Has anyone here ever experienced an enlightenment?

[hypnagogue]

Thanks for the input Les. I must admit with regret that I never managed to get myself into a routine since those posts months back, although recently I'm coming back to it (quite apart from the revitalization of this thread, which is a bit strange). Even with my limited attempts I get fleeting glances at something very nice, but I tend to have poor self discipline-- I get caught up intellectually and emotionally in just the first stages of the change in consciousness, preventing me from getting very far from baseline. Even with this, though, I definitely see the potential to get back to places I've been in the past, which is quite encouraging.

There are very specific techniques for turning inward and finding what it is that one is to merge with.

Would you mind expounding on that a bit? I'm familiar with several techniques (I'm currently trying out an 'embodiment' method endorsed by Charles Tart where you focus awareness in the body as well as in visual and auditory modalities while going about 'everyday' business, which shows some promise)-- but I'd like to hear about your own methods and experiences for any further insight you might be able to provide.

 

[loseyourname]

Biological evolution requires that because it is the means for physical adjustment of the chemical body to the environment. It seems you are assuming consciousness is physical, which I do not.

All I said was that in order to qualify as any kind of evolution, it must be heritable. If Jesus had a son, would he display the same enlightenment? If so, how?

 

[Les Sleeth]

All I said was that in order to qualify as any kind of evolution, it must be heritable. If Jesus had a son, would he display the same enlightenment? If so, how?

Who determines the rules for what qualifies as evolution? Are you saying Darwinists have exclusive rights to the word and concept of "evolution"? Remember, this is the philosophy area, and I am allowed to speculate about the cause of biological evolution. If I were posting in the biology area, I would speak about evolution in that context. Here I am suggesting a metaphysical cause of the physical phenomenon of genetic-based evolution in biology. It is ridiculous to insist I limit myself to biological definitions here.

And if Jesus had a son, it is equally ridiculous to ask if he would display the same enlightenment. It seems you ignored the content of my posts because I made it quite clear enlightenment is attained through effort and not genetics, even if one might have a predisposition towards that end.

You know, just for fun you might leave the context of your own views and consider something new.

 

[loseyourname]

Relax, sleeth. You act like I'm opposed to your speculation. I could care less about your speculation. If you are going to use a term that already has a well-defined meaning, but change its meaning for your purposes, it would be courteous of you to say so at the outset.

You've clarified your view fully now. Thank you. That's all I wanted.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Relax, sleeth. You act like I'm opposed to your speculation. I could care less about your speculation. If you are going to use a term that already has a well-defined meaning, but change its meaning for your purposes, it would be courteous of you to say so at the outset.

You've clarified your view fully now. Thank you. That's all I wanted.

Sorry, I came here this morning to edit out my ire. Hey, I've been pretty good for a couple of months now, I thought it was time to be a brat.

However, don't you think you were being a bit of a brat too? I admit my first mention of evolution was ambiguous because I have it linked to biology, and I didn't make it clear I was talking about consciousness evolving itself apart from genetics. But the two subsequent posts explained the somewhat creative way I was using the word. Yet even though I made it clear what I was talking about, you went on to say". . . to qualify as any kind of evolution, it must be heritable." So it seems either you were being obtuse or you were harassing me.

As far as evolution being "a term that already has a well-defined meaning" and me "[changing] its meaning for [my] purposes," I refer you to Websters Unabridged where its etymology reveals its derivation from a Latin word for unrolling, and where meaning #1a is "a series of related changes in a certain direction: process of change: organic development: UNFOLDING, MOVEMENT, TRANSFORMATION."

1b "is a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse condition to a higher more complex or better state."

2 is "one of a set of prescribed movements or motions."

3 is "the process of working out or developing."

4 is "math the extraction of roots."

Not until 5b do we find Darwinist evolution given as a definition, so my use of evolution was well within its accepted definition.

 

[loseyourname]

Okay, I think I get what you're saying now. If consciousness was purely an individual phenomenon, it would still need to be heritable for it to evolve (I don't think you are speaking of individuals evolving during the course of their lifetimes). However, you seem to be saying that consciousness is not just an individual phenomenon, and that the individual consciousness we experience is really just our brains tapping into a larger, unified force, and it is this force that evolves independently from the human species.

Still, though, wouldn't the brain need to coevolve into something capable of comprehending this evolving force? Or do you think our brains are ahead of the game in that regard? In other words, are we already capable of utilizing the full capabilities of this force that we tap into, as well as capabilities it may evolve in the near future?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Still, though, wouldn't the brain need to coevolve into something capable of comprehending this evolving force? Or do you think our brains are ahead of the game in that regard? In other words, are we already capable of utilizing the full capabilities of this force that we tap into, as well as capabilities it may evolve in the near future?

Well, my studies have indicated people have been experiencing "enlightenment" for some time. I doubt if anyone was able to examine the Buddha's or Jesus' brain, but I suspect even if they did we'd find nothing very distinctive about them. So if I were to speculate, I'd say we have all the brain power we need to experience it, but comprehending it might require a much bigger brain.

 

[Evo]

I can't help but wonder if "enlightenment" is not just a form of self induced hypnotism. If you want something to happen and you practice at having it happen, perhaps it is nothing more than auto-suggestion.

"Autosuggestion is the process by which an individual trains their subconscious mind to believe something. This is accomplished through self-hypnosis methods or repetitive, constant self-affirmations, and may be seen as a form of self-induced brainwashing. The acceptance of autosuggestions may be quickened through mental visualization of that which the individual would like to believe. Its successfulness is typically correlated to the consistency of its use and the length of time over which its used."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-suggestion

Unless people can spontaneously achieve enlightenment without "training" for it, I don't see where it is anything but autosuggestion.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for people doing this if it helps them feel better, but I have to admit I am skeptical about the conclusions people have drawn as to what they think they have "tapped into".

 

[Les Sleeth]

I can't help but wonder if "enlightenment" is not just a form of self induced hypnotism. If you want something to happen and you practice at having it happen, perhaps it is nothing more than auto-suggestion.

"Autosuggestion is the process by which an individual trains their subconscious mind to believe something. This is accomplished through self-hypnosis methods or repetitive, constant self-affirmations, and may be seen as a form of self-induced brainwashing. The acceptance of autosuggestions may be quickened through mental visualization of that which the individual would like to believe. Its successfulness is typically correlated to the consistency of its use and the length of time over which its used."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-suggestion

Unless people can spontaneously achieve enlightenment without "training" for it, I don't see where it is anything but autosuggestion.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for people doing this if it helps them feel better, but I have to admit I am skeptical about the conclusions people have drawn as to what they think they have "tapped into".

Most of what you've said is incorrect, especially, "Unless people can spontaneously achieve enlightenment without 'training' for it, I don't see where it is anything but autosuggestion." The practice which leads to enlightenment, samadhi, is precisely the opposite of what auto-suggestion is.

You might consider studying the history of a subject before you advance theories about it. I've always found it strange that skeptics about inner stuff are so careless in their education of the subject. I've debated skeptics extensively here, and I've yet to find one of them who knows much about what they are criticizing.

 

[Evo]

I've always found it strange that skeptics about inner stuff are so careless in their education of the subject. I've debated skeptics extensively here, and I've yet to find one of them who knows much about what they are criticizing.

I'm not criticizing, I am merely suggesting that there is another very possible explanation. I've read enough and spoken to enough people about the subject to conclude that this is the most likely explanation, IMHO. Have you never wondered about this?

I'm just looking at this objectively from a purely logical standpoint. It has been demonstrated that if you want to achieve a certain frame of mind, there are a number of ways to achieve it. It doesn't matter if it is through meditation, clearing the mind of all thought, focusing on something specific, etc... because you already know what you want to achieve, so with enough time devoted to it, you may. But it is a frame of mind you created knowingly or unknowingly.

I'm not saying that you are wrong, so it is not fair for you to say that I am wrong. My belief is just as valid as yours.

More from Wikipedia on autosuggestion:

"The same effect that autosuggestion achieves may be seen also in individuals not consciously trying to program themselves through autosuggestion. The dominant thoughts of a person which occupy their conscious mind, if constantly present over an extended period of time, may be training that person's subconscious mind to believe what that individual cognitively is thinking."

 

[hypnagogue]

Unless people can spontaneously achieve enlightenment without "training" for it, I don't see where it is anything but autosuggestion.

Spiritual experiences can and sometimes do happen spontaneously, for no apparent reason. See for example The Archive of Scientists' Transcendent Experiences.

 

[Evo]

Spiritual experiences can and sometimes do happen spontaneously, for no apparent reason. See for example The Archive of Scientists' Transcendent Experiences.

Thanks Hypnagogue, I will look into it.

I guess I will have to buy the book, it's not online.

Yes, people have reported spiritual and/or psychic experiences spontaneously, but I was thinking more of the overall state of "enlightenment" a feeling of reaching a higher conciousness, the feeling of "being one with all things", etc... This state of mind seems to be the result of a long term regimen of discipline where the goal is to reach a higher plane of understanding. What I'm curious about is just how much of the effect of enlightenment could actually be caused by the process itself becoming ingrained on the person's subconcious. Surely it must be a factor?

Of course people claim they can reach this higher consciousness by taking drugs or drilling holes in their heads, but that's another discussion.

And Les, I am not saying what you experience isn't real, I'm just looking at how the process could affect the outcome.

 

[hypnagogue]

I guess I will have to buy the book, it's not online.

You can click the words on the banner at the top of the page. Specifically you should check out the archive of submissions located at http://www.issc-taste.org/arc/dbo.cgi?set=arc&ss=1

Yes, people have reported spiritual and/or psychic experiences spontaneously, but I was thinking more of the overall state of "enlightenment" a feeling of reaching a higher conciousness, the feeling of "being one with all things", etc... This state of mind seems to be the result of a long term regimen of discipline where the goal is to reach a higher plane of understanding. What I'm curious about is just how much of the effect of enlightenment could actually be caused by the process itself becoming ingrained on the person's subconcious. Surely it must be a factor?

As I understand enlightenment, it's a certain kind of advanced spiritual experience that endures for a long period of time, if not indefinitely. (By advanced, I mean that the differences evident between any arbitrary spiritual experience and normal waking consciousness forms a sort of continuum of quality and intensity, with enlightenment presumably being at or near the far end of the spectrum.)

The thing is, spiritual experiences are not just a general cognitive / psychological mindset. They are a distinct form of experiential consciousness to begin with, as distinct as dreaming consciousness is from normal waking consciousness. It's one thing to have an intellectual concept of being one with all things, and quite another to viscerally feel it and literally see the world through that lens. (It should also be pointed out that words are just a rough approximation to the actual experience; 'oneness' is one way to describe the experience, but there's really a whole lot going on subtlely in the background that can't be comprehensively communicated with just words.)

Would any amount of auto-suggestion be sufficient for you to really experience waking life exactly how you experience dreams? Or, perhaps more to the point, would you ever be able to auto-suggest yourself into perpetual dreaming consciousness if you had never experienced any dreams yourself to begin with, and only had the descriptions of others to go by? Suppose Bob, who has never dreamed, auto-suggests himself into believing that he is experiencing dreaming consciousness. He see things as pretty disjointed and random, and so on, more or less in correspondance with the descriptions he has read of what it is like to dream. Now suppose that Bob eventually does have a fairly vivid dream that he remembers well. My guess is that at this point, Bob would realize that the state he had auto-suggested himself into was really not quite like this. He would be able to discern many differences between the two experiences. And I imagine the same would happen if you replace 'spiritual experience' for 'dreams.'

Of course people claim they can reach this higher consciousness by taking drugs or drilling holes in their heads, but that's another discussion.

I don't know about drilling holes in the head, but certain drugs really can activate spiritual experiences. For example, if you hadn't read it, you might be interested in http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/lsd/doors.htm by Aldous Huxley. Huxley is a fantastic writer and he gets the point across very well, or at least as well as it can be put across. Skimming through it just now I found an excerpt that is suggestive of what I'm trying to say, although I could substitute any number of others:

I took my pill at eleven. An hour and a half later, I was sitting in my study, looking intently at a small glass vase. The vase contained only three flowers-a full-blown Belie of Portugal rose, shell pink with a hint at every petal's base of a hotter, flamier hue; a large magenta and cream-colored carnation; and, pale purple at the end of its broken stalk, the bold heraldic blossom of an iris. Fortuitous and provisional, the little nosegay broke all the rules of traditional good taste. At breakfast that morning I had been struck by the lively dissonance of its colors. But that was no longer the point. I was not looking now at an unusual flower arrangement. I was seeing what Adam had seen on the morning of his creation-the miracle, moment by moment, of naked existence.

"Is it agreeable?" somebody asked. (During this Part of the experiment, all conversations were recorded on a dictating machine, and it has been possible for me to refresh my memory of what was said.)

"Neither agreeable nor disagreeable," I answered. "it just is."

Istigkeit—wasn't that the word Meister Eckhart liked to use? "Is-ness." The Being of Platonic philosophy— except that Plato seems to have made the enormous, the grotesque mistake of separating Being from becoming and identifying it with the mathematical abstraction of the Idea. He could never, poor fellow, have seen a bunch of flowers shining with their own inner light and all but quivering under the pressure of the significance with which they were charged; could never have perceived that what rose and iris and carnation so intensely signified was nothing more, and nothing less, than what they were—a transcience that was yet eternal life, a perpetual perishing that was at the same time pure Being, a bundle of minute, unique particulars in which, by some unspeakable and yet self-evident paradox, was to be seen the divine source of all existence.

I continued to look at the flowers, and in their living light I seemed to detect the qualitative equivalent of breathing—but of a breathing without returns to a starting point, with no recurrent ebbs but only a repeated flow from beauty to heightened beauty, from deeper to ever deeper meaning. Words like "grace" and "transfiguration" came to my mind, and this, of course, was what, among other things, they stood for. My eyes traveled from the rose to the carnation, and from that feathery incandescence to the smooth scrolls of sentient amethyst which were the iris. The Beatific Vision, Sat Chit Ananda, Being-Awareness-Bliss-for the first time I understood, not on the verbal level, not by inchoate hints or at a distance, but precisely and completely what those prodigious syllables referred to. And then I remembered a passage I had read in one of Suzuki's essays. "What is the Dharma-Body of the Buddha?" ('"the Dharma-Body of the Buddha" is another way of saying Mind, Suchness, the Void, the Godhead.) The question is asked in a Zen monastery by an earnest and bewildered novice. And with the prompt irrelevance of one of the Marx Brothers, the Master answers, "The hedge at the bottom of the garden." "And the man who realizes this truth," the novice dubiously inquires, '"what, may I ask, is he?" Groucho gives him a whack over the shoulders with his staff and answers, "A golden-haired lion."

It had been, when I read it, only a vaguely pregnant piece of nonsense. Now it was all as clear as day, as evident as Euclid. Of course the Dharma-Body of the Buddha was the hedge at the bottom of the garden. At the same time, and no less obviously, it was these flowers, it was anything that I—or rather the blessed Not-I, released for a moment from my throttling embrace—cared to look at. The books, for example, with which my study walls were lined. Like the flowers, they glowed, when I looked at them, with brighter colors, a profounder significance. Red books, like rubies; emerald books; books bound in white jade; books of agate; of aquamarine, of yellow topaz; lapis lazuli books whose color was so intense, so intrinsically meaningful, that they seemed to be on the point of leaving the shelves to thrust themselves more insistently on my attention.

The mere fact that this radical transformation of consciousness is possible just by chemical means, I think, suggests that this is something beyond just a 'surface level' psychological effect.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I'm not criticizing, I am merely suggesting that there is another very possible explanation. I've read enough and spoken to enough people about the subject to conclude that this is the most likely explanation, IMHO. Have you never wondered about this?

First, let me apologize for any harshness in my previous answer. It's just that I've heard so much uninformed skepticsm my tolerance for it is low. See, the problem is you really don't know what you are talking about even though you say you've studied enlightenment enough to "conclude that [autosuggestion] is the most likely explanation." I will explain why I believe this by the time I complete this post.

However, I do not claim to be enlightened, which as Hypnagogue pointed out, is considered the permanent attainment of "oneness." I have however devoted 30 years of my life working toward it, practicing oneness through the inner techniques of union/samadhi daily (I"ve also studied the history of the phenomenon extensively). When I first started practicing many years ago, I only achieved full union a few times a year. For the last ten years I've become quite able at achieving union, and usually can reach it in less than half an hour. The full experience doesn't last very long, but the after effect is well worth the work because one does stay partially merged. I am preparing a thread which models consciousness using what I've learned from union. The quote below is from that thread material and describes what union is:

"Imagine a pickup truck, whose bed is waterproof, filled with water and speeding along on an old, bumpy country road. The water in the truck is in a constant state of movement, vibrating, sloshing about, bouncing up into the air, etc. so that when the driver observes it, all he sees is the moving-ness of the water surface. If that’s the only way he’d ever perceived water (a silly concept of course), then he might be surprised to see how that water exists when he brings his truck to a stop. What he would observe is that all the water formerly in movement, and appearing distinct from its base pool, now reunites with its source. In that condition, all the vibration and jets of water that had been flying up in the air merged to become one thing.
That analogy is similar to union, where the actions of the mind are allowed to return to a 'foundation' out of which they arose in the first place. To achieve the stillness of union, it isn’t that one actually stops, calms or empties anything (that would be the mind trying to still itself, an impossibility); but rather, one learns how to recognize the 'feel' of the foundation, and feels that enough to where it starts to predominate as an influence in consciousness (I mean during practice). When one feels it start to prevail, one can then practice how to 'let go' to it (a skill that normally takes years of practice), and when successful one will be absorbed back into that foundation (usually for anywhere from a few seconds up to a few minutes). With enough time spent in that 'ground state' one eventually acquires a strong sense of what the basis of consciousness is, which is utterly impossible to see while one’s 'pool' is stirred up by mentality, conditioning, strong sense stimulation, emotions . . . "

I'm just looking at this objectively from a purely logical standpoint.

There is no logical, objective standpoint from which you can observe enlightenment, it is 100% subjective. Even if you meet someone who is truly enlightenend, you have to feel them to detect the enlightenment.

It has been demonstrated that if you want to achieve a certain frame of mind, there are a number of ways to achieve it. It doesn't matter if it is through meditation, clearing the mind of all thought, focusing on something specific, etc... because you already know what you want to achieve, so with enough time devoted to it, you may. But it is a frame of mind you created knowingly or unknowingly.

If you can accept that enlightenment is permanent union, then first problem with your belief is that what one is after in enlightenment is not a "frame of mind." I agree that plenty of people striving for enlightenment have a frame of mind, and that they actually believe the enlightened frame of mind is enlightenment. In my opinion, there is nothing interfering more today with people communicating about the possibility of enlightenment than such enlightened frame of minds. They go around setting themselves up as experts willing to teach the naive, and spreading much misinformation. Then when intelligent people hear this and recognize them for spiritual egoists they are, they classify all spiritual pursuits as that sort of nonsense. Grrrrrrrrrrrrr

I'm not saying that you are wrong, so it is not fair for you to say that I am wrong. My belief is just as valid as yours.

Well, I don't see how. You are speculating, I am speaking from experience.

More from Wikipedia on autosuggestion:

"The same effect that autosuggestion achieves may be seen also in individuals not consciously trying to program themselves through autosuggestion. The dominant thoughts of a person which occupy their conscious mind, if constantly present over an extended period of time, may be training that person's subconscious mind to believe what that individual cognitively is thinking."

I understand what you mean by autosuggestion, but that is how one achives a "frame of mind." You have to understand that enlightenment is actually the opposite of a frame of mind. "Mind," if we rely on my analogy above, would be that water which is sloshing around and bouncing up from the pool. Enlightenment is the experience of the still pool. Autosuggestion, as your quote says, is dependent on related and continuous thoughts over time which comes to give mind a mental orientation. But an aspect of union is the absense of thought altogether, so if someone is really practicing it (i.e., and not just "thinking" they are), then there is no possibility for autosuggestion in true enlightenment. As I've admitted, people who are practicing union with the hope of realizing enlightenment usually do have some kind of "enlightened mind" because they think about it. All I am referring to now however is the genuinely enlightened person and also the genuine path to enlightenment (union), and I say the only thing autosuggestion will do is get in the way.

Of course people claim they can reach this higher consciousness by taking drugs . . . but that's another discussion.

I no longer use psychotropic substances myself, and in good conscience I cannot recommend it because of the dangers and lack of wise supervision (plus it's illegal). Back when I was first getting interested in the potential of introspection, I was inspired by Carlos Castaneda's books to try peyote (if you've not read him I highly recommend "Journey to Ixtlan"). A small group of us kept the focus sort of spiritual, so I almost always treated the occasions of using peyote or mushrooms with reverence. That day when I met someone who was experiencing union without drugs, I immediately recognized it as the same experience the drug gave (except a lot more mellow).

The one huge disappointment in doing the drugs was that even though when high on them you feel like you will never lose that experience, every time you do. I so wanted to learn how to have the experience and keep it, so that is why I undertook union meditation. Today I can report in all sincerity it is very possible to naturally achieve what the drug gives, and a lot more.

If you are interested in investigating the history of this you might start out with Evelyn Underhill's classic study "Mysticism." I myself specialized (study-wise) in the history of union in western culture. The history is rich, and intereting too. There were the so-called "desert fathers" (hermits who retreated to the desert to meditate after Jesus' death), the practices of certain Greek Orthodox monks described in the Philokalia, a great many Catholic monks and nuns (some of whom, like John of the Cross, endured persecution for practicing union), and so on. Someone who I think is absolutely brilliant is Meister Eckhart.

Anyway, I am trying to suggest that you might be dabbling in a very deep subject, and that you might need to study it more before drawing conclusions about what enlightenment is.

 

[Evo]

I understand what you mean by autosuggestion, but that is how one achives a "frame of mind." You have to understand that enlightenment is actually the opposite of a frame of mind. "Mind," if we rely on my analogy above, would be that water which is sloshing around and bouncing up from the pool. Enlightenment is the experience of the still pool. Autosuggestion, as your quote says, is dependent on related and continuous thoughts over time which comes to give mind a mental orientation. But an aspect of union is the absense of thought altogether, so if someone is really practicing it (i.e., and not just "thinking" they are), then there is no possibility for autosuggestion in true enlightenment. As I've admitted, people who are practicing union with the hope of realizing enlightenment usually do have some kind of "enlightened mind" because they think about it. All I am referring to now however is the genuinely enlightened person and also the genuine path to enlightenment (union), and I say the only thing autosuggestion will do is get in the way.

Wonderful explanations from both you and Hypnagogue. It does sound like there is a significant difference in the "experiences". I will concede that "true" enlightenment is not the effect of a form of auto suggestion. But I do see people, as you also mentioned, that are confusing a created "frame of mind" with the real thing.

Funny, I have done peyote and mescaline and psylicibin, opium, hashish, LSD, you name it (a child of the 60's & 70's) and I have never experienced anything other than odd visual effects, and feeling "drugged". The hallucinations just made things look weird - trees looked like they had suction cups. Well, opium distorted time a bit. But that was it. I could never understand what the fascination was that people had with drugs. Everyone was experimenting with drugs back then, so I was willing to see what the big deal was and quickly discovered that I did not enjoy them. Life is much better with a clear mind. So, I don't understand how people felt enlightened when I realized I was nothing more than stoned.

Perhaps this has been a cause of my skeptiscm about what "enlightenment" is. Since I've done the same drugs and didn't experience any of those things, I came to the conclusion that you got out of it what you wanted or expected, so it was the result of "suggestion".

I'm enjoying discussing this with both you and Hypnagogue, I hope you two don't mind.

I also found out that I cannot be hypnotized. One of the leading clinical hypnotists in the US (he was a well known and respected psychologist in Chicago) tried and failed. I really wanted to be hypnotized to see what it was like. I was his first failure.

Perhaps it is how my mind functions. Maybe a good analogy would be that you and hypnagogue can see color and I am color blind and will never see what you see?

 

[hypnagogue]

It does sound as if you have more subdued experiences with psychoactives than the average person, which isn't entirely unheard of. I tried MDMA a couple of times, and while other people reported strong experiences from presumably the same 'stuff,' I never experienced anything much more than mild. As they say, mileage may vary.

I'm particularly surprised that you report experiencing time distortion a bit on opium, but not at all on psylocibin. One of the more easily identifiable signatures of psylocibin is marked time distortion. The skeptic might say that we experienced roughly the same thing in our respective experiences, and I have just chosen to describe it in terms other than 'drugged'-- but the fact that we diverge on something as relatively mundane and straightforwardly describable as perception of time seems to substantiate that our experiences actually were different to a substantial degree. It might be helpful if you could try to flesh out what you mean by 'feeling drugged' in fuller terms.

That you seem to be resistant to hypnosis, in conjunction with your resistance to psychoactive drugs, does seem to be suggestive. I wouldn't say it's impossible for you to achieve some of the 'higher' states we've been talking about, but you do seem to have a lot of inertia (so to speak) in your waking consciousness, which would impede in your efforts to fully relate to what Les and I are trying to describe. If you can't relate directly, there's always analogy, in which case the dreaming / waking analogy is probably the best one available, albeit very crude.

 

[confutatis]

Life is much better with a clear mind. So, I don't understand how people felt enlightened when I realized I was nothing more than stoned.

I think "enlightened" is just another word for "overwhelmed by the experience of being stoned". If drugs put one so close in contact with reality or God, why are they so harmful?

Of course there's always the "universal conspiracy" explanation, by which God has put us in a state of delusion, out of which one can only break free by playing tricks with one's brain.

Perhaps this has been a cause of my skeptiscm about what "enlightenment" is.

I think you skepticism is well based. Les is one who is proud of his spiritual achievements, yet his posts are as full of contempt for dissenting views. I say this is just an illusion a person falls into, something of a fantasy to avoid the unbearable uncertainties of life.

Sorry if I'm being too sincere.

Since I've done the same drugs and didn't experience any of those things, I came to the conclusion that you got out of it what you wanted or expected, so it was the result of "suggestion".

I wouldn't say one doesn't learn from playing tricks with the brain. I have had my share of strange experiences myself, and I did learn something quite profound: I learned you cannot trust your brain. And that means the last place you can expect to find truth is inside yourself. Our ability for self-deception is greater and more powerful than the universe itself. A person who realizes his/her smallness in the face of infinite mystery is someone I would consider "enlightned"; those people full of stories about stuff only a few privileged ones are supposed to know do not impress me much.

I really wanted to be hypnotized to see what it was like.

As far as my knowledge goes, being hypnotized is like sleeping. You lose consciousness and when you wake up you can't remember a thing.

I read a story about a man who wanted to quit smoking, so he hired a hypnotist. After a few introductory sessions, he was put in a deep state of hypnosis and given the command to abandon his habit. On waking up from the hypnotic state he didn't remember a thing, but when he got home he called up the hypnotist to tell him he didn't need his services anymore - all of a sudden he lost the desire to smoke and felt he was strong enough to quit without hypnosis.

Something like 10% of the population can't be hypnotized. It's strange your hypnotist made you feel like you were an oddity. I have a self-hypnosis CD and it works quite well with me, but my wife just doesn't respond. In any case, no one is missing anything, except perhaps the chance to drop a bad habit without much conscious effort.

Cheers --

 

[Kerrie]

sure am enjoying this thread as for the drug induced "enlightenment"...having my own personal experience with certain drugs, the feeling of euphoria was certainly there and helped open me up. the closest feeling i had to "knowing" enlightenment was a day i realized that my spirit was in charge, not my hormones/chemicals/feelings. you know the song from Sting, "We are spirits living in a material world" ? that is when i knew what he meant. does this make sense??

 

[Fliption]

I have also enjoyed this thread alot. I haven't contributed because my answer to the thread title is "no". Therefore, I can't contribute anything to it. But it is an area of great interest to me so I have enjoyed reading it.

The only contribution I can offer now is to say that I can understand 100% everything that Evo and confutatis are saying. I can appreciate this point of view because I certainly debate with myself on the very same issues. But at the same time, I have to say I am much more open to the idea of "enlightenment" than confutatis seems to be in his last post. That post was far too conclusive for me given what I know about this experience or the effort it takes to achieve it (Which is close to nothing). Perhaps confutatis has a lot more personal knowledge than I do about this experience. For me it would be mere speculation.

So as opposed to finding Les' view necessarily obstinate toward other views, I truly do see his dilemma. I have put myself in his shoes and asked myself "what if what he is saying is really true?" If it were, I can understand fully why he gets frustrated with the attitudes of people who think they know so much when they actually know so little. It is compounded by the fact that there is no mathematical forumula you can show these people. The only way they can see what he sees is to be open to it and the only way they will become open to it is if they can see it. I would have pulled all my hair out by now.

Having said that, I'll also say that I've put Les to the test on questions just like these in the past because I see the same possibilities that any rational person would see who hasn't experienced enlightenment. While everything he has ever said to me about this has made complete sense, the answers still do not (because they cannot) completely satisfy a reasoning person who has not experienced enlightenment. So it has become obvious to me that there's only one way to find out the true nature of this experience. And that is to find out what it's all about, be open to it, and attempt to experience it for yourself. If we take the stance that we cannot trust our brains, then we're left with nothing but chaos because all knowledge is filtered through the brain somehow. We have to have some faith in our experiences. No one else can be expected to accept them. The experience only has to be good enough for you.

On the drug topic... Again... I know very little . But it makes sense that there would be a connection. If enlightenment is so difficult to achieve because of the conditioning of our minds to focus, feed and process external stimuli to the point that we develop subconscious patterns of thinking, it makes sense that a "mind altering" drug might jolt one out of these patterns momentarily and allow one to see something that their patterns wouldn't allow before. It also explains why the non-drug experience is more difficult to achieve. Without the use of drugs one would have to generate their own "jolt" through some form of mind training or practice.

 

[loseyourname]

sure am enjoying this thread as for the drug induced "enlightenment"...having my own personal experience with certain drugs, the feeling of euphoria was certainly there and helped open me up. the closest feeling i had to "knowing" enlightenment was a day i realized that my spirit was in charge, not my hormones/chemicals/feelings. you know the song from Sting, "We are spirits living in a material world" ? that is when i knew what he meant. does this make sense??

I find it highly ironic that chemically manipulating your brain led you to the conclusion that a spirit, and not chemical reactions, was in charge.

 

[Kerrie]

I find it highly ironic that chemically manipulating your brain led you to the conclusion that a spirit, and not chemical reactions, was in charge.

read closer. i never implied that the drugs made me realize what i stated, only gave me a sense of euphoria that helped me open up in general. i was quite sober when i realized that who we are is our spirit, not just the matter we are made of. matter/flesh does deteriorate without life aka: spirit.

loseyourname, do you have any words to contribute on your experience or non experience of enlightenment?

 

[Kerrie]

On the drug topic... Again... I know very little . But it makes sense that there would be a connection. If enlightenment is so difficult to achieve because of the conditioning of our minds to focus, feed and process external stimuli to the point that we develop subconscious patterns of thinking, it makes sense that a "mind altering" drug might jolt one out of these patterns momentarily and allow one to see something that their patterns wouldn't allow before. It also explains why the non-drug experience is more difficult to achieve. Without the use of drugs one would have to generate their own "jolt" through some form of mind training or practice.

your perspective is quite refreshing.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I think "enlightened" is just another word for "overwhelmed by the experience of being stoned".

Can you make your case? Remember, as a term, "enlightenment" was applied millenia before psychotropic drugs came into vogue.

I think you skepticism is well based. Les is one who is proud of his spiritual achievements, yet his posts are as full of contempt for dissenting views. I say this is just an illusion a person falls into, something of a fantasy to avoid the unbearable uncertainties of life.

I suggest you read my 800 or so posts here, and the 500+ at the old PF, to see how much I've fallen back on my meager spiritual achievements. But, why should I be shy either? I've experienced what I've experienced. When I hear people saying things that contradict both what I've experienced and what I have discovered in my research, do you think I should just passively roll over like a gutless conformist? My "contempt" isn't for dissenting views, it is for ignorant, prejudiced opinions that very often are feigning objectivity or "sincerity."

On the other hand, I admit that I have become a bit "raw" from hearing too many sophist persuasions, and so I do over-react at times to the innocent when I should show more tolerance. Evo is a case in point. You, however, are a challenge.

Sorry if I'm being too sincere.

Where's a barfing smiley face when you need one.

 

[BoulderHead]

Where's a barfing smiley face when you need one.

:(*)

That's it, according to this site;
http://www.smileyworld.com/emoticons/categoryresults.asp?category=In%20Action

 

[Les Sleeth]

I find it highly ironic that chemically manipulating your brain led you to the conclusion that a spirit, and not chemical reactions, was in charge.

But don't you think it depends on your starting assumptions? If one assumes we are entirely physical, then it might seem ironic to hear a non-physicalist acknowledge that a drug, which is a physical agent, has led to spiritual insight. If consciousness were non-physical, then clearly nature (or whatever) has found a way to join it to the physical body.

Studies have proven both biochemistry and brain manipulation can affect consciousness; also, studies have shown how states of mind, emotions, beliefs, etc. can affect the body; so there is no doubt biology and consciousness are mutually influential. If so, then why couldn't there be chemistry which could liberate consciousness a bit more than normal from its neuronal confines? And of course, historically there is support for this idea in the rich history of drug use in spiritual pursuits by certain indigenous peoples.

 

[Les Sleeth]

:(*)

That's it, according to this site;
http://www.smileyworld.com/emoticons/categoryresults.asp?category=In%20Action

Hi BH, how have you been? I work on a Mac, so I probably can't use that face . . . still, I must try. (*)

[edit] (sigh) oh well.

 

[BoulderHead]

Hello Les,
I've been better these days but my arm gets tingly-numb rapidly making movement unpleasant. Thanks for asking.

I am unfamiliar with Mac systems (I don't think I've ever seen one at a thrift store, hehe) but you almost had it - just needed a colon.

Anyway, I'm two pages behind in this thread but it looks enjoyable. Perhaps I'll contribute in a couple of days if I'm able to add anything worthwhile.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Hello Les,
I've been better these days but my arm gets tingly-numb rapidly making movement unpleasant. Thanks for asking.

I am unfamiliar with Mac systems (I don't think I've ever seen one at a thrift store, hehe) but you almost had it - just needed a colon.

Anyway, I'm two pages behind in this thread but it looks enjoyable. Perhaps I'll contribute in a couple of days if I'm able to add anything worthwhile.

:(*) . . . nope

 

[Evo]

I have to say that when I first came to PF confutatis explained to me something I had experienced that had been puzzling me for years. His insite was invaluable.

We all have our beliefs, but I think we can all learn here if we don't take another's opinions personally (I will admit that I am not good at this myself) but listen to what they say and discuss it. Could it be possible that we all perceive things a bit differently and all know a bit of the truth?

I am finding I am losing some of my preconceived ideas by talking with you guys. I have a bad habit of assuming my way is the right way, and I am slowly accepting that I could (rarely ) be mistaken.

I wish to respond to everyone's posts, but I have a broken tooth and I am in so much pain I can hardly think.

 

[Evo]

I'm particularly surprised that you report experiencing time distortion a bit on opium, but not at all on psylocibin. One of the more easily identifiable signatures of psylocibin is marked time distortion.

I have to answer this though. Probably because the times I did psylocibin I was sitting in a room listening to music. I noticed the time distortion with opium when I was walking and it seemed I had been walking for awhile, but then I realized from the distance I had traveled that I hadn't gone very far at all. This gave me a reference to the distorted view of time, something I did not have when doing psylocibin.

 

[confutatis]

I have to say I am much more open to the idea of "enlightenment" than confutatis seems to be in his last post.

I'm not rejecting the claims that people experience enlightenment, far from it. I know the brain/mind is capable of producing anything imaginable, and quite a few things unimaginable. But I do reject most metaphysical claims associated with altered states of mind.

So as opposed to finding Les' view necessarily obstinate toward other views, I truly do see his dilemma. I have put myself in his shoes and asked myself "what if what he is saying is really true?" If it were, I can understand fully why he gets frustrated with the attitudes of people who think they know so much when they actually know so little.

You can't possibly accept all claims people make on the basis that they might know something you don't. It doesn't work that way. But of course blind skepticism is not the answer either.

If enlightenment is so difficult to achieve because of the conditioning of our minds to focus, feed and process external stimuli to the point that we develop subconscious patterns of thinking, it makes sense that a "mind altering" drug might jolt one out of these patterns momentarily and allow one to see something that their patterns wouldn't allow before.

Why does that make sense to you? It doesn't make any sense to me. When these people describe their altered states of consciousness, they do so from quite an ordinary state. If what they discover in the ASC makes any sense in the baseline state, it can be known from the baseline state - no "trips" required. And if it doesn't make sense in the ordinary state... well, then it doesn't make sense.

-----------------------------------------------

I find it highly ironic that chemically manipulating your brain led you to the conclusion that a spirit, and not chemical reactions, was in charge.

It's a shame they don't give prizes for brilliant statements like that. Kudos!

-----------------------------------------------

Can you make your case? Remember, as a term, "enlightenment" was applied millenia before psychotropic drugs came into vogue.

As a term, "possession by the devil" was applied millenia before neurology existed. So what?

As far as I know, the idea of "enlightenment" is a key point of some religions. It is a belief, not unlike the concept of salvation in Christianity. I'm not saying one or both ideas are false, but I think it's very reasonable to think of them as rough approximations of truths beyond our current ability to understand.

Now the fact that you can experience a belief as if it were real is completely irrelevant to the truth of the belief itself. In industrialized societies, people who undergo near-death experiences often arrive at a meadow filled with beautiful flowers, trees, bubbling brooks. In pre-agrarian societies, such as parts of Africa, near-death experiencers often arrive at a modern city, filled with cars and jobs at factories. Now isn't it odd that one man's heaven is another man's hell? Isn't it likely that, during altered states of consciousness, a person has the awesome power to make his or her imagination become real?

This is as much as I'm willing to concede for now: our imagination is far more powerful than we might realize. That means something quite profound: many things you believe to be true may turn out to be illusions. That's the part I like about this enlightenment thing, but then most "enlightened" people engage in all sorts of claims that contradict their basic position. If our knowledge is filled with illusions, let us first find a way to get rid of illusions before trying to know more things.

I suggest you read my 800 or so posts here, and the 500+ at the old PF to see how much I've fallen back on my meager spiritual achievements. But, why should I be shy either? I've experienced what I've experienced.

I like your honesty. I hope you don't think an attack on your claims is an attack on you as a person. It's all in the spirit of philosophical debate, nothing personal.

My "contempt" isn't for dissenting views, it is for ignorant, prejudiced opinions that very often are feigning objectivity or "sincerity."

Now here I think you are wrong, for your opinions appear to me as ignorant and prejudiced as anybody else's. And you do show contempt for dissenting views of any kind, at least as far as I can tell.

You, however, are a challenge.

I'm not sure in what sense...

 

[Dayle Record]

There is a tomb in eastern India that purports to be the tomb of Jesus Of Nazareth. It is stated that he went there and preached for the rest of his life, after being taken down, drugged from the cross. It is stated he had five sons with Mary of Magdala, and lived to a ripe old age. There was an enormous christian church in eastern India, in the centuries after Jesus's migration to the east. Supposedly the "crusades", were fought to destroy this heretical information. They didn't get as far as India to destroy the faith of those that lived there, with Jesus. I don't think he was magical at all. He was certainly an enlightened individual, or was he? How do we really know that he said even one thing, that is purported? The laws of physics are no different today, than they were then. Things happen as they do now, as they did then. I imagine if we showed up in the ancient middle east in F-16's, with loudspeakers, and nuclear weaponry, we would be considered angry jealous gods, throwing thunderbolts.

One thing that is a lasting proof of whether enlightenment, or even power lasts through the generations; would be the twists and turns of European Monarchies. They have certainly had their mediocre generations, and their awful generations. Collectively we are ruled by greed, and rarely by anything higher. There are few, rare individuals that shine throught the eras as heroes of our species. They, without fail, put the collective needs of their people's ahead of personal gain. They apply their energies to service, and lay down their lives to make the world a better place for the common existence of all.

I have reached this age, where I am not so sure that the enemies of man aren't just what the world needs. I think that far from now, when the biologists are looking at the rings of trees, our chief descriptor will be our destructiveness.

Enlightenment, ah yes. It used to be that on any ceremonial day, shall we say, a koan, or statement came forward as the enlightened thought of the day. Then it would get lost. So, having one of those , I decided that I would write it down on a piece of paper, and I stuck it in the front of a book I was reading, for later. So a couple of weeks later I reopened the book and there was the folded slip of paper, with the enlightenment of the day inside. I was so excited that I had written this down, and I could not remember what it had been. Opening the paper I read, "The smell of oranges pervades the air." Now this was so worth it, because I laughed and laughed and laughed at the joke of the nature of our consciousness, and deliberate mystification we are capable of; and how we misappropriate our senses from the fundamental intensity of natural life as homo sapiens, in the here and now.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Funny, I have done peyote and mescaline and psylicibin, opium, hashish, LSD, you name it (a child of the 60's & 70's) and I have never experienced anything other than odd visual effects, and feeling "drugged". The hallucinations just made things look weird - trees looked like they had suction cups. Well, opium distorted time a bit. But that was it. I could never understand what the fascination was that people had with drugs. Everyone was experimenting with drugs back then, so I was willing to see what the big deal was and quickly discovered that I did not enjoy them. Life is much better with a clear mind. So, I don't understand how people felt enlightened when I realized I was nothing more than stoned.

Perhaps this has been a cause of my skeptiscm about what "enlightenment" is. Since I've done the same drugs and didn't experience any of those things, I came to the conclusion that you got out of it what you wanted or expected, so it was the result of "suggestion".

I wanted to think about what you said a little before answering. My first few time with drugs was with LSD. I really had no concept about it before I did it. I didn't understand the idea of being "high" at all other than noticing people seemed excited. So I don't believe suggestion had much to do with how I first related to drugs.

What I noticed almost immediately was that a sort of "background" became very apparent to me. That is, I felt, heard, and saw something existing behind all the stuff I was ordinarily aware of. It seemed to vibrate, to be malleable, and I would hear something (even if I plugged up my ears) like what you hear when an amplifier is on but no music is being played. I was so fascinated by that that from the start, the background would be the very first thing I would be attentive to.

There was one occasion I recall where at a party a friend put some LSD in some punch I was drinking without telling me. It was on me before I had a chance to relate to the "background" as usual. That was the only time in all my experiences that I hallucinated. I was overwhelmed by the distortion of my environment, by colors, by sounds zipping by in space coming seemingly from nowhere, etc. Fortunately I was experienced enough to sit and enjoy the show without panicing.

After that I returned to relating to the background when I took drugs (almost exclusively peyote and mushrooms after that). I was influenced by Castaneda's descriptions of Don Juan's methods, and began taking my trips in high, natural places where I could be alone or with a friend or two (my avatar is a self-portrait of me doing just that at Yosemite over twenty years ago--it was the last time I ever did peyote). Most of the suggestion I took from Don Juan was simply to treat the occasion with reverence, which did seem to make it more insightful and meaningful.

In these trips, I continued to relate more deeply to the "background." I had been taught union meditation and was practicing it daily; at the time of that Yosemite trip I was only doing peyote once a year, which took up one day in what was usually a week of all-day meditation sessions at the park. The reason this particular excursion was the last time I did peyote (besides losing my footing and rolling down a steep incline nearly breaking my neck), was because I was doing so well with union meditation that peyote, even just once a year, was getting in the way. It turns out that union actually is the practice of merging with the "background," which is why I recognized union so quickly when introduced to it. With the encouragement of gravity, that day I decided to put all my efforts into union.

The point I am trying to get to is that I suspect it is from relating to the "background," which today I call the "foundation," that causes one to have the spiritual sort of experience on the drug. That foundation seems to be "one" and everywhere, and I one with it, and there is exactly the thing that most people sense which encourages them to lean toward spiritual belief. But if one were to trip and instead of the foundation/background, related to the forms and structures of reality, then that is when one becomes overwhelmed by the flood of input and distortions the drug can cause.

Perhaps it is how my mind functions. Maybe a good analogy would be that you and hypnagogue can see color and I am color blind and will never see what you see?

I can't believe that mostly because I've yet to meet someone who I haven't felt that foundaton present in them. Since we only see what we are looking at, people's views tend to be shaped by their priorities and preferences, as well as dislikes. I would argue that to see it, first you have to want to see it, and then you have to look in the right place, in the right way.

I also found out that I cannot be hypnotized. One of the leading clinical hypnotists in the US (he was a well known and respected psychologist in Chicago) tried and failed. I really wanted to be hypnotized to see what it was like. I was his first failure.

I cannot be hypnotized either. I've always thought it's because I have purposely tried to keep my consciousness objective, and so I've treated all "suggestive" stuff as something that could make me biased. To me, a mind that can be hypnotized is not as strong as the mind that cannot. Of course, it could be due to being inflexible or a know-it-all too. I hope it's not the case with me since those traits too would damage my objectivity.

I'm enjoying discussing this with both you and Hypnagogue . . .

Same here, I love this subject.

 

[Fliption]

I'm not rejecting the claims that people experience enlightenment, far from it. I know the brain/mind is capable of producing anything imaginable, and quite a few things unimaginable. But I do reject most metaphysical claims associated with altered states of mind.

Well then I guess I should say I am more open to the metaphysical claims. I actually agree with the things you are saying about the brain/mind and the power they have to deceive us. Especially in the case of enlightenment. I have thought about it in that context quite a bit. The only problem I see with this view is that it seems like it can be applied to anything to question its truthfulness so it becomes sort of a useless view if taken to such extremes. As I said earlier, I think we, as individuals, have to have faith in our experiences to some extent. Otherwise there is nothing for any of us to talk about; On any subject.

You can't possibly accept all claims people make on the basis that they might know something you don't. It doesn't work that way. But of course blind skepticism is not the answer either.

I agree with that. This is why I haven't "accepted" anything. As I said earlier, I have come to the conclusion that the only way to understand the true nature of enlightenment is to experience it yourself. Whether I eventually accept it or not will be based on my experience alone. No one elses.

Why does that make sense to you? It doesn't make any sense to me. When these people describe their altered states of consciousness, they do so from quite an ordinary state. If what they discover in the ASC makes any sense in the baseline state, it can be known from the baseline state - no "trips" required. And if it doesn't make sense in the ordinary state... well, then it doesn't make sense.

I wasn't suggesting that drugs were "required" for the altered states. I was simply suggesting that if there is something more to reality that is difficult to see due to conditioning, then it makes sense to me that drugs "might" be able to alter ones normal patterns enough to escape this conditioning temporarily. I say "might" because I don't necessarily believe this to be the case. I'm just saying that it makes sense as a possibility.

 

[confutatis]

The only problem I see with this view is that it seems like it can be applied to anything to question it's truthfulness so it becomes sort of a useless view if taken to such extremes.

It's not an extreme because you can't be too skeptical before skepticism itself ceases to be a valid position. You must be in possession of an awful lot of truths before you are able to come up with a lie (or illusion). Most of our knowledge must be true by way of logical necessity. Which is why I have a problem with those brands of mysticism which teach that, except for their esoteric teachings, everything we know is an illusion. To a rational person, that is just not possible.

As I said earlier, I think we, as individuals, have to have faith in our experiences to some extent. Otherwise there is nothing for any of us to talk about; On any subject.

You don't need to have faith in your experiences. What you have experienced is yours and can't be taken away from you, so in that sense experience is absolute. The only problem is to understand what a particular experience means, when that experience happens to very few people, for brief periods of time, on a very infrequent basis. There's no rationale to doubt that the sun exists, when it can be seen everyday by everyone, but it took centuries for us to learn that the sun is a star. Now look at Les' last post and his "background" - what the heck is that, and how does he know it is what he thinks it is? How does he know he's not mistaken it for some completely unrelated phenomenon, just like the ancients mistook the sun for some god in the sky?

As I said earlier, I have come to the conclusion that the only way to understand the true nature of enlightenment is to experience it yourself. Whether I eventually accept it or not will be based on my experience alone. No one elses.

The other day I was lying in bed, very tired, when I had the most unusual experience - my mind became completely devoid of any thoughts, yet I didn't lose consciousness (I may have told this story before; anyway...) So I'm in my bed thinking, "isn't this strange? I'm not thinking about anything". During the few seconds the experience lasted, I was in awe of contemplanting a void mind, something I never experienced before, or after. But when it was over I was a bit confused: how could I not be thinking about anything when I was thinking about "not thinking about anything"? That doesn't make any sense. Something strange definitely happened, but it's not what I thought it was.

As you said, in order to understand things you have to experience them. But experience alone is not enough. Without guidance from other people, without logic and reason, without a healthy dose of skepticism, we risk losing our mind if we play with things we cannot understand. Happens all the time.

I wasn't suggesting that drugs were "required" for the altered states. I was simply suggesting that if there is something more to reality that is difficult to see due to conditioning, then it makes sense to me that drugs "might" be able to alter ones normal patterns enough to escape this conditioning temporarily. Also, I haven't said I believe this to be the case. I'm just saying that it makes sense as a possibility.

I don't think it's a possibility. If drugs really helped anyone understand things better, they could help people achieve ordinary things. Drugs could help people find solutions to complex differential equations, compose beautiful symphonies, design awesome buildings, write breathtaking poetry, and so on. As it turns out, at best drugs do absolutely nothing in that sense, and at worst they render a person insane. I find the claim that drugs open one's mind to really, really important truths, while doing absolutely nothing for more mundane things, to be unbelievably naive.

 

[Fliption]

It's not an extreme because you can't be too skeptical before skepticism itself ceases to be a valid position. You must be in possession of an awful lot of truths before you are able to come up with a lie (or illusion). Most of our knowledge must be true by way of logical necessity. Which is why I have a problem with those brands of mysticism which teach that, except for their esoteric teachings, everything we know is an illusion. To a rational person, that is just not possible.

I'm not sure I fully understood what you are trying to say here. But I do understand the need to be skeptical as long as it is reasonable to remain skeptical.

The only problem is to understand what a particular experience means, when that experience happens to very few people, for brief periods of time, on a very infrequent basis. There's no rationale to doubt that the sun exists, when it can be seen everyday by everyone, but it took centuries for us to learn that the sun is a star. Now look at Les' last post and his "background" - what the heck is that, and how does he know it is what he thinks it is? How does he know he's not mistaken it for some completely unrelated phenomenon, just like the ancients mistook the sun for some god in the sky?

So where do I obtain meaning if all these people that you mention are just a trick that my brain is playing on me? This is my dilemma. I understand, agree with and put into practice myself the things you are saying but when I take it to the extreme, the view no longer seems valid to me. At some point you have to make an assumption. It seems as if what you're getting at is the difference between subjectivity, objectivity and everything inbetween. It looks as if you're claiming that meaning and therefore knowledge come from other people. The fact that we have common experiences of the sun implies to you that the sun really exists. But I can just as easily have a dream where people are discussing the way the sun looks and yet that sun nor the people talking about it have any physical existence at all. It's just a movie my brain has played for me. So the idea that these "other people"(that you rely on to make sure you aren't just imagining things) aren't themselves a figment of your imagination seems to be an assumption.

I didn't really intend on getting bogged down into the view of solipsism. I understand the points of subjectivity versus objectivity and in this case inter-subjectivity(if that's where you were going). But this view seems to deny the existence of anything that has no external reference; like the sun does. I agree that the traditional empirical approach to gaining knowledge doesn't work so well with these items and therefore knowledge is a tricky thing. But does this necessarily mean that they don't exist as they are experienced to exist? This conclusion I have not been able to make.

The other day I was lying in bed, very tired, when I had the most unusual experience - my mind became completely devoid of any thoughts, yet I didn't lose consciousness (I may have told this story before; anyway...) So I'm in my bed thinking, "isn't this strange? I'm not thinking about anything". During the few seconds the experience lasted, I was in awe of contemplanting a void mind, something I never experienced before, or after. But when it was over I was a bit confused: how could I not be thinking about anything when I was thinking about "not thinking about anything"? That doesn't make any sense. Something strange definitely happened, but it's not what I thought it was.

What if an angel came down from heaven and spoke to you while you were alone? This angel gave you a bit of knowledge and then left you with no physical proof of it's visit. Would you believe it really happened? From your statements so far it seems you would lean toward claiming that you wouldn't believe this happened. But I don't think you will know the answer to this until it happens. So I guess my point is that there is no pre-defined formula of subjectivity versus inter-subjectivity that you can use. Of course you can never know for sure whether this actually happened ( so I agree with you here) but you will decide whether it did or not based on your experience of being a conscious human being and the impression this experience left relative to your past experiences. I'm betting that the fact that you can't prove it to anyone else will have little to do with your belief.

As you said, in order to understand things you have to experience them. But experience alone is not enough. Without guidance from other people, without logic and reason, without a healthy dose of skepticism, we risk losing our mind if we play with things we cannot understand. Happens all the time.

I agree. From the hundreds of post that Les mentioned and I have read, I would argue that he has met all that criteria. But it's not a black and white issue. I understand that. What is reasonable is subjective to.

I don't think it's a possibility. If drugs really helped anyone understand things better, they could help people achieve ordinary things. Drugs could help people find solutions to complex differential equations, compose beautiful symphonies, design awesome buildings, write breathtaking poetry, and so on. As it turns out, at best drugs do absolutely nothing in that sense, and at worst they render a person insane. I find the claim that drugs open one's mind to really, really important truths, while doing absolutely nothing for more mundane things, to be unbelievably naive.

Well the first thing I would say is that there is a big difference. Otherwise I would agree with you. All of the things that you mentioned i.e. differential equations etc. require the mind to be actively working. Drugs interfere with the way the mind works so it makes sense that these things would be especially difficult to do while on drugs. It is said that achieving enlightenment requires the exact opposite. Turning the mind off. Drugs seem like a good catalyst for this to me. Another way to say it is that these things you mentioned are creations of the mind. Enlightenment is when you experience something that isn't a creation of the mind. Drugs could simply assist in removing the barrier to seeing it.

 

[loseyourname]

I still don't see how you can jump from the feeling of oneness to the conclusion that oneness is a truth of the universe. I don't want to say that I don't trust experience, but it's difficult to trust an experience that involves no sensory perception. How could you possibly know what it is you are experiencing? What exactly is a feeling of oneness anyway? Unless someone tells you that is what you are feeling, from what basis do you even put the experience in words?

 

[Fliption]

I still don't see how you can jump from the feeling of oneness to the conclusion that oneness is a truth of the universe. I don't want to say that I don't trust experience, but it's difficult to trust an experience that involves no sensory perception. How could you possibly know what it is you are experiencing? What exactly is a feeling of oneness anyway? Unless someone tells you that is what you are feeling, from what basis do you even put the experience in words?

Which sense do you use to experience happiness?

While I personally can't speak with a lot of credibility on this, my understanding is that there are no words to describe the experience. "Oneness" is just one of the words used in an attempt to describe it. And contrary to some people, I don't believe words or language are required for something to exists or for that existence to be acknowledged.

 

[TENYEARS]

Flipton, bull "blurry theory"? I was an aspect of englightening experience. There is not just one englightening experience, there are many, many kinds.
There is a general one, but that statement in itself is foolish, for it is different in it's commonness for everyone who has or will experience it.

loseyourname, if I told you what it was like, you would have a preconcieved notion, and that could taint your experience or your mind. This I know first hand, not relative to reading or the words of others, but of daily life and it's affect on absolute experience.

 

[confutatis]

So where do I obtain meaning if all these people that you mention are just a trick that my brain is playing on me? This is my dilemma.

It is a false dilemma, or rather a pseudo-dilemma. The fact that you have difficulty justifying your knowledge doesn't necessarily make it invalid. You may not know why it's correct to assert that other people do exist, but that doesn't mean it's possible they don't really exist.

At some point you have to make an assumption.

When you kick a stone and your toes hurt, is your feeling of pain an assumption?

I can just as easily have a dream where people are discussing the way the sun looks and yet that sun nor the people talking about it have any physical existence at all. It's just a movie my brain has played for me. So the idea that these "other people"(that you rely on to make sure you aren't just imagining things) aren't themselves a figment of your imagination seems to be an assumption.

I can assure you there are no assumptions involved in asserting the existence of other people. If you claim it's possible that other people are a creation of your mind, you have to explain why you can't control their behaviour the same way you control yours. Then you'll end up dividing the universe between "figments of my imagination I can control" and "figments of my imagination I cannot control". Then you'll proceed to discover the relationship between "figments I can control" and "figments I can't control", and before you realize it you'll be back to the good old concept of an independent reality.

Make no mistake: the current view of the world which you, I, and almost everyone on this planet hold, is not a flight of fancy, it has been slowly developed and refined through hundreds of thousands of years since the invention of language. It may not be perfect, but making even small improvements to it takes a lot of genius. To throw the wisdom of the ages away and replace it with one's own ideas is just narcissistic nonsense.

I agree that the traditional empirical approach to gaining knowledge doesn't work so well with these items and therefore knowledge is a tricky thing. But does this necessarily mean that they don't exist as they are experienced to exist? This conclusion I have not been able to make.

You have not been able to make that conclusion because it would be a false conclusion. And I'm not implying what you think I'm implying at all. While it's true that empiricism has limitations, there is more to truth than empirical facts. There is language. Langauge is the most important source of truths. What makes the sun real is not only our experience of it, but the experiences of billions of people together with the fact that the sentence "the sun exists and is real" is true for any rational person on this planet.

Now you may perhaps contemplate my reaction when I hear sentences such as "the world is an illusion", which the absolute majority of rational people don't accept as true. It has nothing to do with my experience, or Les' experience, or anyone's experience in particular. It has to do with the work done by every single member of the human race, in their attempt to come up with a consistent description of our experiences. There's a lot of work in that, and you can't throw it all away just because you had a warm, fuzzy feeling you can't properly put into words.

What if an angel came down from heaven and spoke to you while you were alone? This angel gave you a bit of knowledge and then left you with no physical proof of it's visit. Would you believe it really happened?

Again, my position on angels is to take the wisdom of the ages. And the wisdom of the ages tells me that people often experience visits by angels, but they can't really understand what it means.

All of the things that you mentioned i.e. differential equations etc. require the mind to be actively working. Drugs interfere with the way the mind works so it makes sense that these things would be especially difficult to do while on drugs.

But understanding the universe and our place in it doesn't require the mind to be actively working?!

It is said that achieving enlightenment requires the exact opposite. Turning the mind off. Drugs seem like a good catalyst for this to me.

"Turning the mind off" means going unconscious, which is not what those people claim. They claim they are fully conscious, but not conscious of anything. This doesn't make any sense. I think they are just fooling themselves, and the fact that I can also fool myself if I do whatever it is that they do proves absolutely nothing.


I'd like to comment on something you wrote to loseyourname:

Which sense do you use to experience happiness?

Nobody is claiming the experience of happiness reveals any cosmic truth. Nobody says you must achieve happiness before you can understand the essence of reality.

 

[loseyourname]

While I personally can't speak with a lot of credibility on this, my understanding is that there are no words to describe the experience. "Oneness" is just one of the words used in an attempt to describe it. And contrary to some people, I don't believe words or language are required for something to exists or for that existence to be acknowledged.

Neither do I, but that was not my point. Happiness is an individual state, whereas "oneness" is not. Oneness is a state of the sum of conscious lifeforms in the universe. People like Les are not simply inserting a word where none belongs; he has quite clearly stated that he believes individual minds arise from a single source of consciousness that is more real than the physical world we experience with our senses. All minds are literally "one" mind. I can't imagine a way in which I would even begin to suspect that, much less come to be convinced of it.

 

[Kerrie]

People like Les are not simply inserting a word where none belongs; he has quite clearly stated that he believes individual minds arise from a single source of consciousness that is more real than the physical world we experience with our senses. All minds are literally "one" mind. I can't imagine a way in which I would even begin to suspect that, much less come to be convinced of it.

you can't "imagine a way in which our minds are literally one", yet Les clearly states that the single source of consciousness is more real then the physical world we experience with our senses. If Les's theory is correct, then could one have a difficult time comprehending the concept due to our senses and how our senses are hardwired by biology and society?

 

[hypnagogue]

I'm not rejecting the claims that people experience enlightenment, far from it. I know the brain/mind is capable of producing anything imaginable, and quite a few things unimaginable. But I do reject most metaphysical claims associated with altered states of mind.

I don't reject them, but I don't accept them. I prefer to take a position of agnosticism with regards to the more extravagent metaphysical truths purportedly revealed in altered states of consciousness. Please keep this in mind when considering my responses to your ideas.

Also, I prefer to use the term "spiritual experience," or SE, in the following discussion instead of enlightenment. Enlightenment can be understood loosely as a special case (indefinitely enduring, with perhaps some additional qualitative constraints) of the more general concept of spiritual experience. As the discussion here has been carried out on a very foundational, general level, it is more appropriate to use the more basic underlying concept.

Why does that make sense to you? It doesn't make any sense to me. When these people describe their altered states of consciousness, they do so from quite an ordinary state. If what they discover in the ASC makes any sense in the baseline state, it can be known from the baseline state - no "trips" required. And if it doesn't make sense in the ordinary state... well, then it doesn't make sense.

I can have a conceptual understanding of what it is like to dream from my baseline, waking state. At the same time, I would not expect someone to have an understanding of dreaming as good as mine if that person had never experienced a dream before. They could get some sort of conceptual understanding from verbal descriptions of dreams, but I take it as uncontroversial that such a person would achieve a much better understanding of what it is like to be in a dreaming state if that person eventually did experience a dream firsthand.

You can substitute any altered state of consciousness in for "dream" in the above paragraph, including "spiritual experience," and it would remain just as valid. Dreaming consciousness is a particular kind of ASC, and is useful for the purposes of this discussion since it's undoubtedly the most widely experienced ASC there is. Epistemological and metaphysical claims about spiritual experiences can be clarified by testing analogous claims about dreaming.

As far as I know, the idea of "enlightenment" is a key point of some religions. It is a belief, not unlike the concept of salvation in Christianity. I'm not saying one or both ideas are false, but I think it's very reasonable to think of them as rough approximations of truths beyond our current ability to understand.

Spiritual experience is more than belief. It is a particular kind of state of consciousness that viscerally feels different from normal waking consciousness in a completely novel way, similarly to how dreaming viscerally feels different from waking consciousness on so many levels. People over the ages have attached metaphysical meaning (belief structures) to such experiences, but those belief structures do not constitute the essence of the term. They are scaffolds built on top of the central conceptual structure, which is simply about the experience itself. The aborigines constructed a metaphysical belief structure based on their experiences with dreaming consciousness, but that does not mean that dreaming can be exhaustively characterized by those beliefs or other metaphysical beliefs derived from dreaming. The core concept of what an SE is is no more and no less a belief than is the concept of the experiential "what-it-is-like-ness" of dreams.

There's no rationale to doubt that the sun exists, when it can be seen everyday by everyone, but it took centuries for us to learn that the sun is a star. Now look at Les' last post and his "background" - what the heck is that, and how does he know it is what he thinks it is? How does he know he's not mistaken it for some completely unrelated phenomenon, just like the ancients mistook the sun for some god in the sky?

This is a great paradigm case to clear up some of the confusion going on here. I know what Les was referring to, having experienced similar things myself. It is important to recognize that at its core, this claim of a 'background' is not a metaphysical claim, but that it is an experiential claim; that is, it's not immediately a claim about the true 'nature' of a phenomenon underlying a certain appearance, it's just a claim about the existence and nature of a certain appearance as such. Les has extended metaphysical claims on the basis of this experiential claim, but I need not agree with his metaphysical claim in order to recognize a ring of truth in the experiential claim by way of comparison to my own experiences.

Using your sun example, the ancients and modern scientists certainly have different metaphysical claims about what the sun is. But both agree rather plainly on the experiential aspect-- that the sun's appearance is simply that of a bright yellow disc. Whether you think the sun is an anthropomorphic god or a collection of vibrating molecules, you can agree rather uncontroversially about the experiential claim, assuming you have a normally functioning visual system. I suspect you have trouble identifying with the experiential claim of a certain background state of consciousness in the same way a person who has never seen bright things or yellow things has trouble in identifying with the experiential claim that the sun is a bright yellow disc.

The other day I was lying in bed, very tired, when I had the most unusual experience - my mind became completely devoid of any thoughts, yet I didn't lose consciousness (I may have told this story before; anyway...) So I'm in my bed thinking, "isn't this strange? I'm not thinking about anything". During the few seconds the experience lasted, I was in awe of contemplanting a void mind, something I never experienced before, or after. But when it was over I was a bit confused: how could I not be thinking about anything when I was thinking about "not thinking about anything"? That doesn't make any sense. Something strange definitely happened, but it's not what I thought it was.

Perhaps your mind really was devoid of thought up until the point where you recited this thought to yourself? Surely there was some temporal extension to the experience, one part of which was thoughtless, and the other part of which contained thoughts about the thoughtlessness of the preceding portion.

I don't think it's a possibility. If drugs really helped anyone understand things better, they could help people achieve ordinary things. Drugs could help people find solutions to complex differential equations, compose beautiful symphonies, design awesome buildings, write breathtaking poetry, and so on. As it turns out, at best drugs do absolutely nothing in that sense, and at worst they render a person insane. I find the claim that drugs open one's mind to really, really important truths, while doing absolutely nothing for more mundane things, to be unbelievably naive.

If you think drugs (or more generally, exceptional states of consciousness which may be accessed either by drugs or other means) have never assisted anyone in writing exceptional poetry or composing exceptional music, boy are you kidding yourself. Many great poets did their best work when in trance-like or 'transcendental' states of consciousness. Whole religions have been founded on the altered states of consciousness of 'enlightened' spiritual leaders or 'visionary' prophets. The revolutionary music of the 60s and 70s owes much of its soul to marijuana and psychedelics. (Just ask Bob Dylan or the Beatles or Pink Floyd or Jimi Hendrix, to name a few-- I highly doubt the Beatles would have ever composed Revolver or Sgt Pepper in the absence of these experiences.) Dali and Van Gogh, to name a couple of highly influential and praised visual artists, owe much of their creative talent to their peculiar states of consciousness. Personally, I dabble in creating art and poetry, and some of what I consider to be my best stuff has come directly from altered states. (Others have come to the same conclusions without knowing anything about how they were created.)

I don't think the SE state is optimal for straightforward logical tasks like performing math. But they are great enhancers for social and artistic intelligence, or social and artistic sensibility if you prefer.

"Turning the mind off" means going unconscious, which is not what those people claim. They claim they are fully conscious, but not conscious of anything. This doesn't make any sense. I think they are just fooling themselves, and the fact that I can also fool myself if I do whatever it is that they do proves absolutely nothing.

It doesn't make sense that the speed of light is constant in all reference frames either. Whether consciousness can exist in the absence of recognizable contents of consciousness is ultimately an empirical question that may be answered on a firsthand basis, eg by using the appropriate meditational techniques (I don't believe any known drugs can simulate this kind of experience).

 

[Les Sleeth]

Now look at Les' last post and his "background" - what the heck is that, and how does he know it is what he thinks it is? How does he know he's not mistaken it for some completely unrelated phenomenon, just like the ancients mistook the sun for some god in the sky?

What you are saying with "what the heck is that" is that you have no personal experience that allows you to understand what I am talking about. Well, that's how reality seems to work. I can't transfer my experience into your consciousness, but that doesn't mean I can't have my personal opinions about what is happening.

As Hypnagogue pointed out, I am certain I experience the background, but I am not nearly so certain about what that background really is. After a solid ten years of experiencing it every day, I can only say my impression is that the background is something big, really BIG . . . at least, a lot bigger than my tiny little consciousness. But, does my impression mean I am "convinced" beyond all question of that interpretation? No it doesn't. I am reporting to you and others the closest approximation I can of what it "seems like." If you want to investigate the truth of what I am saying, I don't see any other way than for you to develop the skill of union yourself, and then see what impression you get.

As you said, in order to understand things you have to experience them. But experience alone is not enough. Without guidance from other people, without logic and reason, without a healthy dose of skepticism, we risk losing our mind if we play with things we cannot understand. Happens all the time.

I've had experience, I've had guidance from other people, I apply logic and reason fairly well, and I am, if not exactly skeptical, at least conservative in drawing final conclusions. I am surprised to find people worried about the implications of my musings when I myself am leaving any final intepretation of the experience open.

I don't think it's a possibility. If drugs really helped anyone understand things better, they could help people achieve ordinary things. Drugs could help people find solutions to complex differential equations, compose beautiful symphonies, design awesome buildings, write breathtaking poetry, and so on. As it turns out, at best drugs do absolutely nothing in that sense, and at worst they render a person insane. I find the claim that drugs open one's mind to really, really important truths, while doing absolutely nothing for more mundane things, to be unbelievably naive.

How do you account for my report that it was peyote that first clued me into the possibility of union? And now, for the last twenty years, I've been experiencing union without the drug? Doesn't that suggest certain drugs, used in a specific way, might work as some of us claim?

Further, how can you claim someone is naive when you know nothing about psychotropic drugs from personal experience? Without experience there are lots of things that "don't make sense" which, after experience, do. However, I must add, again, that I DO NOT recommend drug use. At the time I did it, I didn't realize a natural way was possible to discover the "background." I kept doing peyote for awhile after I discovered a natural way because it had been a "friend."

 

[Les Sleeth]

Happiness is an individual state, whereas "oneness" is not. Oneness is a state of the sum of conscious lifeforms in the universe. People like Les are not simply inserting a word where none belongs; he has quite clearly stated that he believes individual minds arise from a single source of consciousness that is more real than the physical world we experience with our senses. All minds are literally "one" mind. I can't imagine a way in which I would even begin to suspect that, much less come to be convinced of it.

Have you read my posts? What you do is emphasize my hypothesis, and that's all it is, ahead of my experience. What I have stated as clear as anyone can state it is that oneness is an individual experience. I "inserted" the term oneness to describe the very personal experience of union.

I did not say I am sure "oneness is a state of the sum of conscious lifeforms in the universe." I gave you an impression, a hypothesis for discussion, a possibility. Never have I said what you are attributing to me. I should be able to suggest an idea without being labeled a believer. To discuss what someone's experience might imply doesn't mean anyone has to jump to conclusions. I certainly am not ready to do that.

Think about what it means when you say, "I can't imagine a way in which I would even begin to suspect that, much less come to be convinced of it." Of course you can't imagine it, and that is because you are intelligent. When you hypothesize, isn't it based on some experience, or with the hope you will have some kind of confirming experience? I can hypothesize as I have because I've had the experience, and you cannot "begin to suspect that" because you lack experience. Unless the standard for truth is to be only what you've experienced, then it seems to me in a philosophical area of an empirical-based forum, any experience-supported and logical hypothesis is worthy of consideration.

 

[Kerrie]

I'm not rejecting the claims that people experience enlightenment, far from it. I know the brain/mind is capable of producing anything imaginable, and quite a few things unimaginable. But I do reject most metaphysical claims associated with altered states of mind.

if i understand les correctly, his definition of enlightenment is perspective based rather then a chemical transformation. this perspective is based on realizations that are quite opposite of what common western society endorses.

You can't possibly accept all claims people make on the basis that they might know something you don't. It doesn't work that way. But of course blind skepticism is not the answer either.

a very valid statement, but can you be absolute in saying that others don't know something you don't? different experiences in one's life may give a wider perspective on particular matters.

It's a shame they don't give prizes for brilliant statements like that. Kudos!

it would have been brilliant had he read my statement more clearly. for some, drugs are one way to open the mind. for some, like Evo, it does not work. in my experience, drugs many years ago were a help in opening my mind. if i had stated that the chemically induced high gave me enlightenment, then logically i might be a regular drug user, however it only played a small part in my effort of trying to be as "aware" as i can attain.

As a term, "possession by the devil" was applied millenia before neurology existed. So what?

As far as I know, the idea of "enlightenment" is a key point of some religions. It is a belief, not unlike the concept of salvation in Christianity. I'm not saying one or both ideas are false, but I think it's very reasonable to think of them as rough approximations of truths beyond our current ability to understand.

you confuse spirituality with religion. spirituality is self-lead, religion is lead by others, particularly those with a powerful influence. i can agree however, that many may claim enlightenment falsely.

Now the fact that you can experience a belief as if it were real is completely irrelevant to the truth of the belief itself...Now isn't it odd that one man's heaven is another man's hell? Isn't it likely that, during altered states of consciousness, a person has the awesome power to make his or her imagination become real?

a very valid statement. as far as it being odd that one man's heaven is another's hell is not odd. different strokes for different folks. as for altered states of consciousness, are you basing your consciousness as one that is the most aware and all other states of consciousness are induced by imagination?

 

[confutatis]

If you think drugs (or more generally, exceptional states of consciousness which may be accessed either by drugs or other means) have never assisted anyone in writing exceptional poetry or composing exceptional music, boy are you kidding yourself. Many great poets did their best work when in trance-like or 'transcendental' states of consciousness.

I'm short of time today, but I think it's worth commenting on this. It is true that people have sometimes produced good works under altered states of consciousness. But it's even more true that the vast majority of great artists and scientists produce their best work in a heightened but still quite ordinary state. It's also true that all scientific research on "mind-expanding" drugs and creativity turned out negative results. If anything, scientists have learned that drugs do change a person's judgement, so that they think they have performed a lot better even when they have actually performed a lot worse.

I do not particularly like when I see people defending the use of drugs for any purpose, even recreational, when all scientific research has established that drugs are useless at best and extremely harmful at worst. I think it's particularly bad in a forum like this, when young people may get the impression that such opinions as expressed in this forum have authority to them.

And that was my sermon for today

 

[BoulderHead]

…Drugs could help people find solutions to complex differential equations, compose beautiful symphonies, design awesome buildings, write breathtaking poetry, and so on. As it turns out, at best drugs do absolutely nothing in that sense, and at worst they render a person insane.

Spoken with authority.

It is true that people have sometimes produced good works under altered states of consciousness…

Authority softened from declaration of “absolutely nothing” to admission that “sometimes….”

…when all scientific research has established that drugs are useless at best and extremely harmful at worst.

I think this depends on the type of drug under consideration as well as the individual taking it. This is a blanket statement that is false, as can be seen in the admission that “sometimes…”. At least, the only defense I see for it is tied to it being limited to “scientific research”. Certain drugs, for some people, are useful as has been admitted to. So, if scientific studies deem a drug useless yet an individual performs well while taking that drug, who is to deny them?
Also, and I believe this was the most comprehensive study on marihuana ever performed, the Nixon-appointed commission stated: "Marihuana's relative potential for harm to the vast majority of individual users and its actual impact on society does not justify a social policy designed to seek out and firmly punish those who use it."

Here’s a link for more information, should anyone be interested;
http://www.csdp.org/news/news/nixon.htm

For adults, if not children, I view it as a matter of personal liberty.

I think it's particularly bad in a forum like this, when young people may get the impression that such opinions as expressed in this forum have authority to them.

I agree with you 100% so I’m pointing where authority is found wanting.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I do not particularly like when I see people defending the use of drugs for any purpose, even recreational, when all scientific research has established that drugs are useless at best and extremely harmful at worst. I think it's particularly bad in a forum like this, when young people may get the impression that such opinions as expressed in this forum have authority to them.

I am quite certain you cannot cite the studies that have established all drugs are "useless at best." I don't like such generalizations because I know such a fact has not been established with all drugs. Yet I agree with you about kids and drugs, and have had the same reservations about discussing my experiences with them.

But it seems several of we adults have decided to talk about specific drugs in an objective way, and now that we are into it and it is public, I think we should strive to be accurate. To make my point, I will use the Yaqui worldview to help evaluate the wisdom of using a drug.

First, I think we have to distinquish between synthetic drugs and those found in nature. If I'd been raised in Yaqui culture, for instance, I might have learned that nature (which we know took billions of years to become what it is today), provided peyote and certain other substances for humans to benefit from. Of course, nature provides deadly poisons as well, and just because the Yaquis believed what they did doesn't make it so; yet it could be true too in the case of peyote.

Secondly, I think we have to distinquish between the tribal culture that peyote use developed within, and modern culture. In Yaqui culture, a shaman, relying on methods passed down for centuries, would guide the use of the drug. He would serve as a guide in the sense of creating the proper attitude with which to use peyote, and limiting its use to situations he would set up. There the drug was employed with a purpose, such as helping one escape from one's conditioned world view (or, as Don Juan expressed it, "stopping the world"). But in modern culture, people are likely to take peyote so they can party, get off on how color is accentuated or how much fun sex becomes, or for no other reason than to be "out of it," etc.

One can be sure any modern studies on peyote did not attempt to measure its ability to help one when under the guidance of an experienced guide, and so statements about the positive potential of that drug at least lacks support from credible research.

As noble as a kneejerk reaction to drug use may be, in the name of accuracy I think we shouldn't be fearful of discussing the possibility of it being done properly. Afterall, the medical profession relies heavily on drugs, where there too it is done under the supervision of a trained professional; but in that case, many of the drugs are being prescribed without the benefit of centuries of testing. On the other hand, I must admit that since currently we don't have proper guidance available to us, the use of drugs, while possibly beneficial in the past, may now be too dangerous to recommend.

 

[hypnagogue]

I do not particularly like when I see people defending the use of drugs for any purpose, even recreational, when all scientific research has established that drugs are useless at best

from http://www.maps.org/research/tenlessons.html :

While no medical use is currently accepted in the United States, many of the earlier individual practitioners and clinical researchers produced extremely promising - and due to subsequent constraints on research - largely unexploited results.

In the clinical research that has been conducted, psychedelics have been shown to be useful in:

Alcoholism
Substance abuse and addiction
Relationship counseling
Criminal recidivism
Post-traumatic stress disorder
Depression
Obsessive-compulsive disorder
End-stage cancer psychotherapy
Stimulation of the meditative state
Elicitation of a mystical experience

and extremely harmful at worst.

from http://www.maps.org/research/tenlessons.html :

In fact, the clinical literature agrees that psychedelics are generally "safe and effective when used as directed" (see "Ten Lessons of Psychedelics, Rediscovered" below). From a chemical perspective, the classic psychedelics are relatively non-toxic in adults, especially as compared with other drugs of abuse

Nonetheless, psychedelics are powerful psychoactive chemicals and when used outside the professional context, or even in an improper clinical setting, can cause considerable, although generally transient, psychological distress. (Psychedelics do cause sensory distortions, but not true hallucinations.) When subjects are properly selected and treated, however, the research clearly and repeatedly has shown no long-term deleterious effects from the use of psychedelics under medical supervision. The question of whether medical or psychospiritual supervision is most appropriate is an important issue and one yet to be fully addressed by professionals.

Your attitude towards psychedelics betrays either a bias in your reasoning or an ignorance of the facts. When used properly, psychedelics can be safely used for both practical (therapeutic) and theoretical (research of the nature of the brain/mind) purposes.

I'm not advising that just anyone go out on the local street corner and buy a tab of acid, for the same reason I wouldn't advise that just anyone get into a car and start driving. Driving is a wonderful tool, but can also be quite dangerous. Before an aspiring driver begins driving as he pleases, he must learn the basic rules of what constitutes safe driving, he must practice carrying out actual performance in small increments under the supervision of an experienced tutor, and he must meet legal qualifications.

The same holds true of psychedelics. They can be wonderful tools, but they can also be quite dangerous. Before an aspiring psychedelic user begins using psychedelics as he pleases, he must learn the basic rules of what constitutes safe usage, he must practice carrying out actual performance in small increments under the supervision of an experienced tutor, and he must meet legal qualifications.

I would heartily recommend anyone who is willing to follow the above guidelines for driving to actually go through with them and learn how to drive safely and legally for his own person benefit. I would even more emphatically recommend anyone who is willing to follow the above guidelines for using psychedelics to actually go through with them and learn how to use psychedelics safely and legally for his own personal benefit.