Ayahuasca and Buddhism

No holds barred discussion on the Buddhadharma. Argue about rebirth, karma, commentarial interpretations etc. Be nice to each other.

Re: Ayahuasca and Buddhism

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sun Oct 16, 2011 7:32 pm

Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote:Is there anything in experience that is not a hallucination?

I'm not much of a fan of Batchelor but he had one metaphor that I thought was good - practice is like climbing the mountain, psychedelics are like being helicoptered to the summit. Certainly for the long term it doesn't seem like a good idea to rely on the helicopter. But it may give some boost to faith.
Except that after taking you for a brief trip to the summit, they then drop you off at the lowest level of the subteranean cave system which exists below the mountain, rather than at the base of the mountain. Thus one requires to expend twice as much energy just to get to zero again. Then with every subsequent use they drop you even further until in the end you don't even bother trying to reach the summit anymore, you're happy enough to just briefly gaze upon the summit after every hit.
Last edited by Sherab Dorje on Mon Oct 17, 2011 8:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 7960
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Ayahuasca and Buddhism

Postby Acchantika » Sun Oct 16, 2011 8:23 pm

Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote:But it may give some boost to faith.


Right. It may even cause some to actually begin Dharma practice on the basis of their experiences.

gregkavarnos wrote:Except that after taking you for a brief trip to the summit, then then drop you off at the lowest level of the subteranean cave system which exists below the mountain, rather than at the base of the mountain.


Only if you really suck at driving a helicopter.
...
Acchantika
 
Posts: 292
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 5:04 am

Re: Ayahuasca and Buddhism

Postby Karma Dondrup Tashi » Sun Oct 16, 2011 10:16 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:the lowest level of the subteranean cave system which exists below the mountain


Which is also the summit.

Image

Ancient Maya people created handprints on the walls of Handprint Cave in Belize by blowing powdered dye on the wall around their hands.

http://kids.nationalgeographic.com/kids/photos/cave-exploration/#/handprint-cave-959995_14812_600x450.jpg
User avatar
Karma Dondrup Tashi
 
Posts: 1011
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:13 pm

Re: Ayahuasca and Buddhism

Postby Sherab Dorje » Mon Oct 17, 2011 8:15 am

You missed the point, or intentionally refused to see it.

I'm putting my money on the second option.

Right. It may even cause some to actually begin Dharma practice on the basis of their experiences.
Or, more than likely, it will just trap them into the vicious circle of drug use for the sake of experience. And that was my point.
:namaste:

PS You know, you can just admit that you are addicted to the experiences achieved through drug use and are using pseudo-spiritual intellectual window dressings to justify it to yourself and others. Been there, done that!
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 7960
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Ayahuasca and Buddhism

Postby Karma Dondrup Tashi » Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:53 pm

Do you really know anyone who has ever become "addicted" to psychedelics? They are traumatizing and shattering to the ego, not the reverse.
User avatar
Karma Dondrup Tashi
 
Posts: 1011
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:13 pm

Re: Ayahuasca and Buddhism

Postby Malcolm » Mon Oct 17, 2011 1:32 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:
Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote:Is there anything in experience that is not a hallucination?

I'm not much of a fan of Batchelor but he had one metaphor that I thought was good - practice is like climbing the mountain, psychedelics are like being helicoptered to the summit. Certainly for the long term it doesn't seem like a good idea to rely on the helicopter. But it may give some boost to faith.
Except that after taking you for a brief trip to the summit, they then drop you off at the lowest level of the subteranean cave system which exists below the mountain, rather than at the base of the mountain. Thus one requires to expend twice as much energy just to get to zero again. Then with every subsequent use they drop you even further until in the end you don't even bother trying to reach the summit anymore, you're happy enough to just briefly gaze upon the summit after every hit.



According to Garab Dorje, the purpose of using hallucinogens is to the see that the mind is malleable, not a fixed or permanent substance. So, in fact hallucinogens do have a use in Dharma, albeit an extremely limited and narrow one.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10219
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Ayahuasca and Buddhism

Postby Acchantika » Mon Oct 17, 2011 1:36 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:
Right. It may even cause some to actually begin Dharma practice on the basis of their experiences.
Or, more than likely, it will just trap them into the vicious circle of drug use for the sake of experience. And that was my point.
:namaste:


The reason your point may be missed is because you are conflating psychoactives and psychedelics.

Generally, it is very difficult to use most strong psychedelics recreationally. It is not uncommon for people to have very positive experiences with psychedelics but choose never to repeat them due to the severity of the experience. None of these drugs have any kind of physically addictive or harmful potential. Salt, or example, is both more harmful and addictive than DMT, the active ingredient in ayahuasca, which is being produced naturally by your body right now.

You know, you can just admit that you are addicted to the experiences achieved through drug use


I don't use drugs.
...
Acchantika
 
Posts: 292
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 5:04 am

Re: Ayahuasca and Buddhism

Postby Sherab Dorje » Mon Oct 17, 2011 2:09 pm

Let me give you a quick autobiography so you can see that I am not talking shit.

I'm 43 years old this year, that means that during the peak of the acid house scene I was in my early-mid twenties and up to my neck in various ilicit psychedelics. All my friends were dj's, musicians, artists, activists, uni students etc...

Once I finished my BSc (psych and sociology) I had managed to save up enough cash to take a six month trip to Europe (I was in Australia then) during which I detoxed off the more chemically oriented psychedelics.

On my return to Australia I came face to face (and I was relatively sober) with the scene I had left behind. Needless to see it was such a (even more) sobering experience that I decided to go straight edge after that. Soon after I started post-graduate studies in social sciences specialising in drug dependency (my "report" was an analysis of LSD from a psychological, biochemical, historical and social perspective) and then started serious meditation practice and martial arts training.

That was over 15 years ago.

You find it difficult to believe that psychedelics can be addictive? I have seen people addicted to psychedelics, it ain't pretty. They become incapable of handling "real reality" and need to be in "hallucinatory reality" in order to not cope.

You see people utilise the darnedest situations to fortify their ego, situations which seem to be the very basis for the dissolution of ego:
"I am that guy that believes and has experienced that reality is merely perception and the ego is a state of flux", "I am the person with the terminal cancer", "I am the wife of the guy that died a horrible and painful death", "I am a Buddhist"...

Yes, people become addicted to psychedelics. Either by identifying with the (supposedly) ego-shattering experience or by becoming addicted to the experiences.

Frightening but true. Please don't become one of them.
:namaste:
Last edited by Sherab Dorje on Mon Oct 17, 2011 2:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 7960
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Ayahuasca and Buddhism

Postby Sherab Dorje » Mon Oct 17, 2011 2:19 pm

Acchantika wrote:Generally, it is very difficult to use most strong psychedelics recreationally. It is not uncommon for people to have very positive experiences with psychedelics but choose never to repeat them due to the severity of the experience.
This statement is false, this I know from personal experience.

None of these drugs have any kind of physically addictive or harmful potential. Salt, or example, is both more harmful and addictive than DMT, the active ingredient in ayahuasca, which is being produced naturally by your body right now.
This is also untrue (or misguided) any ingested substance, even if it is a substance produced by the body, in doses higher than those naturally existing within the body can be harmful and addictive.

I don't use drugs.
Oh, do you use psychoactive substances? Like the DMT found in Ayahuasca? Coz I tend to lump them all into the category of drugs (like cannabis, opium, hashish, mescal, peyote, jimson weed, mandragora, tobacco, syrian rue, etc...)
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 7960
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Ayahuasca and Buddhism

Postby Karma Dondrup Tashi » Mon Oct 17, 2011 2:53 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:Yes, people become addicted to psychedelics. Either by identifying with the (supposedly) ego-shattering experience or by becoming addicted to the experiences.

Frightening but true. Please don't become one of them.
:namaste:


OK well I certainly can't question your experience or your studies. But my experience with people has been different. I know many people who have become dependent or addicted to drugs. But none of them were addicted to or dependent on LSD, psilocybin, DMT, etc. Certainly the connection between psychedelics and dopamine is proven. But so is the connection between chocolate and dopamine. As you are pointing out any dopaminergic experience is potentially addictive to one degree or another. It just hasn't been my experience that psychedelic substances, when used in proper set and setting, have led to people I know becoming addicted to them. Perhaps we can all agree that the most important part of any psychedelic experience isn't how you come up, it's how you come down.
User avatar
Karma Dondrup Tashi
 
Posts: 1011
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:13 pm

Re: Ayahuasca and Buddhism

Postby Sherab Dorje » Mon Oct 17, 2011 4:01 pm

And the ensuing need to get back up again.
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 7960
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Ayahuasca and Buddhism

Postby Acchantika » Mon Oct 17, 2011 4:33 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:
Acchantika wrote:Generally, it is very difficult to use most strong psychedelics recreationally. It is not uncommon for people to have very positive experiences with psychedelics but choose never to repeat them due to the severity of the experience.
This statement is false, this I know from personal experience.


DMT and Salvia Divinorum, say, prevent users from talking or moving at standard doses. They also last, on average, about 7 minutes. This would eliminate most definitions of "recreational". Even a "heavy" user of such drugs generally use them once or twice a month, if that.

Many psychedelics, including LSD, create an instant albeit temporary tolerance in the user that can last for several days; meaning in order to actually gain an effect it is necessary to take a break of days between trips. For Salvia and DMT, this tolerance is immediate, making repeated dosage without a gap of several hours impossible. This mechanism effectively eliminates the possibility of abuse or "recreational" use.

Hence, it is "very difficult", but not impossible.

None of these drugs have any kind of physically addictive or harmful potential. Salt, or example, is both more harmful and addictive than DMT, the active ingredient in ayahuasca, which is being produced naturally by your body right now.
This is also untrue (or misguided) any ingested substance, even if it is a substance produced by the body, in doses higher than those naturally existing within the body can be harmful and addictive.


Image

For a reference point, this would mean you need to take 17 kilograms of psilocybin mushrooms to actually approach the lethal dose. That is the weight of a small child, or, based on its street value here in the UK, about £14, 4500 (about $22, 000) worth of fresh mushrooms.

You are right that anything can be abused, I completely agree. I am not denying this in any way.

However, this does not necessarily reflect the entity being abused. Whatever the result of your own sociological studies they are unlikely to blunt the pharmacological and neurochemical conclusion that, physiologically, these substances have a lethal dose and physically dependecy quotient that is effectively nil.

I don't use drugs.
Oh, do you use psychoactive substances? Like the DMT found in Ayahuasca? Coz I tend to lump them all into the category of drugs (like cannabis, opium, hashish, mescal, peyote, jimson weed, mandragora, tobacco, syrian rue, etc...)
:namaste:


No, except caffeine. However, that doesn't mean that, at one point, I have not done extensive "field research" in what I am talking about. :quoteunquote: Moreover, I have personally lost friends to drugs more than once; I have no naïvité about the real, life-shattering effects of drugs, including psychedelics.

However, putting things like psychedelics in the same class as heroin and attributing to them the same problems is not justified, and I fear that it is an attitude that will demonise those who look to things like Buddhism in the hopes to integrate their experiences with such substances. Especially if, as some seem to claim, Dr. Stace's verdict on psychedelic experience is correct that, "It is not a matter of its being similar to mystical experience; it is mystical experience."
...
Acchantika
 
Posts: 292
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 5:04 am

Re: Ayahuasca and Buddhism

Postby Karma Dondrup Tashi » Mon Oct 17, 2011 4:41 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:Coz I tend to lump them all into the category of drugs (like cannabis ...

See this is where we are parting ways I think. Not every "psychedelic" or "psychoactive" drug is the same as every other.

Hashish is like floating around in a swimming pool. Psilocybin is like flying a 1920s Sopwith Camel. LSD is like flying an F-16 fighter jet. DMT is like being strapped via duct tape to the outside of the space shuttle during launch. So I have heard at any rate.

They are all, if treated without respect, and if the instruction manual is not read, very, very dangerous. But I think the primary danger is an unaware, unprepared, immature, unhealthy or already-damaged mind, placed in a set and setting which is inappropriate.

This is just one of the things we can learn from so-called "primitive" cultures, which incorporated their sacraments into their society via rites of initiation, ritual, etc.

What does our society offer in this regard? Pretty much just the wild west.

And why? Because western culture remains a culture of statist domination which wants to control every single aspect of your mind and heart. This is why I truly believe that it is not drugs like cocaine that the state is most afraid of. Hell the feds are knee deep themselves these days controlling where the coke goes. It's basically a form of population control.





http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_18608410
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/bill-conroy/2011/04/mexican-narco-trafficker-s-revelation-exposes-drug-war-s-duplicity
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/131207_b_cocaine.htm
http://www.madcowprod.com/05112006.html
http://www.madcowprod.com/07062011.htm

I believe the state is most afraid of drugs like LSD. Because a psychedelic experience demonstrates that any attempt at authoritarian control whether originating from the state or the ego is just meaningless, empty, laughable, hypocritical, venial, etc. This is what makes it such a potent deprogramming experience, and therefore so dangerous. This is why, for example, the state tried to weaponize it.

http://history.howstuffworks.com/american-history/cia-lsd.htm












What Did the C.I.A. Do to Eric Olson's Father?

By MICHAEL IGNATIEFF
New York Times/April 1, 2001

...

If Eric is right, slipping LSD into Olson's Cointreau was not an experiment that went wrong: it was designed to get him to talk while hallucinating. The trip to New York was not to manage and contain his incipient psychosis. It was intended to assess what kind of risk he posed and then eliminate him if necessary. Housing a possibly deranged and desperate man in a hotel room high above Seventh Avenue was not a regrettable error of judgment. It was the prelude to murder. If Frank Olson had realized this, his son could now read his father's last words ("Just let me disappear") as a cry for help.

In 1997, after the C.I.A. inadvertently declassified an assassination manual dating from late 1953, Eric Olson was able to read the following: "The most efficient accident, in simple assassination, is a fall of 75 feet or more onto a hard surface. Elevator shafts, stairwells, unscreened windows and bridges will serve. . . . The act may be executed by sudden, vigorous [excised] of the ankles, tipping the subject over the edge." The manual went on to recommend a blow to the temple to stun the subject first: "In chase cases it will usually be necessary to stun or drug the subject before dropping him."

Reading this passage at the kitchen table in Frederick, Eric realized that the word he had been looking for all his life was not "fallen" or "jumped" but "dropped." It was, he recalled, one of the few moments when, after nearly 50 years, he actually experienced his father's death, when the truth he had been seeking finally took hold of him.

In allowing the Olson family to receive the ultimate sacrament of American healing -- a formal apology from the president in the Oval Office -- the C.I.A. tacitly acknowledged that it had committed a sin against the order that holds citizens in allegiance to their government. Now, it seemed to Eric Olson, that apology had been a cynical lie. It enabled the C.I.A. to hide, forever, a perfect murder.

...

It takes me a while after I leave Eric to grasp one salient fact that may make resolution difficult. For seven years, his father's bones have lain in a filing cabinet in James Starrs's office. Only the bones -- and not all of them -- remain intact. To get at the truth of what happened to Frank Olson, the pathologists had to rip the skin off his limbs and tear his body apart, macerate it and send it in chunks to various labs for analysis. In the search for truth, Eric had to tear his father's body limb from limb.

The fact is, it will never be possible to bury all of Frank Olson again. Now I understand why, when I asked Eric what he had learned from his 25-year ordeal, he told me that no one should ever dig up his father's body. Now I know why my friend's wild laugh is so full of pain.

Michael Ignatieff is the director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/01/magazine/01OLSON.html?pagewanted=all
User avatar
Karma Dondrup Tashi
 
Posts: 1011
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:13 pm

Re: Ayahuasca and Buddhism

Postby Sherab Dorje » Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:38 pm

Acchantika wrote:For a reference point, this would mean you need to take 17 kilograms of psilocybin mushrooms to actually approach the lethal dose. That is the weight of a small child, or, based on its street value here in the UK, about £14, 4500 (about $22, 000) worth of fresh mushrooms.
Wht are you equating damage with lethality? What about non-lethal neural and genetic damage? What about psychological trauma? Memory loss? Social problems? etc...

What about one instance where I saw a guy (on LSD) jump into a bonfire because he thought that he was somehow immune to being burnt? Another guy I know (on Datura) jumped into the sea because he saw his friend in the water calling him? etc... Doesn't this make the ingestion of psychoactive substances dangerous?

How many people do you know that have done this sort of shit as a consequence of meditative experiences? How many of your friends have died as a consequence of meditative experiences? Gone insane?

... and physically dependecy quotient that is effectively nil.
I didn't say anything about physical dependency. But it seems you consider it more important than psychological or social dependency... as a drug and alcohol counsellor I can assure you that it is not.

However, putting things like psychedelics in the same class as heroin and attributing to them the same problems is not justified, and I fear that it is an attitude that will demonise those who look to things like Buddhism in the hopes to integrate their experiences with such substances.
Gimme a break! These substances are drugs, okay they can't kill you stone dead in one hit like heroin but... cf above. According to your logic I would not level criticism towards the actions of a rapist because they are trying to intergrate... Psychedelics and psychoactives are obstacles to enlightenment not aids. They may be aids with correct guidance but if I want to get correct guidance re meditative experiences I will ask for meditative practices from a lama not psychoactives/psychedelics from a drug dealer.

Dr. Stace's verdict on psychedelic experience is correct that, "It is not a matter of its being similar to mystical experience; it is mystical experience."
Sorry dude, but from my extensive intellectual and personal experience Dr. Stace is full of shit. There are no short cuts to true meditative experience.
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 7960
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Ayahuasca and Buddhism

Postby Sherab Dorje » Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:47 pm

Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote:They are all, if treated without respect, and if the instruction manual is not read, very, very dangerous. But I think the primary danger is an unaware, unprepared, immature, unhealthy or already-damaged mind, placed in a set and setting which is inappropriate.
Whereas a nice session of shine followed by some praises to Amitabha and his mantra pose no threat whatsoever and are guaranteed to lead you in the right direction. Avoid drugs!

You can come up with a tonne of libertarian claims about why drugs are good for you and society, hell I've used them myself a million times. Looking back on it though I would say that my words were hollow and basically a defense of my ignorant inclinations towards escapist fantasy. You wanna learn from my mistakes or you wanna reinvent the square wheel? :tongue:
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 7960
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Ayahuasca and Buddhism

Postby Karma Dondrup Tashi » Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:50 pm

Well I appreciate the offer but I have enough of my own mistakes to learn from.

As for sqaure wheels they are not necessarily as impractical as you think:

Image

They had a bicycle like this at a science museum near me, the ride was quite smooth. Now all they have to do is replace all the roads and we're all set.
Last edited by Karma Dondrup Tashi on Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Karma Dondrup Tashi
 
Posts: 1011
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:13 pm

Re: Ayahuasca and Buddhism

Postby Sherab Dorje » Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:51 pm

:applause:
Well then good luck chasing your tail my friend!
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 7960
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Ayahuasca and Buddhism

Postby Acchantika » Mon Oct 17, 2011 8:56 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:Wht are you equating damage with lethality?


The LD50 is the standard way of assessing the toxicity of any drug.

What about non-lethal neural and genetic damage?


    "From our own work and from a review of the literature, we believe that pure LSD ingested in moderate doses does not damage chromosones in vivo, does not cause detectable genetic damage, and is not a tetrogen or a carcinogen in man."

~ LSD and Genetic Damage, 1971. Dishotsky et al.

    "The available data suggest that pure LSD does not cause chromosomal abnormalities, spontaneous abortions, or congenital malformations."

~ Drugs in Pregnancy and Lactation, 2008. Briggs et al.

What about psychological trauma?


Teaching tantra or Madhyamaka to the uninitiated can result in psychological trauma. So can watching The Exorcist. Psychology is fragile.

Memory loss? Social problems? etc...


Both of these are incredibly weak claims, obviously not true in all cases (in today's world taking all sorts of drugs clearly improves sociability in many cases, whether MDMA on a night out or caffeine and nicotine in the workplace).

Memory loss is mainly, perhaps only, directly liked to cannabis - which also has beneficial implications in the treatment of chronic pain, OCD, Tourettes, glaucoma, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, naseau, asthma, epilepsy, depression, anxiety, addiction withdrawal, post-polio syndrome, Alzheimers etc.

Is this a good trade?

What about one instance where I saw a guy (on LSD) jump into a bonfire because he thought that he was somehow immune to being burnt?


It probably wasn't LSD. At the very least, it probably wasn't solely LSD. Mixing up prescriptions can kill you, there is no reason why mixing other drugs wouldn't.

People don't actually think they can fly, turn into a glass of orange juice etc. Part of the medical definition of a psychedelic and hallucinogenic drug is that they leave the intellect mostly in tact, or occasionally increased in capacity. This is the case with classical psychedelics, like LSD etc., and their analogues.

Datura, Ketamine, GBH, PCP, Ibogaine and similar are deliriants and/or dissociatives, not psychedelics proper. Unlike pure psychedelics, they produce "true" hallucinations, that is, fantasies indistinguishable from reality, with only some (or none) of the reputed effects of classic psychedelics.

So if your man was tripping, it was almost certainly on one of these.

Doesn't this make the ingestion of psychoactive substances dangerous?


Anything is dangerous to the unitiated and unprepared.

Again, I am not talking about all psychoactives, such as cocaine and PCP, which are not psychedelics (but narcotics and dissassociatives, respectively).

Obviously, ingesting a load of crack will be dangerous. However, frankly, unless some prior condition is relevant such as schizophrenia, ingesting most psychedelics will not be, since these substances are not just non-toxic, but utterly non-toxic.

How many people do you know that have done this sort of shit as a consequence of meditative experiences?


Image

How many of your friends have died as a consequence of meditative experiences? Gone insane?


Meditation isn't all peace and love you know.

I am sure you know that correlation does not equal causation.

Considering that there has never been a single reported instance of someone dying as a direct result of, say, LSD or DMT, nor has there been a single reported case of psychosis in an individual who was indisputedly not already genetically or historically predisposed to mental illness, there is absolutely no basis for these kinds of claims.

Certainly, if you are suicidal or depressed, you should not do drugs.

I didn't say anything about physical dependency. But it seems you consider it more important than psychological or social dependency


Being psychologically addicted to plastic surgery, or shopping, or video games is not the same as being physically addicted to heroin or methamphetamine. People don't sell their bodies on the streets so that they can buy the next Call of Duty or whatever.

The key difference is that psychological addiction is always symptomatic of something else. Whereas physical addiction is not necessarily.

According to your logic I would not level criticism towards the actions of a rapist because they are trying to intergrate...


Is the analogy comparing psychedelic users to rapists one often used in counseling?

A better analogy to this logic would be assuming a rapist commited a rape because he has a mustache. People kill themselves and go crazy and so on all the time. Sometimes they used psychedelics, and sometimes it contributed indirectly, but never is it the singular cause.

They may be aids with correct guidance but if I want to get correct guidance re meditative experiences I will ask for meditative practices from a lama not psychoactives/psychedelics from a drug dealer.


Fair enough, but that doesn't mean we should demonise or stereotype those who do.

Naturally, both the curious and the thorough will examine all options in their search for truth. Not everyone is capable of faith without direct experience, and whether we like it or not, whether we condone it or not, that is what some of these substances do. Guns can kill people, I don't like that they do this, but they do. Some psychedelics, under the right conditions, can induce a state of mind which is -the- ideal state of mind, and what Buddha actually means, what every religion has a word for, albeit temporarily. You may not like this, I am perplexed by it, but neither your approval nor my credulity actually changes the fact that this is what they do, according to everyone who has ever studied them directly and properly in either a subjective or objective setting.

"It is not a matter of its being similar to mystical experience; it is mystical experience."
Sorry dude, but from my extensive intellectual and personal experience Dr. Stace is full of shit.


That would be Walter Terence Stace, Professor Emeritus of Princeton University, world renowned religious and moral philosopher, educator etc.

Note that your extensive intellectual and personal experience is based on not actually taking any of these substances yourself.

How much authority do you think such an opinion should hold?
...
Acchantika
 
Posts: 292
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 5:04 am

Re: Ayahuasca and Buddhism

Postby deff » Mon Oct 17, 2011 9:21 pm

:good:
deff
 
Posts: 142
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:23 pm

Re: Ayahuasca and Buddhism

Postby Acchantika » Mon Oct 17, 2011 9:21 pm

Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote:I believe the state is most afraid of drugs like LSD. Because a psychedelic experience demonstrates that any attempt at authoritarian control whether originating from the state or the ego is just meaningless, empty, laughable, hypocritical, venial, etc. This is what makes it such a potent deprogramming experience, and therefore so dangerous. This is why, for example, the state tried to weaponize it.


Between the first reports of teenagers and the intelligensia experimenting with LSD in the mid 1950s, which introduced the drug to the masses, and its eventual banning in 1965, was a period of about nine years.

In those nine years, we had the women's liberation movement, the racial equality movement, the sexual liberation movement coupled with the single biggest anti-establisment, anti-conservative and anti-capitalist pro-environmentalist cultural revolution in Western history, with reverberations in every aspect of the music, film, literature and art of the time, co-emergent with a renewed interest in Eastern spirituality, the result of which may be indirectly or even directly responsible for why most Westerners, on this site and elsewhere, are now involved with Buddhism.

If I was the state, I'd be afraid too.
...
Acchantika
 
Posts: 292
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 5:04 am

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alfredo, rory, Sherlock, supermaxv and 7 guests

>