But does mindfulness have to be associated with buddhism? I certainly think being present in the moment is a good idea but I don't like to atribute that idea to buddhism. Does the fact that you can pick good bits out of most systems of thought validate the entire system?
I was not trying to sell you on Buddhism, let alone 'the entire system'. I just said that I have been on Zen-Buddhist related retreats and found the large amounts of meditation to after a while be in certain ways surprisingly similar to what LSD can do. I doubt that would be much more or less so if the meditation-focused retreat happened to have been officially christian or hindu 'themed' since there was very little influence of any tradition. (Apart from the fact that the very heavy emphasis on meditation is rather typical for Zen-Buddhism, especially western and open-to-all Zen organisations).
Tibetan Buddhism only is a part of Buddhism if you consider its full scope, which is not necessarily something you should do. Ignoring Tibetan traditions is not opportunistically picking and choosing. Their tradition is one of many, one form of it, it is not part of the essential basis that could be considered inextricable. Nevertheless I am all for making philisophical and spiritual views personalized rather than treating it like package deals, isms and institutions you can become a member of. All of that is such pigeon hole thinking. : (
Yes there are some fundamental ideas of Buddhism (mainly Zen related) that I came to 'subscribe to', i.e. it is now a part of how I theorize how the world manifests. It is mostly the
school of thought that generally appeals to me. When I learned about several ideas I found them to be 'explanations' that best match spiritual / mystical experiences I had. It never or hardly ever happened the other way around for me I think.
But I am not trying to force that on anyone here or try people to sell on it here... those ideas are my personal business. I do share them sometimes. Not sure if they are entirely relevant to the discussion now though.
I do think that while skepticism is a healthy and important thing, it is also rather safe, lazy and easy to make absolutely no attempt to explain or formulate experiences of a "trans-personal" nature, or better and more generally said: experiences the Shroomery might label level 4 or 5, whatever their actual specific definitions.
Of course I don't know if nothing mind-blowing like that ever happened to you on a psychedelic, I assume they must have since you keep reassuring us that you have taken it far enough... but it is easier to criticize and doubt things other people are thinking about their own extraordinary experiences than taking a risk and saying something interesting yourself, about the most intense experiences you ever had.
Not everything you think or formulate has to be true and scientifically verifiable right away as long as you acknowledge the uncertainty of your theories. You can't really ever get anywhere if you don't dare trying experimenting or playing with ideas. But what are you actually contributing constructively or creatively? What alternative explanations or ways of describing are you actually offering if you disagree with some of the things others are reporting? (Which I still think is inappropriate to do with subjective experiences)
