• Psychedelic Drugs Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting RulesBluelight Rules
    PD's Best Threads Index
    Social ThreadSupport Bluelight
    Psychedelic Beginner's FAQ
  • PD Moderators: Esperighanto | JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

"When you get the message, hang up the phone." And then pick it up again?

Ismene said:
Why would giving money to the poor imply you thought psychedelics were as good as Buddhism? Why would writing a book on "happiness" mean you thought psychedelics were as valid as Buddhism?

Perhaps it might be better actually finding one member of your study who says "psychedelics are as good as Buddhism" before you run away with yourself on this.
Click to expand...
I’m very confused as to how you’ve arrived at these questions in response to my post.

I insinuated it was unlikely that the meditators in the study would be of the kind to say “ Oh dude, psychedelics are only temporary, buddhism is like permanent brah."

The reason I thought it unlikely is because by using phrases like “Oh dude” and “brah” in your description of the sort of phrases these Buddhists use in this way, I take it you are meaning to describe a person who makes sweeping proclamations of superiority for one perspective or another after having only very limited experience with some knowledge tradition (in this case, Buddhism) – or something in this general vein. You use “dude” and “brah” as indicators of callowness. And, so, seeing this, I thought you might agree that someone like Matthieu Ricard, an actual participant in the study, does not fit such a description, which is why I would be “very surprised, indeed.” By stating all the things that Matthieu Ricard has done with his life, I mean to separate him from the type of unexperienced person you describe.

I thought this was pretty simple. Is everybody else so confused by my intentions? If so, I’m sorry.
 
Quantum Perception said:
To say psychedelics are better then Buddhism is like saying a hammer is better then a house, it makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Although the vast majority of Buddhists will argue that psychedelics arn't as good as Buddhism as a "path" to follow.

psood0nym said:
I take it you are meaning to describe a person who makes sweeping proclamations of superiority for one perspective or another after having only very limited experience with some knowledge tradition (in this case, Buddhism) – or something in this general vein.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean it was only Buddhists with limited experience, it's the atitude you get from the most experienced Buddhists - that psychedelics are "intoxicants" and of little use.

And, so, seeing this, I thought you might agree that someone like Matthieu Ricard, an actual participant in the study, does not fit such a description, which is why I would be “very surprised, indeed.”

Oh right, I see what you mean now psood. I think you can be a great person and still frown on psychedelic use tho - I imagine most advanced Buddhists would see frowning on psychedelics as a good thing because it might help children to stay away from drugs. I don't think you have to be a horrible person to frown on drug use.

I thought this was pretty simple

I think the confusion came because it isn't inexperienced Buddhists saying psychedelics are bad - it's the teachers of buddhism. And then you get inexperienced ones parrotting the idea that "Buddhism is permanent but psychdelics are merely temprorary".
 
Last edited:
Ismene said:
I think I disagree even more with the full statement. It's an idea that was popular in the 60s - "Psychedelics can only give you a glimpse, to get the real experience you have to become a hindu or a buddhist" - the whole essence of Ram Dass's argument. I've never liked the comparison of psychedelics and man-made religions like Hinduism. I don't think they give you the same thing - particularly if you're non-religious and don't want to follow a bloke with a beard.

Psychedelics are their own path and they deserve their own dignity. They arn't just some "shortcut" or "glimpse" of some bullshit man-made religion. For many of us, they're the only true spirituality we'll ever experience.
Click to expand...

Sorry Ismene but the Hindu religion has nothing to do with following a bloke in a beard. It's about the ātman which is a very different idea of God then the Western one, which is that bloke in a beard you were referring to.

I agree psychedelics are greater than any man made religion, but the two do not have to be enemies.
I personally discovered psychedelics first, and have been finding that Hindu, Buddhist and general Eastern religions blend seamlessly with what I have thus far learned.
It's a synergy I'd go so far as to compare to a wonderful drug combination.
 
^^

I meant Ram Dass following that bloke with the beard, was it baba rama ding dong or something?

I'd like them to be friendly too but I've never heard any Hindu or Buddhist say psychedelics are absolutely as worthwhile as our religion. They seem to have a superiority complex.

Perhaps psychedelic users can each create their own religion specific to their own requirements.
 
Quantum Perception said:
What if it is pleasurable for someone to introspect in a meandering way?
Click to expand...


Well it can be pleasurable, I take pleasure in speculation about all sorts of unlikely and ridiculous scenarios as well as more serious & thoughtful mental paths.
My take is that if the message is potent enough one would act in order to alter the way they live/do certain things.
I feel that setting out with the intention of getting messaged may prejudice the psychedelic explorer.
Of course it may not do so for every person.
Believers tend to stand up for their beliefs, they often cite other peoples statements as sources to make their point of view seem more credible - the pope says, the dalia lama says etc.
Such beliefs are a personal matter and ideally oughtn't need input from hierarchical figures.
To act in the spirit of an insight or revelation is a different thing to a religion & I'm all for the acting in the spirit part - provided it's not the sort of spirit that involves listening to Helter Skelter & butchering people - I think each of us may use psychedelics as we please to do so & I'm delighted to do so for pleasure even if that pleasure involves meantal meandering down the twisting overgrown paths that few are inclined to investigate.
Buddhism or psychedelics aren't the right course for everyone, some will choose one or the other, some will choose both & some will choose neither.


Good to see you as well Izzy - the same goes for the rest of you :) - I liked Jesus Greens post he seems to have said the thing I was trying to say but rather more efficiently
 
Last edited:
Ismene said:
^^

I meant Ram Dass following that bloke with the beard, was it baba rama ding dong or something?

I'd like them to be friendly too but I've never heard any Hindu or Buddhist say psychedelics are absolutely as worthwhile as our religion. They seem to have a superiority complex.

Perhaps psychedelic users can each create their own religion specific to their own requirements.
Click to expand...

Well frankly, if I definitely have to assign myself to any religion it would be Buddhism, so I guess you can say you know one Buddhist who says psychedelics are absolutely as worthwhile, if not more.
It's funny, I used to say I was Buddhist and knew nothing about and grew into an atheist. Then I discovered psychedelics and it eventually got me back to Eastern philosophy.

The whole thing I like about Buddhism is it exactly like that. You don't have to go and segregate yourself and spend all your time meditating to be awaken.
You can go do that if you want, (fuck that) but all it is essentially is putting yourself through a series of extreme experiences to eventually awaken yourself. Sound familiar to a certain experience? ;)

Psychedelics awoke me, Eastern philosophies helped me integrate said awakening and it could manifest for another just as easily be in the opposite way.
Which leads me to think they're both as important as you allow them to be.

For me psychedelics are still more important, just for sentimentality I guess but both have played their positive parts in my life and I wouldn't be the same without either.

EDIT: I just read your post too B9, great post.
 
Last edited:
The message is whatever you want it to be. I'm not sure if there's a right one, that's a whole other debate in its own right.
 
i'm surprised nobody has mentioned r strassman. His buddist pals shat all over him, because it suited thier petty, social climbing, office politics agenda.
Showing that even the 'enlightened' can be dicks, and that any organised religion with a hierarchy is flawed.
 
Anyone can be a dick though. I think that's more of a human flaw than a religion flaw.

Some people are just pricks.
 
Yeah this reminds me of when you trip too often, it is like picking up the phone again asking "what was it like again?", then being told: "you know what!, now go do it!".

@PowerFarts, you realize you are about 5 months late reacting to this? ;P
 
Glad this thread was revived as I missed it the first time...

This quote accords with my own experience. It does seem (for me) that there is one central "message" and the last few times I've tripped (which is roughly an annual occurrence for me now) my experience has basically been "right, I know this... I wish I weren't tripping right now so I could be putting it into action." I do intend to continue picking up the phone occasionally, but it will be purely recreational.
 
Maynard James Keenan said "The trick is to use the drugs once to get there, and maybe spend the next ten years trying to get back there without the drug."
I'm not going to trip once and quit for 10 years in an attempt to get back there, but you get what he's saying, yeah?

Education through drugs, practice through sobriety. Like meditating after a trip. Taking what you've learnt, thinking about it and putting it to practice.

I don't think theres only one message you can get. I think theres always something to learn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top