heaven. Catholics are strongly encouraged to give ten percent of their income, if I understand right. They give it to an institution run by a guy who lives in a palace, in the name of a man who was penniless. This is exploitative.
But, if you have good luck, you might find a Catholic priest who is truly spiritually awake, and who can help you on your path.
That woman who you used to follow, who calls herself a Dakini and the reincarnation of someone important -- looks to me like a real bad apple. Reading the subtext of some of her writing, I think she's not interested in helping her followers spiritually awaken, and if she were interested she wouldn't be qualified.
But as long as they're not hurting children or abducting adults, my opinion doesn't count.
(I can still express it, a'course.)
Buddha bless,
Conrad.
ps - For more info on limerence, check out Wikipedia and read Tennov's book. I have a low regard for the theory; you may think differently on reading her presentation.
I think it would be hard to claim, that states of consciousness, which can arise from psychedelic drug ingestion, cannot give one any insights on reality, after you have read this one.
But of course there's the "he's a liar" or "these insights were not related to psychedelics" argument. (just a hint ^^)
So guess I'll summarize.
I'm not perfect, most people here aren't. I'm not even striving to be perfect, I just want to be a good person and enjoy life. I don't care if I die when I'm 60 or 80 or 100, I just want to enjoy my time here on Earth. Everything is impermanent, everything dies. My brain is going to wither away eventually anyway. Theres no need to be so god damned serious about it. RELAX, HAVE FUN. Its OK! No, really...its OK. You can have a beer. Its fine.
My grandpa died at age 65 because he smoked too many cigarettes. I was very sad about it, it caused me a lot of pain. My grandma is 85 and in a nursing home with Alzheimer's, she doesn't remember any of her family. That is causing me MORE pain than when my grandpa died of lung cancer. Am I angry at my grandpa for smoking cigarettes?? No, I loved him, he cared so much for his family. I don't care if he enjoyed smoking cigarettes, what I care about is...was he a good person?
We're all in this same struggle together, and you can spend your entire life trying to become a perfect person...or you can just relax and enjoy your time here. I'm not saying don't try to improve yourself...everybody should try to be the best person they can be. But seriously, RELAX. Have fun.
Drugs R Bad, MKay?
Moonbeans, I'm not promoting MDMA. My experience has been that while on it and after the effects wearied off, I consciously thought about everything I had experienced and realized the importance of empathy and living in the now, even more so.
I realized how things could be even more beautiful, and that it was all in the mind. So I consciously made a promise to myself to try and mimic that state as much as possible in real life without any drug-aid.
I'm not saying people will gain anything from it. I saw a lot of mindless fools consuming large doses of MDMA in drum'n'bass underground clubs and in trance festivals...and realized they were really not paying attention to the benefit of the experience. They were just taking it to get high.
But when I first tried it certainly wasn't with that intent. In fact I carefully planned it, made sure I was with my best friend, and read all about the possible side effects and repercussions. I took it to learn form the altered state of consciousness and what it had to say about my mental barriers and the world around me.
As for seeing people under the influence....that too was a humbling experience for me. Being quite judgmental of people who take drugs, it took me actually being there to put it under perspective. I still think most people take it for the wrong reason. But then again my view of the general population in most areas of their lives isn't very flattering. The majority of people are dumb. A better word for it might be unwise. I'm certainly wary of extolling any kind of drug to anyone.