Psychedelic substances and spiritual development

[talloola]

I don't know anything about any of them. I have a beer or a glass of wine now and then. I smoked
till I was 25, then smartened up.

psychedelic substances seem to me, to be the most harmful. I could imagine a brain having some
permanent damage.

I have always been completely 'dumfounded' as to how anyone could put such substances into their
bodies, especially kids/teenagers. Such young bodies/brains growing to face the world, and all of
a sudden they shove foreign substances down their throats, or into their arm,and say, OK brain, handle this,
well, what if it can't.

Guess I will never understand that aspect of life.

 

[Niflmir]

In my carefully considered opinion, there is no spiritual development to be gained from the use of psychoactive substances. They are distorting and blinding, not enlightening, and they lead nowhere but into mystic nonsense. Reality as revealed by science's ongoing exploration of it is far more complex and interesting and challenging than anything ever imagined by any shaman, witch doctor, psychic, or drug-addled spiritualist. Thanks, but no thanks, I prefer to keep my head clear.

Which is a perfectly good choice to make. Blinding as an adjective to describe drugs is something I would offer as reasoning for people trying to seek spiritual development from psychoactive substances. Much like a blind person can learn from their blindness and provide unique perspectives on the human condition, so too can drugs. People often forget that coffee is a drug, and it is widely known how it can improve people's moods in the morning. Then of course, few people seek enlightenment at the bottom of a brandy glass, except perhaps Ernest Hemingway. It is certainly not for everyone but it is good for some.

Vereya
Were psychedelic behavior to gain larger inroads into our societies, what we now enjoy as law or cooperative and beneficial behavior within society would begin to disintegrate as we would have levels of behavior which were uncontrolled by those using'abusing psychedelic assistance for whatever personal reason they wished.

Psychedelic behaviour is firmly entrenched in our culture. Alcohol, caffeine and tobacco are all psychoactive substances to lesser or greater degree. Society has not fallen apart. We recently found out that Canada has the fifth highest usage of marijuana in the world and leads the industrial world (ahead of the Netherlands!) for percentage of users. Yet many of us here would argue that Canada is a great nation and is in no danger of falling apart from rampant cannabis use. Certainly the criminal problems associated with it are troubling but we chose to have those problems when we chose to deal with drugs as a criminal problem and chose to think of all drug use (except alcohol, caffeine, tobacco and prescriptions) as abuse.

But as a spiritual path, the assumption that the psychoactive experience is unique and that the shaman can be found in all cultures is poorly founded. The shaman was once a very specific person localized to a very small place in Siberia, the western world blew this paradigm into some grandiose archetype and incorrectly portrays many ways of life as shamanic. Many of the supposed Shamans object to the term. Is a shaman an indigenous medician, religious figure or both? Maria Sabina, who introduced the western world to magic mushrooms through Gordon Wasson objected to being called a shaman. She was Christian and found such thoughts blasphemous. She performed mushroom ceremonies as a sort of healing ritual, but did not think they held religious significance. Other indigenous mushroom users may have felt otherwise. All I seek to point out is that for some, drugs can have a spiritual element, and if they make you feel spiritual thoughts moreso than when sober they are for you, but it is not true for all people.

 

[Unforgiven]

I don't know anything about any of them. I have a beer or a glass of wine now and then. I smoked
till I was 25, then smartened up.

psychedelic substances seem to me, to be the most harmful. I could imagine a brain having some
permanent damage.

I have always been completely 'dumfounded' as to how anyone could put such substances into their
bodies, especially kids/teenagers. Such young bodies/brains growing to face the world, and all of
a sudden they shove foreign substances down their throats, or into their arm,and say, OK brain, handle this,
well, what if it can't.

Guess I will never understand that aspect of life.

They are for sure dangerous and in the wrong hands, can be deadly. So many things are. But like most everything, they are a tool and when used that way, can be the catalyst to change your thoughts about something or allow you to consider what in the past you have failed to notice or discarded from your thoughts.

I think it is evident that this is not a method everyone should or can choose. But for those who can make something profound for themselves out of it, then I would say they are and should be welcomed to it. Perhaps the only proviso would be in selection of who should and shouldn't. While with a few people it is very clear that they should not leave the ground at any time. Others may just have to figure it out themselves. I should hope that anyone stepping into this procedure of using psychoactive drugs is in the care of experienced and mindful hands.

 

[Vereya]

Actually apart from the odd scotch and threat i'm the same....those days are long gone...It was a valid expierence....made me look at things from a differnet angle.....It's really hard to impart the whole in type, to expect anyone who has done the real deal to understand it is impossible...well maybe not the outcome....

It is very hard, indeed, to explain this kind of thing to a person who had never had any psychedelic experience. I don't even know how to explain that people who do it are not crazy, they are not drug-addicts, they are not criminals with uncontrollable behavior. The second article that I posted in this thread, by Doctor Davis, explains so well the reasons why people have got the kind of the negative attitude they have towards psychedelics, and just how this kind of attitude was brought about.

 

[Pangloss]

There's nothin' wrong with getting stoned. Unless you start to think the idiot musings you get are some sort of revelation.

You wouldn't balance your chequebook while ripped; what makes anyone think they can divine the secrets of the cosmos while tripping?

Have some wine; take some 'shrooms; smoke some weed - ain't no harm in it.

Just don't make it more than it is.

Pangloss

 

[Vereya]

I wouldn't miss one day of my 'real' everyday life, by putting some chemical into my body that doesn't belong there. I get real joy from feeding myself substances from the earth that I know makes my mind and body healthy and happy.

There are some chemically synthesized psychedelic substances, but a lot of them grow in the nature. By the way, it is scientifically proven that a human body, every human's body produces small amounts of DMT, a very powerful psychedelic. It is produced in larger quantities during stressful or life-or-death situations, like the birth of a child, for instance, but it is constantly produced in small amounts. The hypothesis is that the human brain needs DMT to function normally.

 

[Unforgiven]

Well everyone is different isn't that right? While some times it's is every bit as you say, and idiot musing, while some find prophetic or insightful revelation upon reflection. Some of the greatest music for example, has been written while high.

Why would someone who is ether in search of some enlightenment or just getting baked want to balance their cheque book stoned? While I can see how it's not every thing that pops into your head that is going to make for some profound insight, but there are times when something comes along that does speak to the heart of the matter.

There's nothin' wrong with getting stoned. Unless you start to think the idiot musings you get are some sort of revelation.

You wouldn't balance your chequebook while ripped; what makes anyone think they can divine the secrets of the cosmos while tripping?

Have some wine; take some 'shrooms; smoke some weed - ain't no harm in it.

Just don't make it more than it is.

Pangloss

 

[Unforgiven]

And the other way around too. People fall into a tradition of doing something and there comes a time when they don't even know why they do it. They just always have. Some can look beyond the borders of their norm and see that there are outriggers to issues they have never considered. Others remain in their rut refusing to consider changing. I don't think you can spend any more time trying to convince them without wasting it. Though there is always value in speaking about it as more often than not, there is a silent lurker wanting to understand but fearing chance of being ostracized.

It is very hard, indeed, to explain this kind of thing to a person who had never had any psychedelic experience. I don't even know how to explain that people who do it are not crazy, they are not drug-addicts, they are not criminals with uncontrollable behavior. The second article that I posted in this thread, by Doctor Davis, explains so well the reasons why people have got the kind of the negative attitude they have towards psychedelics, and just how this kind of attitude was brought about.

 

[Impetus]

"Religion is the opiate of the masses" Marx

Funny how belief, without a shred of proof, in a supreme being doesn't lead us to think the believers are insane but some cannot fathom the potential benefit of psychodelics as an aid to spiritual enlightenment...

I would make this comparison:

Our brain is basically an organic computer, our consciousness is an operating system that interfaces our brain with the outside world. We have "firmware" that is written by our everyday experiences throughout life which affects how the applications (thoughts) behave.

For some, the firmware and O/S function relatively normally, others have "glitches" of various sorts for which we are typically prescribed....drugs. Some seek spiritual enlightenment/growth through religion.

Back to the analogy, to repair/patch/update software/firmware you need a "decompiler" to be able to make changes. Psychoanalysis is often the decompiler/compiler of choice with varying degrees of efficacy experienced by subjects.

Psychedelics are basically a "decompiler" of the O/S and firmware of the mind. An untrained novice "programmer" can seriously mess up software with a decompiler just as an unguided or novice "tripper" can mess themselves up on psychedelic "decompilers".

I've had literally dozens of experiences with psychedelics beginning with LSD-25 in the 70's up to ecstasy in the 00's and never had a "bad trip". I've seen many other people have bad trips though, mostly people who I knew to have had issues normally dealt with in a psychiatrist's office. In all but one case I was able to "talk them down" and diffuse the situation. In that one case, the inherent psychosis was way too acute and she had to be taken in to the ER. They pumped her full of valium and sent us home.

I believe that there is potential to make changes of profound magnitude while tripping.

My example, I was lost (I hated it) in math in grade 9 because I missed some classes due to sickness and missed some key concepts. The day after I did my first LSD-25 I had a math assignment due and I hadn't touched it the night before. Of course I didn't sleep all night, but I got to school early and for some reason when I tried to do my homework, it all made sense to me for once! I finished the assignment in record time and 100% correct when we took it up in class.

Since then, I loved math. Excelled in it...

Muz

 

[Curiosity]

Vereya

You write about 'negative attitudes' regarding psychedlics by those who have not tried or experienced them.

I have an extremely negative attitude because I am concerned with rebuilding some shattered minds resulting from psychedelic trips which continue to plague the victim post experience.

Having seen such impact on previously healthy functioning brains, I am bound to feel these are not productive to our psyche as we are only on a threshold of knowledge - and perhaps if there were more unharmed people within my realm of acquaintance or study I would feel differently.

Still even one is too many. I cannot condone the risk to humans. There are no controls available to us to temper the impact at the present time - perhaps in the future - but that is not for me to choose. I have to work with the here and now.

 

[Unforgiven]

Just curious where you were asked to condone anything here?
What is it that you do for a living Curiosity?

Vereya

You write about 'negative attitudes' regarding psychedlics by those who have not tried or experienced them.

I have an extremely negative attitude because I am concerned with rebuilding some shattered minds resulting from psychedelic trips which continue to plague the victim post experience.

Having seen such impact on previously healthy functioning brains, I am bound to feel these are not productive to our psyche as we are only on a threshold of knowledge - and perhaps if there were more unharmed people within my realm of acquaintance or study I would feel differently.

Still even one is too many. I cannot condone the risk to humans. There are no controls available to us to temper the impact at the present time - perhaps in the future - but that is not for me to choose. I have to work with the here and now.

 

[Curiosity]

Unforgiven

You enjoy the negatives and picking on others - is that your style on forums? Is nagging your pastime? You seem to concentrate on a few of us here to tear into our messages.

We are free to offer our opinions here and perhaps you do not understand the correct meaning of condone. I am offering my opinion of protest or censure the use of psychedelics as recreational lifestyles. I can always forgive anyone for their use. I cannot overlook their flirting with danger. And I am committed to censure at the present time.

There have been others who write as I do - yet you choose to select my post only? Hmmm

Let me know if you have been promoted to an editor or moderator. I'll be more careful to seek your approval before posting again.

The following is copied from one of the several Thesaurus' offered at Google:
[FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][SIZE=+0]con·done[/SIZE] [/SIZE][/FONT] (k

n-d

n

) [SIZE=-2]KEY [/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]TRANSITIVE VERB: [/SIZE]
[FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]con·doned[/SIZE][/FONT] , [FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]con·don·ing[/SIZE][/FONT] , [FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]con·dones[/SIZE][/FONT]
To overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure.

 

[Unforgiven]

I said that no one asked you to condone anything.
And since you mentioned that:

I have an extremely negative attitude because I am concerned with rebuilding some shattered minds resulting from psychedelic trips which continue to plague the victim post experience

Which leads me to think maybe you work in this field.

That I can't ask you a couple of simple questions without you going over the top makes me wonder. If you have some huge problem with me or anyone questioning what you post then don't post. It's an open forum and if you would like a little respect paid to you when you post, then you should consider doing the same.

Unforgiven

You enjoy the negatives and picking on others - is that your style on forums? Is nagging your pastime? You seem to concentrate on a few of us here to tear into our messages.

We are free to offer our opinions here and perhaps you do not understand the correct meaning of condone. I am offering my opinion of protest or censure the use of psychedelics as recreational
lifestyles. There have been others who write as I do - yet you choose to select my post only? Hmmm

Let me know if you have been promoted to an editor or moderator. I'll be more careful to seek your approval before posting again.

The following is copied from one of the several Thesaurus' offered at Google:
[FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][SIZE=+0]con·done[/SIZE] [/SIZE][/FONT] (k

n-d

n

) [SIZE=-2]KEY [/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]TRANSITIVE VERB: [/SIZE]
[FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]con·doned[/SIZE][/FONT] , [FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]con·don·ing[/SIZE][/FONT] , [FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]con·dones[/SIZE][/FONT]
To overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure.

 

[Curiosity]

That I can't ask you a couple of simple questions without you going over the top makes me wonder. If you have some huge problem with me or anyone questioning what you post then don't post. It's an open forum and if you would like a little respect paid to you when you post, then you should consider doing the same.

Unforgiven

I will type slowly for you:

You show very little respect for others - you mock their thoughts - you challenge constantly - and you demand respect for your intrusive posts?

Get over yourself Unforgiven - it isn't about you or what you want.

 

[Unforgiven]

Like a fathead like you defines me. I respect those who deserve it. You have quickly fallen off that list. I made a mistake responding to your PM to me. A admit that openly.

This is about psychodelic drug use. If you can't manage to focus on that for more than the two minutes get help.

Unforgiven

I will type slowly for you:

You show very little respect for others - you mock their thoughts - you challenge constantly - and you demand respect for your intrusive posts?

Get over yourself Unforgiven - it isn't about you or what you want.

 

[Dreadful Nonsense]

Unforgiven

I will type slowly for you:

You show very little respect for others - you mock their thoughts - you challenge constantly - and you demand respect for your intrusive posts?

Get over yourself Unforgiven - it isn't about you or what you want.

In this forum :
He wants to have all canadian kids in the army mandatory.
He wants the government to bring up our children.
He wants to nuke and melt countries.
I'm starting to see my inflated opinion of this buffoon was misplaced..
When asked to clarify expierence he flames.
He has taken an excellent thread here and turned it slowly to a flame fest.
I don't see where he is a valid contributor to this forum.
TROLL CITY.

 

[Pangloss]

Curiosity:

On the subject of risk. . .

Almost everything I do carries a risk of harm - actually, it was Pascal who said that it is life itself, and the mere act of living it, that carries risk of harm.

Maybe he was the first to say (in a paraphrase), "Nobody move and nobody gets hurt."

I like to ride my bikes quickly, over long distances, and in remote places. Soon I will do a one day ride from Castlegar to Creston - a high, steep, hot, dry, remote ride. I am 44 years old.

I faint when I get too hot. My father died of a heart attack, not much older than I am now.

There is a chance I will crash, or my bicycle will break, or some other ill fortune will befall me. While I try to prepare for this, the risk is real and yet it does not stop me. Why?

Because the pleasure gained from the activity is worth the risk to me.

Same goes for hiking, carpentry (I've nipped the ends of a couple of my fingers off), ocean kayaking - heck, even cooking is a risk.

Drugs are in a different category for most people - I'm not sure why. The millions of folks who take drugs regularly (and have for hundreds of thousands of years) with no ill effects far outnumber the folks who are damaged by them - just like my bike riding.

Should cycling be outlawed because some people are hurt, crippled, even killed by bicycle riding?

If a drug can, even temporarily, increase happiness for the user, that is a benefit that only the most narrow-minded could discount.

Freedom = exposure to risk. For me, the thought of living in a nanny state really annoys me.

Pangloss

 

[Curiosity]

Pangloss

That is nice you are a risk-taker and enjoy that kind of on the edge life - good for you.

If you choose to take drugs or try a psychedelic trip on occasion - good for you.

I have already stated my position... a position which should have nothing to do with your own choices whatsoever.

I merely wrote my opinion and why I feel that way - I wasn't listing a Book of Rules for anyone to follow.

 

[Dreadful Nonsense]

Curiosity:

On the subject of risk. . .

Almost everything I do carries a risk of harm - actually, it was Pascal who said that it is life itself, and the mere act of living it, that carries risk of harm.

Maybe he was the first to say (in a paraphrase), "Nobody move and nobody gets hurt."

I like to ride my bikes quickly, over long distances, and in remote places. Soon I will do a one day ride from Castlegar to Creston - a high, steep, hot, dry, remote ride. I am 44 years old.

I faint when I get too hot. My father died of a heart attack, not much older than I am now.

There is a chance I will crash, or my bicycle will break, or some other ill fortune will befall me. While I try to prepare for this, the risk is real and yet it does not stop me. Why?

Because the pleasure gained from the activity is worth the risk to me.

Same goes for hiking, carpentry (I've nipped the ends of a couple of my fingers off), ocean kayaking - heck, even cooking is a risk.

Drugs are in a different category for most people - I'm not sure why. The millions of folks who take drugs regularly (and have for hundreds of thousands of years) with no ill effects far outnumber the folks who are damaged by them - just like my bike riding.

Should cycling be outlawed because some people are hurt, crippled, even killed by bicycle riding?

If a drug can, even temporarily, increase happiness for the user, that is a benefit that only the most narrow-minded could discount.

Freedom = exposure to risk. For me, the thought of living in a nanny state really annoys me.

Pangloss

I totally enjoyed this post.
You surprised me.
Guess i am still getting to know people.
Thanks for that.
Dave

 

[Pangloss]

Curio:

Forgive me it that appeared to be an attack - that was the polar opposite of my intention. I trust you'll notice that I only post to people that (I think) have something smart and thoughtful to say.

I only mean to say that everything in this world carries risk: it's unavoidable. The task is to weigh the benefits against the costs and come to a balance that works for you.

I tried skydiving. Oh, boy - not for me. The risk, if something went wrong (dead) was sooo not worth the benefit (being scared almost to incontinence).

So, no skydiving for me.

But for others - well for some, skydiving is the most meaningful and life affirming thing they can do.

This same example can be applied to every single field of human endeavour - including drug taking.

What works for me might not work for you - and vice versa. This teaches me to be humble enough to never say someone else shouldn't try something for themselves - because, as I've been saying, what doesn't work for me might just be the very best thing you can do for yourself.

And who an I to stop another person from that?

Pangloss