Has anyone here ever experienced an enlightenment?

[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. :tongue2: 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.

 

[confutatis]

from http://www.maps.org/research/tenlessons.html :
[... and ...]
from http://www.maps.org/research/tenlessons.html :

Well, I guess we tend to accept research that confirms our beliefs and dismiss the rest. I won't pretend I don't have beliefs about drugs, or that those beliefs don't taint my perceptions, but at a minimum I feel confident about my beliefs as they come from experience, not from ignorance.

Your attitude towards psychedelics betrays either a bias in your reasoning or an ignorance of the facts.

There is a bias, definitely, but it's nothing I find embarassing. The bias comes from having seen quite a few young lives destroyed. And I'm not talking about the news on TV, I'm talking about friends and extended family, about cousins and in-laws who have come to the edge of suicide or madness. So I hope you can forgive if I have no sympathy at all for the stuff.

When used properly, psychedelics can be safely used for both practical (therapeutic) and theoretical (research of the nature of the brain/mind) purposes.

When used properly, antibiotics can be safely used for practical and theoretical purposes. That doesn't mean we should go out and play with them without professional supervision.

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.

The benefits of driving are far greater than the risks. The risks of drugs are far greater than the benefits. It's as simple as that - a rational decision.

psychedelics [...] 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.

You mean, like Timothy Leary?

[I would] 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.

In most parts of the world, there are no legal ways to "benefit" from psychedelics.

Anyway, I'm sure you have heard all this stuff before, from your mother. Sorry to bother you, you're an adult after all, and quite mature and responsible as far as I can tell. I just wanted to make it clear that my position does not come from ignorance, as you claim it does.

 

[hypnagogue]

A lot of young lives are destroyed by drunk driving as well. But if you drive safely and properly, the act is of great benefit. Likewise for psychedelics. I'm not trying to trivialize or deny the harm that can come from improper drug use, far from it. I don't know the details of your personal acquaintances, and I wouldn't want to get too personal here, but I suspect if the drugs in question were psychedelics and if they were used properly, disaster could have been avoided. Psychedelics are not addictive, so responsible use is emminently possible. Of course, there are some people who should never use psychedelics under any circumstances (those predisposed to mental illness, mainly), just as there are those who should never drive under any circumstances (eg someone with extremely poor vision). But for a well-informed and responsible user of psychedelics, the risks are really essentially minimal and the potential benefits are great. The risk of psychedelic use is not at all comparable to the risks involved with using rampantly destructive, addictive, and physiologically damaging drugs such as cocaine or heroin (or, for that matter, nicotine!), where even the most informed and responsible intentions of use are in precarious danger of being overtaken.

You are correct to point out that by far the most stringent limiting factor on reaping the benefits of psychedelics is legal restriction. I do believe that many of the legal restrictions on use of psychedelics are entirely unfounded (as opposed to, say, legal restrictions on the use of heroin which are entirely justified), and I can only hope that governments will progressively come to take a more enlightened position with regard to them. But for sufficientily serious, responsible, and interested people, there are ways to reap enormous personal benefits from psychedelics both safely and, in some parts of the world, completely legally.

 

[Kerrie]

i hope some here participating in this thread do not think that those of us claiming the realization of "oneness" did so by drug use exclusively. my realization came by reading many books which offered words of experience from others and conversing with other people coupled with a lot of alone time thinking. people sharing their experiences i think have the intention of helping others realize this great feeling of "oneness". let's not forget this :)

 

[hypnagogue]

I agree with Kerrie. To use a rough metaphor, psychedelics can serve as useful compasses on the spiritual path. I don't mean to give the impression that psychedelics are complete answers to the problems of exploring consciousness and approaching self-actualization. But they can serve as an invaluable tool in achieving this end. A compass can point you in the right direction, but it won't lift you up and take you where you want to go. Likewise, psychedelics can be eye-opening guides as to the potential of what consciousness can be (and what is so wonderful about what it can be), but ultimately the cultivation of one's consciousness is a more involved, embedded, ongoing process that can be assisted by, but not completed by, psychedelics.

For an article that says all this and more better than I am able to, please see http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/lsd/walsh.htm. In addition to expounding on what I stated above, there is also this useful insight that should be of interest to all the naysayers:

For 5 of those 8 years I have worked in areas such as the nature of psychological well-being, non-Western psychologies and religions, consciousness, and the effects of meditation. I have also undertaken a personal study of meditative and non-Western traditions, and I thus have had the opportunity of meeting, interviewing, and studying with a wide range of people in these related disciplines.

Whenever I came to know these people closely, the same story would emerge: that although they rarely acknowledged it in public, the psychedelics had played an important role in introducing them to and facilitating their passage through these disciplines. It occurred to me that this might well be a case of what social scientists call "plurality ignorance:" a situation in which each individual thinks he or she is the only one doing something, although in fact the practice is widespread. In this case, what seemed to be widely unrecognized was that large numbers of people appear to have derived, at least from their own point of view, significant benefits from psychedelics, despite popular media accounts of their devastating dangers.

This suspicion was deepened by an encounter with the editor of a prominent psychological journal. In an extensive review of various Western and non-Western psychologies, I discussed the data on psychedelics and concluded that there was evidence suggesting that in some cases people might find them beneficial. The journal editor was willing to accept the paper provided I removed any reference to positive effects of psychedelics; he thought that the journal could not afford to be associated with such statements. I am familiar with this particular editor's work and know that he is exceptionally open-minded. It appears that we have in our culture, even in the scientific and professional literature, a bias towards reporting only the negative effects of psychedelics.

 

[loseyourname]

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.

I was pretty certain that you had said "union" meant union with a primeval source of all consciousness. This would apply to all conscious lifeforms. If I'm wrong about that, though, I'm sorry. It's not like misunderstandings are uncommon on internet forums. Hopefully enough discussion can clear them up. I'm starting to get the feeling that what you are experiencing isn't adequately described by the English language.

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.

There is logic behind why I can't imagine it. I can imagine experiencing a higher form of my own consciousness, but unless I could simultaneously experience the conciousness of all conscious beings, I don't see how I could know that this higher state is common to all of them. Hypothesis or not, I don't see any way in which it could possibly be verified, except of course by experiencing the consciousness of all conscious beings, something that no one has ever claimed doing as far as I know.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I was pretty certain that you had said "union" meant union with a primeval source of all consciousness. This would apply to all conscious lifeforms. If I'm wrong about that, though, I'm sorry. It's not like misunderstandings are uncommon on internet forums. Hopefully enough discussion can clear them up. I'm starting to get the feeling that what you are experiencing isn't adequately described by the English language.

Well, you are definitely correct in saying "misunderstandings are uncommon on internet forums." Part of it is trying to maintain some level of brevity in one's responses . . . most of us are pretty busy with our lives.

However, you have fused my personal experience with my theorizing, while I tried to keep them distinct. What is not theory to me is the idea of "merging" with some background state of consciousness (I refer you to my "truck-on-a-bumpy-country-road" analogy). That experience is very unambiguous. In contrast, besides the direct aspects of the union experience there are also peripheral "impressions." One is, for example, that one is not just merged with the foundation of one's own consciousness, but also that one's consciousness is part of something much bigger.

While I am confident to state an experience I've labeled "union" is possible, and even that there is some "ground state" or foundation of conscousness, when I talk about the greater thing I feel outside of me, I realize it must be left in the category of impressions.

There is logic behind why I can't imagine it. I can imagine experiencing a higher form of my own consciousness, but unless I could simultaneously experience the conciousness of all conscious beings, I don't see how I could know that this higher state is common to all of them. Hypothesis or not, I don't see any way in which it could possibly be verified, except of course by experiencing the consciousness of all conscious beings, something that no one has ever claimed doing as far as I know.

Right, that's what I said. I said you lacked confirming, or even indicative, experience. To me, it is a sign of intelligence (even if not terribly intuitive ) when one limits one's thinking to confirming personal experience.

On the other hand, your standard for verification is physicalistic. If consciousness is not physical, then it's not going to work, as you say. I suggest that inner experience needs a different standard for verification which is, each human being has to look inside for oneself.

 

[Evo]

Permanent enlightenment without drugs, that's what these people think they have achieved.

They started with hallucinogenics, but hated the fact that the state of enlightenment was only temporary. Solution? Drill a hole in your head.

I'd be curious to hear what people think about this. These people swear by it. I will say right now I think they are a sandwich short of a picnic. But hey, maybe they know something I don't.

http://www.noah.org/trepan/people_w...heir_heads.html

 

[Les Sleeth]

They started with hallucinogenics, but hated the fact that the state of enlightenment was only temporary. Solution? Drill a hole in your head.

I'd be curious to hear what people think about this. These people swear by it. I will say right now I think they are a sandwich short of a picnic. But hey, maybe they know something I don't.[/url]

Without endorsing what they've done (I don't), I do think it's interesting that a hole in the head achieves what it does. If we assume they are reporting accurately, what might it mean?

There are some who say the body is a tool designed to develop individual consciousness. The way swinging a bat with a weight on it before stepping up to the plate can help one swing more quickly (without the weight), the "weight" of the restriction imposed by the body (in this case, an enclosed skull) might help one become stronger because of its limiting effect. At least a psychedelic wears off, and so might give one a taste of what is possible through natural hard work without defeating overall the role of the body.

 

[hypnagogue]

Permanent enlightenment without drugs, that's what these people think they have achieved.

They started with hallucinogenics, but hated the fact that the state of enlightenment was only temporary. Solution? Drill a hole in your head.

I'd be curious to hear what people think about this. These people swear by it. I will say right now I think they are a sandwich short of a picnic. But hey, maybe they know something I don't.

http://www.noah.org/trepan/people_w...heir_heads.html

Yikes. From personal testimonials (eg http://www.trepan.com/ and http://www.bmezine.com/news/people/A10101/trepan/) it doesn't even seem to induce effects significant enough to be called enlightenment-- seems like long term meditation or administration of nootropics would do the same thing, or something comparable. I'd rather work on long term meditation than rip a hole in my head, but that's just me. But if these people are satisfied with their results, more power to them.

 

[Janitor]

I have not read science fiction in 20 years, but I still vividly remember a story called 'A Song for Lya.' The main character willingly allowed herself to be physically absorbed into a gooey mess of conscious material known as the Greeshka. For some reason the posts here reminded me of that.

 

[TENYEARS]

To All, drugs are dangerous and should not be used for any form of enlightening experiences. The body mind and spirit are forged by experience. DO NOT GO ANY OTHER WAY. You may do permanent damage or you may not come back. Maybe I will explain some day or then again maybe not.