Is drug induced permanent enlightenment possible?

[Pegasus]

I don't think you have any choice other than to be the person that the drugs turned you and your mind into...

 

[naginnudej]

I was referring to the realization staying with you

That's up to you. You can make as much (or as little) of the experience and revelations induced therein as you wish. If you want to hold on to the realizations learned I recommend writing trip reports and/or reflecting on the experience. You can reflect in whatever manner you find most effective (i.e. painting, making music, etc...).

It's very easy to just move on and forget what you learned--integrating the experience in a meaningful way takes serious effort on your part.

 

[Xorkoth]

I always find writing trip reports to be an excellent and in fact, for me, a necessary first step in integrating my experiences into my life. Writing the experience down in as much detail as possible is a way to chronicle my thoughts and solidify the experience into my memory, and to solidify what it means to me as person as opposed to the raw experience. I find it's best to write as I'm coming down and have come down enough to write coherently (or at least take copious notes at this time, and write it out fully after you're suitable to write), or directly after the experience. Like a dream, a psychedelic experience fades quickly after you completely emerge from it, but, also like a dream, writing it down will solidify it in your memory forever.

Once you've written it down, it's been solidified in your memory, and you can re-read it from time to time to bring yourself back to that state of mind at least partially. From this platform, you can apply your realizations to your life as you choose by being mindful of them and keeping what you learned in your consciousness.

 

[melquiades]

Really great quote: "Before enlightenment: chop wood carry water. After enlightenment: chop wood carry water."

I feel like OP doesn't really understand what enlightenment is. And really... I don't either.

 

[naginnudej]

Really great quote: "Before enlightenment: chop wood carry water. After enlightenment: chop wood carry water."

I feel like OP doesn't really understand what enlightenment is. And really... I don't either.

Regardless, you can't fully understand something until you've lived it. Doesn't mean you can't strive for it though.

 

[The_Winner]

Really great quote: "Before enlightenment: chop wood carry water. After enlightenment: chop wood carry water."

I feel like OP doesn't really understand what enlightenment is. And really... I don't either.

Yes, nice quote indeed. =)
For sure I don't understand what enlightenment is, before I get there (and there is a huge chance I never will in this lifetime).
But I believe to have at least a vague mental conception of beings who are enlightened.

 

[solistus]

The ego is not an external thing you identify with or don't. To say you can be mindful of your ego and use it as a tool without identifying with it misses the point. That "you" that is mindful of things, sets goals and then selects tools to accomplish those goals is the very model of egoic being. That is what you cannot escape.

Being mindful of identity is good, but pretending not to have one is unproductive. In my experience, every single person I have ever met who claims to be "beyond" egoic self-identity has just disavowed their identity. To live in the world and to have a sense of self implies some basic level of identification.

My point about Buddhism was simply that it is a very specific way of thinking about the general subjects that psychedelic users tend to start questioning. I, personally, find its conclusions mostly incorrect and in some places dangerously so. It's not an "at first it seems weird" thing; it's an "after studying Buddhist thought for a decade I have decided their interpretation of suffering misses the point" thing. At any rate... Drugs can cause you to start questioning ontology and epistemology. Buddhism is one of countless organized systems of answers to those questions. If your drug experiences guide you toward that way of thinking and, after studying Buddhist thought as well as other systems that deal with the same questions differently, you decide Buddhism suits you best, that's great, but don't view it as a way to render permanent some temporary 'enlightened' euphoria you attained from psychedelic drugs.

I don't know you so don't view this as a commentary on your situation necessarily, but in my experience a lot of people who, through psychedelics or another route, start asking these kinds of questions, tend to latch on to the first coherent school of thought that addresses them as if it is the only one that does. Buddhism is far from the only belief system that talks about consciousness, the ego, and how to live in harmony given the nature of these things. It's also a very diverse set of teachings. Most of the branches of Buddhist thought I see value in pretty thoroughly reject the notion of monks and monastic living as somehow higher or more elevated.

Anyway, whatever you decide to do, remember that your conscious choices to adopt a world view are just that, and not "drug induced permanent enlightenment." Leading off your discussion of becoming a monk with discussion of shortcuts makes me think you really don't understand what "monk" means in a Buddhist context. Following Buddhist teachings and philosophies and living a monastic lifestyle are radically different things. If what you want is to probe these questions on your own in whatever way suits you, to experience life while striving for a more enlightened way of being... That doesn't mean in the slightest that you want to be a monk. Becoming a monk means dedicating your entire life to this set of ideas, pretty much abandoning a 'normal' life in modern culture and society as empty or without value. Personally, I think this is an absolutely wrong-headed approach to life; harmony that must hide from the world to thrive is no true harmony.

 

[daysonatrain]

remember that your conscious choices to adopt a world view are just that

that was a very well thought out post solistus. i too think the monastic lifestyle is unbalanced and while may be helpful to some is not a healthy way to lead a life for most, in fact i believe it often is an escape route for those that dont want to deal with their problems (i guess this is more in the western world, as in the eastern world it could be quite different for a larger percentage of people)

as all great teachers have stated, enlightenment cannot be described, it is the experience of life as it truly is without the mind conjecturing and planning and all the other things it does. i have had meditation sessions that were almost as strong as psychedelic trips and during it my mind was going "this is it!" but it never was, because there was always a mind there thinking, "oh yeah i made it, i just need to keep doing this and ill be enlightened."

To be human is to love, to hate, to feel

this i disagree with however, hate is a delusion

 

[The_Winner]

Since I'm still the very same super ego-driven being, I'll take my time to answer you, since you seem to miss the point in pretty much all aspects of my writings and even Buddhism (which is weird, since you seem to claim having studied it).
I'm just gonna try to clarify these things that seems to me you've gotten wrong.

The ego is not an external thing you identify with or don't. To say you can be mindful of your ego and use it as a tool without identifying with it misses the point. That "you" that is mindful of things, sets goals and then selects tools to accomplish those goals is the very model of egoic being. That is what you cannot escape.

You, as the awareness, can be mindful of your ego at all times. For example: one needs to present something for a big audience and is not used to doing so. The ego in him starts stirring up all kinds of thoughts of worry, before the presentation has even happened, like "what if I fail, what if they won't like how I do it" etc.
If one could be totally mindful/aware of the present moment and thus mindful of his own ego, these thoughts could not arise, since these thoughts are made up by the ego, which makes your mind worry about future and past.

Being mindful of identity is good, but pretending not to have one is unproductive. In my experience, every single person I have ever met who claims to be "beyond" egoic self-identity has just disavowed their identity. To live in the world and to have a sense of self implies some basic level of identification.

Your so called identity is made up by yourself. A story you tell yourself you think you are. It's a complex system indeed, but that doesn't make it the truth. People believe to be all kinds of different "persons" (including myself), since they or others have been telling them who they are for their whole life. Let's say a kid keeps getting called dumb everywhere he goes for years, do you think he won't start believing it himself? Or maybe no-one else calls him dumb, but he feels so for his whatever unlucky miss-happenings and the results will be the same - he will just think he's dumb, until he has proven it otherwise (and this can take a long time with such a negative mindset). These are just examples. I'm sure you could think of many more, if you put your mind to it.

I'll suggest you to watch these videos, in which Eckhart Tolle speaks about this probably 10x more clear, than me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miEpngZshDw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Scj4hJuKhI0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uk_AO8Vgr0

My point about Buddhism was simply that it is a very specific way of thinking about the general subjects that psychedelic users tend to start questioning. I, personally, find its conclusions mostly incorrect and in some places dangerously so.
It's not an "at first it seems weird" thing; it's an "after studying Buddhist thought for a decade I have decided their interpretation of suffering misses the point" thing.

I would be very interested in reading of those incorrect and especially dangerous conclusions.

At any rate... Drugs can cause you to start questioning ontology and epistemology. Buddhism is one of countless organized systems of answers to those questions. If your drug experiences guide you toward that way of thinking and, after studying Buddhist thought as well as other systems that deal with the same questions differently, you decide Buddhism suits you best, that's great, but don't view it as a way to render permanent some temporary 'enlightened' euphoria you attained from psychedelic drugs.

I have never attained any temporary 'enlightened' euphoria from psychedelic drugs. As I already told in one of my previous posts, the reason I'm fascinated about psychedelic drugs are other peoples claims of experiencing ego-death with them.

I don't know you so don't view this as a commentary on your situation necessarily, but in my experience a lot of people who, through psychedelics or another route, start asking these kinds of questions, tend to latch on to the first coherent school of thought that addresses them as if it is the only one that does. Buddhism is far from the only belief system that talks about consciousness, the ego, and how to live in harmony given the nature of these things. It's also a very diverse set of teachings. Most of the branches of Buddhist thought I see value in pretty thoroughly reject the notion of monks and monastic living as somehow higher or more elevated.

You are right, you don't know me and before even thinking of becoming a Buddhist monk, I have actually realized, that most of the religions have the same basic foundation. They were meant to teach people the same thing, but in many religions the teaching has been lost under the big pile of useless or misinterpreted information.
If in your opinion I expressed myself thinking that monastic living would be "somehow higher or more elevated", I'm sorry, cause that wasn't my intention. Otherwise I'm not sure what you meant by that line.

Leading off your discussion of becoming a monk with discussion of shortcuts makes me think you really don't understand what "monk" means in a Buddhist context. Following Buddhist teachings and philosophies and living a monastic lifestyle are radically different things. If what you want is to probe these questions on your own in whatever way suits you, to experience life while striving for a more enlightened way of being... That doesn't mean in the slightest that you want to be a monk. Becoming a monk means dedicating your entire life to this set of ideas, pretty much abandoning a 'normal' life in modern culture and society as empty or without value. Personally, I think this is an absolutely wrong-headed approach to life; harmony that must hide from the world to thrive is no true harmony.

If you think it's been an easy way for each Buddhist monk to the enlightenment, who has attained it, in a way that they would not choose a shortcut, if possible, then I'm pretty sure you are very wrong. They all have been just humans, not some masochists and if they could have chosen an easier way, I'm sure they would have gone for it.
Read up some biographies of Buddhist monks who have attained enlightenment and I'm sure you'll agree with me on this.
I don't value my "normal life" in the super cool modern culture and society much, so it would probably be quite easy for me to leave it behind for at least some time.
And btw, it's not like you have to stay as a monk for your whole life, if it doesn't suit you.


ego out. -_-
(altho I do like to believe, that there's more to it than just my ego )

 

[naginnudej]

this i disagree with however, hate is a delusion

Please read this (particularly the discussion):
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?t=500519

I think it may be of interest

 

[daysonatrain]

good report nag, im with you on that

 

[nearjat]

Psychedelics will never enlighten you. Everything they produce is quite the opposite of enlightenment. Maybe not if its a one time "aha!" and then leave it alone type thing, but when you keep using them it typically becomes mental masturbation. Enlightenment is totally devoid of any complex philosophies. The act of analyzing and picking at ideas goes against it.

 

[Roger&Me]

Is drug induced permanent enlightenment possible?

I guess. There's no reason for it to be impossible.

But enlightenment isn't something that happens to a person: all of existence is enlightenment itself.

What we refer to as "enlightenment" is just the state of consciousness that is induced when a person transcends their monkey-mind enough to realize that fact.

 

[F1n1shed]

Psychedelics will never enlighten you. Everything they produce is quite the opposite of enlightenment. Maybe not if its a one time "aha!" and then leave it alone type thing, but when you keep using them it typically becomes mental masturbation. Enlightenment is totally devoid of any complex philosophies. The act of analyzing and picking at ideas goes against it.

I'd have to agree with you, which on this board you will probably get negative views. But what you are saying really makes sense, I've had 2 shroom trips and it really gave me an intense ego dissolving trip but the utter confusion i had about things and my constant analyzing of it really didn't feel like enlightenment. Btw it was not a 'bad' trip. How ever on the comedown of the shroom trip i really did feel like a was a little more in touch things, especially on the first trip.

 

[solistus]

We're using terms very differently, and to be honest I do not appreciate your condescending tone, assuming that whenever we disagree or don't understand one another it's because I lack the perfect understanding of Buddhism you claim to have. The way you are using terms like 'ego' is not at all the way I deploy them from an ontological/philosophic perspective. Distinguishing between conscious awareness of your actions and "ego-induced" negative thoughts is, by my use of the terms, a nonsensical distinction.

I have written probable hundreds of pages of my thoughts on identity and ego here. If you are that interested in my views, page through my history. I'm a Lacanian, so having a shallow back-and-forth discussion about terms we're not even defining in the same way is not going to be at all productive. Better yet, read The Sublime Object of Ideology and The Ticklish Subject, both by Slavoj Zizek.

Other people claiming ego death on psychedelics are also not using 'ego' the way you are. You're misinterpreting them greatly, it sounds like, which led to this post conflating Buddhism with tripping. Ego death means losing sense of yourself as a distinct, conscious individual - not remaining conscious but being somehow 'above' petty 'ego-induced' issues. It's a radically different way of being-in-the-world.

I know I'm in the minority in this hippie love fest of a board for thinking anger, hate and even violence are natural and productive parts of human existence. Universal love is an ideological falsehood, in my opinion; for love to be meaningful, it cannot by its very nature be universal. To quote Zizek: "I've always been disgusted by this notion of oh, I love the world. I don't like the world. I'm somewhere between indifferent to the world or I hate it. All of reality, it just is. It's stupid. It's out there. I don't care about it. No, love for me is an extremely violent act, again this structure of imbalance: I pick out one element, a fragile individual person, and say, 'I love you more than anything else.' In this strictly formal sense, love is evil."

At any rate... to sum it up, I'm a psychoanalytic nihilist. I have very precise views about the nature of the ego based on the theories of Lacan et al, and I believe the 'goal' of philosophy/theology/life itself is to find ways to see beauty in the world rather than ugliness. I think Buddhism contains within it a predisposition against that which is. The Boddhisatva is the perfect model of ressentiment and a life of reactivity as Nietzsche would put it; all of life, all that is, is reduced to a trap of suffering and the goal becomes to escape it. Those who escape this cycle can do the ultimate selfless good of returning to the world of the living even when they could be "free" from it, to help "free" others by bringing them to enlightenment. Any religion or philosophy that values some transcendental realm, whether it be the infinite Oneness of nirvana or the harps-and-clouds of Christian heaven, I view with suspicion. There is value in some Buddhist teachings, but the way Buddhist monks and monastic sects in particular view the path to enlightenment bothers me deeply.

It's not about how attached you are to modern culture. It's about how attached you are to *living in the world.* "Monk" has a very precise meaning. If what you mean is that you plan to study Buddhism under Buddhist teachers and monks as part of a personal journey or exploration, that's great, but that's not at all what becoming a monk means. Sure, you *can* choose to leave after you join, but it's not something you plan to do temporarily. It's a huge commitment to dedicate your life to an ideology.

Philosophy, spirituality, religion.... Call it what you will, it's productive if and only if it helps people live better, happier lives. If you have to abandon your 'normal' life to follow a given philosophy or spiritual code, in my eyes that destroys any potential value that system may have otherwise possessed. If there is some state of being called 'enlightenment' that is possible and desirable to reach, I don't think you have to live on a monastery or abandon personal property to get there.

Samsara is also a deeply disturbing concept to me. It's absolutely the wrong relationship to the pleasure principle to simply demonize the pursuit of pleasure as the source of all wrong and suffering. Lacanian theory offers me a much more useful explanation of the pleasure principle, how it works structurally, and how one can adapt their lives around it.

The very idea that enlightenment is something you either attain or don't is also a big problem for me, if I haven't made that clear enough already. It's not an end goal to reach. If the concept of enlightenment is meaningful at all, in my mind it has to be a process, a way of living life, not a static state you either reach and then remain at or never reach. Speaking of identity, it really sounds like you're fetishizing this identity-position of "enlightened Buddhist monk" in a problematic way, but that's a discussion for another time.

I'm happy to answer any specific questions but if you want to "debate Buddhism" with me, please take it to PM. I've gone through this whole routine a billion times on here and it's getting old even for me, so I can only imagine how sick the other regulars must be of me rambling about Lacan

 

[daysonatrain]

wow, im surprised by this post. i totally disagree with 90 percent of your view of what you consider buddhism.

i couldnt agree less that anger and hatred are a "natural" human condition. while it may seem "natural" because of the many lifetimes of anger and hatred we are birthed from it is anything but natural to the true human condition imo

but i really could care less, this kind of debate is important yet incredibly, incredibly pointless imo

 

[solistus]

daysonatrain: As I said: "There is value in some Buddhist teachings, but the way Buddhist monks and monastic sects in particular view the path to enlightenment bothers me deeply." Most 'modern' Buddhists do not ascribe to monastic views of Buddhism. Most Buddhist monasteries, at least, ascribe to fairly traditional interpretations of samsara, bodhisattva, etc. Enlightenment means transcending the cycle of rebirth. A Bodhisattva is an enlightened soul who chooses to be reborn anyway to help others transcend the cycle, like Neo going back in the Matrix (obviously that's a half-joking simplification of a comparison ; ). That whole world view seems wrong to me.

As for violence/anger/hate... I don't know what "natural" means to you but both biology and history support my side here. The real question is, can they be productive? I say yes - fighting injustice is good. If the existence of injustice itself is unnatural in your mind, I'd love to hear what magical event caused humans to stop behaving anything like their apparent nature as peaceful and always just sometime before, you know, all of recorded history

but i really could care less, this kind of debate is important yet incredibly, incredibly pointless imo

heh, well said. This applies to about 98% of the things I argue about, here or in general

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

I haven't read the whole thread, but I think drug-induced enlightenment that never abates is possible, but very unlikely and rare. For most of us, it takes a lot of work to maintain a state that's in touch with our innermost being and far less destruction bent than our base, natural selves prior to any sort of discipline. Drugs can kickstart the process, but after they wear off, it takes work and persistence to keep forefront in your mind the most powerful lessons the drug taught you about your true nature for long periods of time after that. I'm open to the possibility that there are some people who are already sort of teetering on the edge of a lasting state of 'awakeness', and one good psychedelic or dissociative drug experience just pushes them over. But I think these sorts of people are rare. And special.

 

[medical_meccanica]

I believe it's not about escaping desire and suffering, nor about losing human emotions, but becoming totally aware/mindful of your desires and feelings that make you suffer. "Suffering can exist only if its roots remain in the unconscious of your being. If you go deep down searching and looking for the roots, the moment you become conscious of the roots of suffering, suffering disappears."

You've said that for you it's not about escaping suffering, but then used a quote that is quite clearly about causing suffering to completely disappear. As somebody who also firstly became interested in psychedelic drugs in relation to ego-death, which was probably linked to my melancholy disposition at the time, I can only say: maybe this IS about you wanting to escape sadness and pain in your life?

On this note...

In my experience, the moment of realisation of the 'roots of suffering' in ones being is usually the most painful part. The moments that I've really worked to get to the bottom of specific sadness in my soul have been the most intensely painful. In fact, I think relief from this sadness has mostly come from facing that particular 'root of my suffering' and feeling the full force of it, often completely buckling in a mess of tears and screams under the deep, vast ocean of sadness so that it is realised and I don't have to carry it around anymore. You can't realise the deep cause of longterm suffering in your mind and just think "aha!" and be done with it casually.

Psychedelics became an escape for me, and like I said earlier, I was particularly interested in ego-death when I first started reading about and exploring them. I think this was because deep down, I was NOT happy; with myself and my place in the world. I'm glad that I snapped out of my ego-death obsession and realised that I should soberly find the parts of myself that I'm not satisfied with and consciously work to change them, rather than just repeatedly kill off my ego.

I don't regret my use of psychedelic drugs, and I'm looking forward to having another trip soon. I've learned things from good trips and bad trips, but neither have ever magically alleviated me from sadness, in fact I think some have only pushed it deeper down, making it even more painful when the time has come to realise it.

 

[The_Winner]

You've said that for you it's not about escaping suffering, but then used a quote that is quite clearly about causing suffering to completely disappear. As somebody who also firstly became interested in psychedelic drugs in relation to ego-death, which was probably linked to my melancholy disposition at the time, I can only say: maybe this IS about you wanting to escape sadness and pain in your life?

On this note...

In my experience, the moment of realisation of the 'roots of suffering' in ones being is usually the most painful part. The moments that I've really worked to get to the bottom of specific sadness in my soul have been the most intensely painful. In fact, I think relief from this sadness has mostly come from facing that particular 'root of my suffering' and feeling the full force of it, often completely buckling in a mess of tears and screams under the deep, vast ocean of sadness so that it is realised and I don't have to carry it around anymore. You can't realise the deep cause of longterm suffering in your mind and just think "aha!" and be done with it casually.

I could be wrong, but maybe you just didn't really get to the roots, when thinking you did? If one would see the true roots of his suffering (while being mindful), one could just surrender to what is and really be "done with it casually", since there's probably nothing you can think of, that could fix it (otherwise you would be fixing it, instead of telling yourself a story of how bad/sad something in your life is).
I'm not saying I can do that often and if I could, this thread probably wouldn't exist, but I do have experienced it.
Staying mindful is hard work -_-
Maybe you could give us an example of some of those experiences? It doesn't even have to be true for you, just something you could relate to.

Btw, an interesting fact I have discovered a long time ago I haven't mentioned in this thread yet - it seems that cannabis helps me stay more mindful, sadly only for the duration of high.