• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Drug use and mysticism

The Ego is dual, not singular

From here, the ego isn't actually 'self', but "self and other".

It seems to me that talk of transcending self often ignores something both equal and concommittent -- transcending other.

Self/other co-arise, and one can't exist without the other -- thus feelings of e.g. loneliness when self is deprived of other.

The dissolution of self (one's own ego) is the dissolution of everyone's ego.

***

There is a base of Being (awareness), in which both self and other arise.

I see both my own body, and other bodies.

I hear both myself speaking and others speaking, when I'm talking to them.

That which sees, that which hears -- is always already transcendent of self/other.

Is this transcendent Being identifying with a single body, a single speaker -- or is it open to "being" both?

When I'm talking to someone online or in person -- can I move from "me", into the audience, and watch both "me" and "you" interacting as characters?

Peace...
 
"And remember, the drugs are just a map to the treasure, not the actual treasure itself"

I think the above quote is an important one in this thread. Let us realize that although psychedelics put us into higher states of consciousness, they are impermanent. Even though we can get a glimpse of insight into the the true nature of reality for a time being and use that information to change our lives for the better, we lose the stream of information itself which is what makes one a mystic.

I think a mystic can be both, a person who occasional uses plants and substances as tools for divination, visions, insight and clarity, such as a shaman, or, someone who tries to attain these abilities through other means, such as a yogi.

The real point to be made here though is that all is one, and this is what the experiences teach us, that all is one. The point isnt to label this as this and that as that, but to realize that this and that are the same thing. the only difference is our perspective on this or on that, on what mysticism "really" is, whether it be with or without drugs. Mysticism is the communication with the divine and u can commune with the divine through various means other than strictly plants, however, i do still feel that plants are the best way to reach it. But once reached, i think it should be maintained. This is where i think religion comes in. psychedelics show us wisdom and religions can help us practice and maintain our virtues.
 
Dedbeet said:
Is this transcendent Being identifying with a single body, a single speaker -- or is it open to "being" both?

When I'm talking to someone online or in person -- can I move from "me", into the audience, and watch both "me" and "you" interacting as characters?
Click to expand...

"Being", in my view, implies choice - if you are simply "in the audience" or not choosing how either character acts, then you are not "being" both.

As I understand it.
 
I think I understand this only on the conceptual level, so I may not have the best explanations. But since this topic is interesting for me, I'll try to express what I have come to understand.

The concept of I/me/self arises from the mind (thoughts intertwined with memories). If there was no thoughts or if there was no (emotional) attachment to these thoughts, there would be no sense in differentiating between the self and the other.

From that point of view the question: "can I move from "me", into the audience, and watch both "me" and "you" interacting as characters?" would make no sense. Because if there is no duality, then who would be the one who moves?

The ego is not dual, but it creates a dualistic view of the world, if there's attachment to the ego.
In actuality even the ego is fully interconnected with the environment. There is nothing separate from the world.
 
Raw Evil said:
"Being", in my view, implies choice - if you are simply "in the audience" or not choosing how either character acts, then you are not "being" both.

As I understand it.
Click to expand...
Choice is implied when one is "being" only one of the characters (self).

If one is "being" both characters, there really is a sense that they are interacting, and one is merely observing choicelessly.

By interacting, I mean that thoughts (and concommitent actions) are automatically arising by themselves, from moment to moment, that constitute their "interaction".

The "me" character hears "you" speak (choicelessly), and a response comes up automatically from the "me" character (choicelessly). Isn't that what's actually happening anyway? We don't choose our next series of thoughts from a menu of all the English language words.
 
Last edited:
"The You/Me"

The following isn't always true, particularly in cases involving simple, factual exchange of information. However, most of the time I find it is true, particularly where strong emotion of any kind between people is involved.

It is related to the nature of "projection/introjection" (self-and-other communication), which presents the notion that other is actually "self projected outward", and self is actually "other introjected inward".

***

There are actually no "you's" and "me's" communicating anywhere -- rather, a single co-arising phenomenon for everyone, which I call here --

"The You/Me".

Generally it's happening with/for everyone, anywhere communication is involved, but particularly emotional communication.

The "You/me" is extremely widespread on the Internet, on mailing lists and such, everywhere. Here is how it works:

When I talk about you, I'm talking about me.

When I talk about me, I'm talking about you.

***

When you talk about me, you're talking about you.

When you talk about you, you're talking about me.

Noting this strange and widespread self-other reversal, particularly with "incoming posts from others", can save a lot of ego reactions that otherwise would have happened.
 
i think self and other are one in the same. we only see in others what we know is in ourselves. i think we achieve a state of total being only when we can filter out our external world and immerse ourselves in the light and look deeper inward towards others until the point when we are reduced to a vacuum like visionary state where we can see infinitely further into the wilderness
 
being said:
I think I understand this only on the conceptual level, so I may not have the best explanations. But since this topic is interesting for me, I'll try to express what I have come to understand.

The concept of I/me/self arises from the mind (thoughts intertwined with memories). If there was no thoughts or if there was no (emotional) attachment to these thoughts, there would be no sense in differentiating between the self and the other.

From that point of view the question: "can I move from "me", into the audience, and watch both "me" and "you" interacting as characters?" would make no sense. Because if there is no duality, then who would be the one who moves?

The ego is not dual, but it creates a dualistic view of the world, if there's attachment to the ego.
In actuality even the ego is fully interconnected with the environment. There is nothing separate from the world.
Click to expand...

dammit, i think i just paraphrased this
 
Fascinating.

Although perhaps it should come as no surprise. How could we possibly relate to each other if not by assuming that on the most basic level we are alike?
 
Dedbeet,
Maybe I am not fully understanding what you mean by your words, but don't you think using the terms 'me' and 'you' will only add confusion to the 'understanding' you're trying to convey?
 
A paradox a day, keeps the truth from decay.

I understand your post, it reminds me of 'shadow work' which is sometimes brought up in spiritual practice's. The shadow is the repressed self/aspects of our self that we have denied or disowned over time and unconsciously project onto others. Unfortunately it's not something that can be cleared out through meditation, it has to actively be worked through.
 
Nixing "other" / other-ness / identity

I recently chatted with someone on another list about identity, and we agreed
that one's identity is basically "what looks good on the outside, to others).

But...

What's funny about "one's identity is what looks good on the outside, to
others), is that no one actually has that perspective.

Not a soul on the planet is standing outside (as an other), looking back at a
self.

Everyone is actually inside, "looking out" (e.g. through their eyes) and seeing what they take to be others, but aren't.
 
Last edited:
This is along the same theme as two other threads. I'm going to merge. These posts about identity, you/me, otherness, etc are good P&S topics but I think for the sake of continuity it would be best to keep them as one thread.
 
Enki said:
This is along the same theme as two other threads. I'm going to merge. These posts about identity, you/me, otherness, etc are good P&S topics but I think for the sake of continuity it would be best to keep them as one thread.
Click to expand...
Thanks Enki.... if I'm overdoing the spiritual posts, please let me know, thanks.
 
Quick/potent ego killer

If this is pondered a bit it might be even better, but basically... HORRIBLE news for the "me" ;-)

* Not a soul on the planet is standing outside (as an other), looking back at a
self.
 
I don't want to be a wet blanket but... all of these topics you're making are really getting at the same subject and should be condensed to the same thread...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top