Anyone else think psychedelics are far superior to other drugs?

[psilocybinor]

youve been lied to about enlightenment.
see you would be totally right, if it was what you think it is, that its only achievable by death whatever other stuff.
but its not. 2 things, one is in buddhist particularely zen say certain things to lead you to learn your own lesson. for example when the buddha told his disciples desire causes suffering, yes, but this was an opening statement, to well...a whole religion/philosophy/vehicle. because what would happen (and what did happen) is they would come back and explain the couldnt get rid of desire, and those who were able to somewhat hypnotize themselves to ignore it they were left like...with a feeling of idk what to call it but it wasnt exactly peace. the buddha knew all along that that wasnt possible, atleast not that approach. cus its likea joke its funnier when you figure it out yourself.
the 2nd thing is yes i AM saying siddhartha gautama DID actually become enlightened fully at 35, that yes he DID stop gaining insights at that age or around there and NO the buddha or nirvana isnt some sort of magical otherworldly being/experience. all your doing with that is putting it off, your putting it off because you dont want to be enlightened, and it makes sense theres no rush to ending samsara. enlightenment isnt some magical thing you gain its just whats left when you take everything else away... no i dont think what youre calling spiritual is true, just cus people take shrooms and see god like you say or feeling like you transcended your ego. thats filled wiith delusion, spiritual is right here and now. in fact the physical world is extremely spiritual as they also call it the unspeakable world because you cant even explain it without comparing it to itself we somt even have matter we have forms of matter but noones ever found just matter you couldnt even imagine it because unlike what your hoping for there isnt any objective realities man so yeah..in relation to the threads topic, no i dont think psychedelics are better than all the other drugs out there but theyre definately amazing in theyre time and place. and no your saying dissciatives are just a fad like mdma but they arent, ppl have been at it since the pcp days and then ketamine now mxe/3-meo

 

[dezz]

What he said ^^^

A drug induced mind is by no means a way to get enlightened. It's basic stuff really. Cause and effect, you pump your brain full of foreign chemicals and then you see god. The effect isn't caused by enlightenment, it's caused by your neurological balance being temporarily disrupted. I'm not disregarding any of the benefits psychedelics have to improve your life, but it should be looked at as another perspective, or merely a different side of the story, not as an actual truth.

The experiences you have in every day life, behind your thoughts, raw reality THAT is where you gain insights and spiritual benefit. No one is saying this is glamorous work, it's not fun like a shroom trip or being off your nuts on acid, it's more like bucketing out a pond, or working in the fields all day long, understanding the mind can take a lifetime, and thinking you can trip a few times and totally get the bigger picture or suddeny "get it" IS a sign of an inflated ego and delusions of superiority IMO.

 

[Gratuitous Grace]

Do you really think Gautama Siddhartha was "enlightened" at age 35. And then he gained zero insight of the world the next 45 years of his life. Like he just understood reality perfectly and didn't gain any insight the last 45 years of his life?

Yes ... this is the consensus, actually.

Why live if you've reached enlightenment.

To teach. To show others the path to enlightenment. This is very, very clear in the teachings.

Obviously you can never reach enlightenment.

By "you" you mean who?

You striving towards enlightenment is proof you are not enlightened.

This seems true just by definition.

It's very unenlightening to say "I'm enlightened now."

The Buddha appears to have said it -- and to have acted accordingly. At least that's what we're taught. Why should it necessarily be "very unenlightening"? What if it's just a fact?

Psychedelics aren't equal to psychosis like many attain them to be.

The history is that medical researchers had great hopes that the psychedelic experience would help them to empathize with their schizophrenic patients. Different researchers came away from the psychedelic experience with differing conclusions on this. Who's to say, really? The "normal" doctor probably can't claim with authority that he experienced a condition similar to his patient's condition ... and neither can the patient. Or so it seems to me.

But the God like revelations aren't psychotic thinking. I truly believe God channels himself through psychedelic drugs because it's what we were meant to do as human beings. So by following God's ways he is letting us in on insight that is not achievable otherwise. Maybe. Maybe that sounds crazy but it's what I believe.

This sounds similar in ways to the teaching of the Temple of the True Inner Light. I'm still wrestling with their claim that psychedelics *are* God, I guess.

JUST MY 2 CENTS. I am Psychotic though so don't listen to me. Not just a drug user, I've been schizo long before the drugs

I wouldn't sell yourself short. I don't agree (just factually speaking) with much of what you said here, but I listened with great interest. Broadly speaking, I do agree with you that psychedelics are not some magical shortcut to enlightenment.

 

[atara]

Well enlightenment is not possible in this realm of reality. Do you really think Gautama Siddhartha was "enlightened" at age 35. And then he gained zero insight of the world the next 45 years of his life.

A bit of clarification regarding my religion: Shakyamuni Buddha ceased to suffer (dukkha) when he sat under the tree, and no longer held on to karma. From this moment on no spark of desire could arise within him, as it had no desire preceding it to fulfill (cf. you want to eat because you are hungry and you want to survive). This is not a sort of worldly knowledge, but a change in the way one relates to the world; it is called bodhi and translated as "enlightenment" or "awakening".

With that said, no mainstream Buddhist group suggests that psychedelics may lead one to attain enlightenment. In fact, Buddhism proscribes this ("I shall not allow myself to become intoxicated.").

 

[Gratuitous Grace]

A bit of clarification regarding my religion: Shakyamuni Buddha ceased to suffer (dukkha) when he sat under the tree, and no longer held on to karma. From this moment on no spark of desire could arise within him, as it had no desire preceding it to fulfill (cf. you want to eat because you are hungry and you want to survive). This is not a sort of worldly knowledge, but a change in the way one relates to the world; it is called bodhi and translated as "enlightenment" or "awakening".

atara, could you clarify something for us? The way you describe the enlightenment sequence of events -- leading to "no spark of desire" -- makes it sound like the Buddha just stopped caring about everything after reaching enlightenment. A kind of all-pervading indifference or nihilism. Did he have no desire to teach, no desire to bring an end to suffering, no desire to lead others on the path? He did those things, obviously ... but without a desire to do them? Is that a correct understanding?

If so, what explains his motivation? Or did he do everything he did simply because he was asked -- without motivation? I could accept that, but it sort of begs the question of whether he was left merely with a desire to serve.

Or ... is a buddha a sort of automaton? Devoid of desire/emotion/motivation but possessed of perfect knowledge of exactly the right thing to do at exactly the right moment? If so, then action could spring from something other than desire, I guess, but I still can't figure out what that "something other" could be. What sets a buddha's action in motion? You say there's "no spark." What is there instead?

 

[DubNaut]

i really have to read the thread but based on the last posts inquiry,
that is the contradiction, where you 'play' the ego, or persona to do such things for teh lulz

 

[Solipsis]

Drugs are translated in my native tongue as something akin to "means" as in the means to an end. To try and achieve something like medications try to do but not always with intentions that sound exactly as honorable...

I think psychedelic drugs are means meant to be used for different effects or purposes. Psychedelics are not 'far superior' if you are in a lot of pain and looking for a reliable way to dull it.
Saying that psychedelics are categorically better would IMO be the same as considering the reasons for using psychedelics better than the reasons for using other kinds of - well, more narcotic - drugs.

While I will say that the intentions for using a psychedelic frequently - but not always! - feel more healthy and constructive to me (self-inquiry, therapy, the implicit honesty of allowing your psyche to manifest itself), that is mostly at first superficial glance.
People who are deep into the rabbit hole can often enough be particularly desperate and the dark night of the soul can be arduous and long, recurrant and no joke by any means (no pun intended).
Even if there is a sense of candour to allowing something or someone to voice itself, the consciousness, like a theatrical play, can be full of illusions and special effects but the promise of answering questions may not always be fulfilled and it might lead to so many more questions...

There is also candour in another kind of drug having effects that are FAR more consistent and reliable than any psychedelic effect.

I am a big advocate of psychedelics but I don't really like judgmental blanket statements and choosing something over something else (unless it is harmless and just an expressed opinion, but it feels pretentious to try and claim anything like that here).


All that said, I do think there are significant differences between psychedelics and most other drugs, stuff that seems almost categorically unique to psychedelics - including the role they play in my life and that even though I am fascinated by them I don't consider them a risk of abuse (which is partially also related to relative lack of addictive potential)... things that give me a subcutaneous urge to say things like the one suggested in the thread title, even though I think we need to put it into perspective.

 

[Thanatos]

This is more or less a loaded question, with an answer already in mind. What's the value in discussing this any further?
If you have ran into this thread chances are you use psychedelics or dissociatives so most answers will be skewed to the poll base.

My answer? No I find psychedelics to be absolutely worthless and worth everything in the same breath. They are what you make them to be, and as such you can't put a qualitative value in their inherant superiority or lack of meaning. Drugs should not be idolized in this fashion, it's a dangerous thought process to entertain, and this is coming from a self confessed drug addict.

 

[Sir Ron Pib]

well this isn't a well defined question - are you looking for validation of your beliefs? If I have a mind splitting headache analgesics look the most superior drug. I am an advocate of psychedelics but there was often a thread of 'alcohol is bad' amounst pot heads - this is a form of neoprohibitionism which should be avoided at all costs. Pot wasn't very good for me and although I don't currently drink and think alcohol has a fair down side I have to admit at best it is highly bonding. It's about context. Some shouldn't go near psychedelics or get no insight whatsoever.

 

[Siccness909]

I absolutely love psychedelics

From LSD to mushrooms to DMT etc my trips have ALWAYS been spiritually positive & learn something every trip.

But I also love euphoria when I do drugs and though I get like decent body highs from hallucinogens, nothing compares to Amphetamines for what I look for in drugs (except the horrendous come downs) also opiates like opana hydromorphones etc are up their as well.

I had a life changing experience on 3 tabs of Lucy actually last year, can't even describe what I was seeing (colorful 4D rubix cubes flying tyedyed elephants talking apple trees etc lol) I went all deep inside my mind & figured some things that were bothering me for years just you know personal problems I struggled with. They were all solved after I came down & for weeks I had this positive outlook/after glow on life and colors seemed brighter to

 

[dezz]

atara, could you clarify something for us? The way you describe the enlightenment sequence of events -- leading to "no spark of desire" -- makes it sound like the Buddha just stopped caring about everything after reaching enlightenment. A kind of all-pervading indifference or nihilism. Did he have no desire to teach, no desire to bring an end to suffering, no desire to lead others on the path? He did those things, obviously ... but without a desire to do them? Is that a correct understanding?

If so, what explains his motivation? Or did he do everything he did simply because he was asked -- without motivation? I could accept that, but it sort of begs the question of whether he was left merely with a desire to serve.

Or ... is a buddha a sort of automaton? Devoid of desire/emotion/motivation but possessed of perfect knowledge of exactly the right thing to do at exactly the right moment? If so, then action could spring from something other than desire, I guess, but I still can't figure out what that "something other" could be. What sets a buddha's action in motion? You say there's "no spark." What is there instead?

Well, when you "desire" to do things or teach others, you do it because you desire to do them, not out of your own nature. Intention matters here and giving with the expectation of getting something in return is an exchange, not a gift. Why do you think everyone thinks Bono is a douche? He spends lots of money to charity right? He helps a lot of people right? It's because the intention behind the giving, the desire to be famous and liked.
Compassion is human nature, it doesn't get sparked by desire. Greed, violence, consumerism and even wars get sparked by desire. People say those are human nature as well, but you don't see people coming home with PTSD because they were being compassionate do you? What is there instead when you take everything away? You have a human being that is acting out of his/her core, out of his/her true nature, without having to reason out of a forged identity or self.

 

[Gratuitous Grace]

Well, when you "desire" to do things or teach others, you do it because you desire to do them, not out of your own nature. Intention matters here and giving with the expectation of getting something in return is an exchange, not a gift. Why do you think everyone thinks Bono is a douche? He spends lots of money to charity right? He helps a lot of people right? It's because the intention behind the giving, the desire to be famous and liked.

I get this ... but it's an answer to a much different question than the one I asked. You're talking about intent -- the "why" behind actions. I'm asking about what motivates actions in the absence of intent -- the "how" behind desire-less, intent-less actions. You're probably on to something when you say "expectation of getting something in return" because attachment to results is probably an even better word than "desire," here. That is, it probably captures what we mean by "desire" better than the word itself does.

Compassion is human nature, it doesn't get sparked by desire.

If you had said "compassion is buddha-nature," then I might follow. Whatever the case, this is getting close to the root of my question. What about compassion leads to action?

What is there instead when you take everything away? You have a human being that is acting out of his/her core, out of his/her true nature, without having to reason out of a forged identity or self.

I think most Buddhist teaching would say that "core," "true nature," "forged identity," and "self" are all synonymous, wouldn't it?

 

[dezz]

No, the self, your identity is a story you build around yourself, your actions, your likes and dislikes and how you relate to the world. Strip that story away though and all that is left is your experience in the present moment, and that's where the core and true nature shines through, because it doesn't get influenced by having to cling to your story, your own "self". Day to day experience is for most of us put in a context of "me and the world" Everything that happens to us has to go through a lot of subjective reasoning and categorizing by the ego before we accept it. Do we like it? Do we hate it? If we have no opinion on it whatsoever we tend to ignore it. You see the input you receive is constantly being processed and coloured by your ego, and own concept of who you are. Take that concept away (which is basically what is being practiced with meditation and the like) and you will know who/what you TRULY are, hence, the core, without manipulation by thoughts.

 

[Gratuitous Grace]

No, the self, your identity is a story you build around yourself, your actions, your likes and dislikes and how you relate to the world. Strip that story away though and all that is left is your experience in the present moment

Why isn't my experience in the present moment enough? Why do you need to take that and then go here:

and that's where the core and true nature shines through

Isn't this just building up another story? About core and true nature and shining through? That sounds like a new identity, a new self.

Take that concept away (which is basically what is being practiced with meditation and the like) and you will know who/what you TRULY are, hence, the core, without manipulation by thoughts.

And the knowledge of what I truly am is held how? It seems to me that you need another concept, here. Specifically, the concept that you just took away.

 

[dezz]

No it isn't building up another story as you are just relying on raw input as it arises in present. Whenever you think about what to do next you aren't present, you are overlooking the present, anticipating what is coming next. It's like a hamster wheel. In the present moment you don't have to "build" anything, you don't have to cling or reject anything, you don't have to find out WHY you feel the way you do. Pain is for example just a nerve ending signaling something is wrong, the following rejection of that signal is what causes mental suffering.

Sallatha Sutta: The Dart

"An untaught worldling, O monks, experiences pleasant feelings, he experiences painful feelings and he experiences neutral feelings. A well-taught noble disciple likewise experiences pleasant, painful and neutral feelings. Now what is the distinction, the diversity, the difference that exists herein between a well-taught noble disciple and an untaught worldling?

"When an untaught worldling is touched by a painful (bodily) feeling, he worries and grieves, he laments, beats his breast, weeps and is distraught. He thus experiences two kinds of feelings, a bodily and a mental feeling. It is as if a man were pierced by a dart and, following the first piercing, he is hit by a second dart. So that person will experience feelings caused by two darts. It is similar with an untaught worldling: when touched by a painful (bodily) feeling, he worries and grieves, he laments, beats his breast, weeps and is distraught. So he experiences two kinds of feeling: a bodily and a mental feeling.

"Having been touched by that painful feeling, he resists (and resents) it. Then in him who so resists (and resents) that painful feeling, an underlying tendency of resistance against that painful feeling comes to underlie (his mind). Under the impact of that painful feeling he then proceeds to enjoy sensual happiness. And why does he do so? An untaught worldling, O monks, does not know of any other escape from painful feelings except the enjoyment of sensual happiness. Then in him who enjoys sensual happiness, an underlying tendency to lust for pleasant feelings comes to underlie (his mind). He does not know, according to facts, the arising and ending of these feelings, nor the gratification, the danger and the escape, connected with these feelings. In him who lacks that knowledge, an underlying tendency to ignorance as to neutral feelings comes to underlie (his mind). When he experiences a pleasant feeling, a painful feeling or a neutral feeling, he feels it as one fettered by it. Such a one, O monks, is called an untaught worldling who is fettered by birth, by old age, by death, by sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair. He is fettered by suffering, this I declare.

"But in the case of a well-taught noble disciple, O monks, when he is touched by a painful feeling, he will not worry nor grieve and lament, he will not beat his breast and weep, nor will he be distraught. It is one kind of feeling he experiences, a bodily one, but not a mental feeling. It is as if a man were pierced by a dart, but was not hit by a second dart following the first one. So this person experiences feelings caused by a single dart only. It is similar with a well-taught noble disciple: when touched by a painful feeling, he will no worry nor grieve and lament, he will not beat his breast and weep, nor will he be distraught. He experiences one single feeling, a bodily one.

"Having been touched by that painful feeling, he does not resist (and resent) it. Hence, in him no underlying tendency of resistance against that painful feeling comes to underlie (his mind). Under the impact of that painful feeling he does not proceed to enjoy sensual happiness. And why not? As a well-taught noble disciple he knows of an escape from painful feelings other than by enjoying sensual happiness. Then in him who does not proceed to enjoy sensual happiness, no underlying tendency to lust for pleasant feelings comes to underlie (his mind). He knows, according to facts, the arising and ending of those feelings, and the gratification, the danger and the escape connected with these feelings. In him who knows thus, no underlying tendency to ignorance as to neutral feelings comes to underlie (his mind). When he experiences a pleasant feeling, a painful feeling or a neutral feeling, he feels it as one who is not fettered by it. Such a one, O monks, is called a well-taught noble disciple who is not fettered by birth, by old age, by death, by sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair. He is not fettered to suffering, this I declare.

"This, O monks, is the distinction, the diversity, the difference that exists between a well-taught noble disciple and an untaught worldling."

 

[Thorns Have Roses]

I personally try to shy away from the concept of using drugs to enhance my well being. Ideally, I would like to think that I can make social and intimate connections without using empathogens/depressives/stimulants/etc. I would also like to think that I can maintain a relatively sharp intellect and productivity level without having to depend on my vices.

I just personally value substances based on how well they can a) stimulate the creative thought process, b)assist me with introspection, and c)provide me with a well rounded experience intellectually, spiritually, and emotionally. Given this criteria, psychedelics seem to tick every box.

So you can't introspect or think creatively to your satisfaction without relying on your vices? Fair enough, but you seem to think that using drugs to affect your interaction with yourself (creativity/introspection) is different than using them to affect your interaction with others (socializing/intamacy), or your interaction with objects (productivity). I do not understand why that is so.

I can agree with point 'c' if you will allow me to change "provide me with a well rounded experience intellectually, spiritually, and emotionally" to what I think you really mean, "makes me feel good, but not fiend afterward."

Sure you can't use them for motivation or to relax or to connect with your girlfriend... let's be honest though you can do all those things without drugs

Maybe you can, but I can't. And even with drugs, not all of those things are possible.

They're certainly much nicer for forum moderators. This place is way better behaved than OD.

Thanks for being awesome.

That got a chuckle out of me, great spin on the OP's question.

 

[washingtonbound]

So you can't introspect or think creatively to your satisfaction without relying on your vices? Fair enough, but you seem to think that using drugs to affect your interaction with yourself (creativity/introspection) is different than using them to affect your interaction with others (socializing/intamacy), or your interaction with objects (productivity). I do not understand why that is so.

I can agree with point 'c' if you will allow me to change "provide me with a well rounded experience intellectually, spiritually, and emotionally" to what I think you really mean, "makes me feel good, but not fiend afterward."

Maybe you can, but I can't. And even with drugs, not all of those things are possible.



That got a chuckle out of me, great spin on the OP's question.

I value creativity and introspection well over harmony in relationships. I do not depend on my vices to aid the creative process, but they are a valid asset at appropriate times. For instance, the other day I was talking to a cab driver on acid and I became much more well versed on directions and and have maintained a deeper insight on how the city is laid out. I also enjoy the insight it gives me into visual art, allowing me to see the artists intentions in a new way.
This is not to say I am incapable of creative and associative thinking without psychedelics. I do not view them as an aid to my well being either, rather a tool to explore different realms of perception. I appreciate my thought pattern off psychedelics as well, it is just different, not inferior.

 

[my3rdeye]

.

I personally find that both Empathogens and Dissociatives can be every bit as profound and life changing as Psychedelics can, even though they lend themselves more to recreational use than psychedelics

That's what I was thinking too. My MDMA love fests and Ketamine, I don't even know what to call them, trips maybe, those are just as life changing and awesome as the psychedelics. Even smoking pot can be super awesome.
Its impossible to be abuse this class of drugs due to tolerance so the fact there are no psychedelic addicts makes it seem just a little above other drugs to me. Its different than any class of drugs in that way. No one takes them daily and you can't get addicted, those are both a huge plus to me.