Sure why not? , FDA is part of one big government machine, they are all out there spreading their propaganda, and your arguments have made me "see" how blind I was before. Thanks and good day to you.
And I don't think that is a silly question, though it may appear silly to silly people. No she was not. Though she was drunk with the ecstacy of krishna-consciousness.
I just think you're playing some kind of game here. I didn't say Mirabai took lsd, she couldn't have done. as it took western science to come up with this substance hundreds of years after her death. I said George Harrison used it, and got turned onto Hundu philosophy by using it, something which given George's own words, is indisputable. Of course, George could have been insane, deranged by this awful stuff. But if you look at his life after he'd had lsd, it would be hard to pinpoint anything he did which would give creedence to such an opinion. Aldous Huxley too. A man who used to write acticles on Vedanta for the american vedanta society. Another acidhead. Both george and aldous did far more to spread a message of an awakening of a higher consciousness than many of the 'holy men' who rail against drugs. That's probably because they'd actually seen something worthwhile, rather than just being repeaters of outmoded traditions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-rWnQphPdQ Check this out KB - it's actually quite amusing. British squaddies on lsd.
And would you say that the Ramana Maharshi,J. Krishnamurthy, Meher Baba, who are enlightened masters in comparison to Aldous Huxley and George Harrison, took Lsd.
I'd say it makes no difference. Someone elses experiences are useless to me. Probably the people you cite had some limited experience.
lol, have you read huxley's work? He was pretty sharp, and I don't think you should be judging who is more enlightened than who.
self control is a virtue in my opinion. We as humans have evolved to avoid things because they are harmful. Still our senses take hold of ourselves and push us to go after things that we desire even after some things can cause us problems later. It would have been easier for you to understand this, if you had a bad trip on LSD in the past. Although the possible situation where you did not have a bad trip does not necessarily mean you will not have one in the future. There is a difference between wisdom and stupidity, sometimes age has nothing to do with it.
The whole 'bad trip' myth is a good example of anti-psychedelic propaganda. Not that negative experiences can't occur, but usually it's becasue you need to learn something, or overcome some subconscious fear that is coming to the surface. I myself have had experiences on both acid and mushrooms that were far from 'blissfu' or even 'pleasant'. It is a tool using which the personal and collective unconscious can be explored. Few people emerge into adulthood without imprinting some negative stuff, and usually, this lies buried beneath the surface of consciousness unless something happens to bring it to the surface. According to Freud and most modern psychologists, it is such repressed unconscious material which is the main casue of neurosis, mental imbalance etc. In short, there are negative things in everybody, and acid can suddenly confront you with that, make you face it and deal with it. This is usually the cause of 'negative' experiences on psychedelics. Also, it can bring home to you very forcefully the massive suffering that is in the world - you can get upset on it about that sort of thing. You see, it's not about some kind of old fashioned hedonistic quest for just pleasure - it is far, far, more than that. Where major freakouts occur on acid, and it is actually quite rare, it's usually because the person concerned has some lurking mental imbalance or problem, or due to uninformed and irresposible use on the part of those whom one can't trust with a box of matches, never mind a powerful mind changing agent like lsd.
And have you read ramana maharshis work . He was the sharpest of them all. And huxley was not enlightened. Period.
Nice response, you should be a politician. No I haven't read his work, but I doubt he was the "sharpest of them all." That's a pretty difficult judgement to make. How can you say this about Huxley, do you know about Huxley? Are you a supreme scholar or something? You sure act as if your opinion has some serious clout.
Aldous was pretty enlightened I'd say. Ramana Maharishi was ok but limited - certainly not 'sharpest of them all' - a category which has about as much validity as 'the fastest gun in the west'. Some people seem to look at philosophers, writers and so on in the way others look at football teams or rock bands.
I think I was one in a previous birth, and I enjoyed it as well. Monicas soul was in my secretary at that time. For u, not 4 us. Huxley was considered as a great intellectual , but he never claimed to be enlightened. Why don't you put some quotes or teachings of Huxley ,and we will decide whether he was good or not.
If you agree that it is possible for some one to have a negative experience on psychedelics, then would you agree that it is possible for someone who has such negative experience on LSD may do something dangerous to harm himself or others during this negative experience? Even if he does not do anything physical, it is quite possible he may have a mental breakdown later on. It is dangerous to mess with this stuff.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Aldous_Huxley If you're gonna tell me after reading that short piece that he wasn't 'sharp' or at least somewhat 'enlightened' you're in denial.
