Patanjali Yoga Sutras

Bill's post # 11, dissected:

The attainments listed in the previous section are not only the fruits of the threefold inner discipline, (Sadhana-siddhis, or attainments through steady practice)

but they are congenital in some, (Two meanings: Nitya-Siddha...eternally liberated soul, such as Jesus Christ; or carrying Sadhana-siddhis over from previous lives of uncompleted yogic practice)

and in others they may follow the right and intelligent use of certain medicinal herbs ( there's no specific reference to hallucinogens here that I can discern; this seems to be a matter of opinion among HF members)

or of certain mantras (mystic formulae or advice) (obvious to everyone...Hare Krishna!)


or they may follow the kindling of the psychic fire.

Apparently, this can occur as a result of:

A. Kripa-siddha, or mercy of God alone or God acting through Guru. This can happen spontaneously or as a result of B.

B. Sadhana-bhakti or other yogic and spiritual discipline, which eventually brings A to bear.

C. Yogic technique that physically stimulates the kundalini.

D. The use of hallucinogens.

In the Vaisnava philosophy I'm familiar with, A and B are considered the means by which one attains eternal liberation from ego-bound dualistic consciousness; C and D are questionable at best because they are materially-based and do not involve a gradual change of heart. They can provide a glimpse of spiritual life, but at the cost of great psychic and spiritual danger to the practitioner or user.

 

Yep!

 

Ok BBB, lets have another "crack" at it

:1) Patanjali is a great sage and a doctor.
2) He says alot of good things.
with that said,
If he says "drug use is good"
Then,
an intelligent person would not agree with that because drugs cause addictions and other terrible things.

Woah isn't that against what patanjali might have said?
Maybe, But then again although patanjali is a great sage, he is still a man, not God, so if he says "Smoke pot man its okay" , then he is mistaken.

What Am I getting at here? - Its okay to be great and also say things that are actually wrong, because thats how we are, we are human and we make mistakes.

Thank you.

 

Why then shouild an intelligent person take any notice of anything else Patanjali said - if he was wrong about one thing, he could be equally wrong about everything else.

Religions cause wars, discrimination, oppression and ignorance - and on a far wider and deadlier scale than cannabis - so maybe an intelligent person would simply reject the whole can of worms.....

If we say he's taliking about something else, then what? What other herbs native to the Indian sub-continent could he mean? The only other canditates would be delirium producing agents such as Datura, Belladonna etc...there just isn't anything else that exists.

Anyway, once again, I feel this thread has got bogged down in the cannabis is good vs cannabis is bad argument. IMO it is up to the individual to decide for themselves.

 

Thats because the intelligent person recognizes that one's expertise can be limited BBB.
A doctor may be good at solving my physical problems, but I don't go to him to ask for an answer to my philsophical problems dealing with life and such things.

Although patanjali was a doctor, we have to recognize that medical science had not been as developed then as it has now, hence they did not know how dangerous it is to mess with that stuff.

 

The danger or otherwise is not the point - Patanjali says 'herbs' can give light - either he's right or he's wrong. If he's wrong, then the reat of his work could be equally wrong.
How could we arrive at a conclusion regarding this? Only by actually practicing what P recommends. If a person tries meditation and gets a positive result, we could conclude he was correct about that - same with herbs - if a person ingests a harmless herb and has some positive experience, we can conclude he was right about that too.

 

http://www.indianjsurg.com/article.asp?issn=0972-2068;year=2005;volume=67;issue=4;spage=229;epage=230;aulast=Tewari

 

Bill...What I pointed out was that he didn't directly refer to hallucinogens. But yes, a suggestion of hallucinogen use is easy to infer from the wording.


Hell, he may be referring to a mixture of Indian hashish, Chinese opium, and peyote that came from some forgotten trade route with Mexico...or all he may be saying is that aesofetida is a good cooking spice to use in place of onions in a sattvic diet.

I agree with you, as I always have...it's the individual's choice to use or not, and many of the anti-drug laws here and in the UK are stupid in the extreme.

Regarding drug use and spirituality...yes, drugs will produce long-term effects for as long as you keep using them; stop using them, the effects stop, and you're back where you started.

I'm still sticking with Srila Prabhupada's training: Drug and alcohol use hinder spiritual progress for the serious sadhaka and should be avoided. Like you, I've known drug-using Hare Krishnas who preach away...but IMO they would have gone to drugs anyway or continued previous use, had they not encountered ISKCON. Exposure to Vaisnava philosophy certainly hasn't hurt those that I've met and perhaps saved them from going completely over the edge.

"Even a little progress on this path can save a person from the most dangerous type of fear"

As with alcohol, the main value of hallucinogenic drugs is recreational and mildly medicinal. Unfortunately, for persons predisposed to addictions or mental problems, drugs and booze can produce disastrous effects.

I didn't mean to enter the drug debate again either, but it came up, and...off we go!

 

From one standpoint I see the logic in banning them, because I very much doubt anyone can produce one positive thing alcohol, tabacco, and other drugs provide. But we humans are not the most logical creatures I guess.

 

Yes if patanjali is a layman. You have to assume he knows that he is talking about when he talks about Yoga in general, but you have to take it with a bit of skepticism when he says things that you know are wrong. One analogy to this would be talking to a biochemist: When he talks about molecules and such things then its okay, but when he starts talking about God, you need to take it with a bit of skepticism.

But people who used these "herbs" like LSD and such hallucinogens had heart failures, went into comas and even died.

 

Please present some evidence that LSD induces heart failure if you are claiming this is so, or indeed, cases of people who have gone into coma on LSD.

I don't mean in terms of hearsay accounts, or multi-drug users who have had these unfortunate occurences. Just the clear scientific evidence.

 

I will do that when I have the chance, you will have to wait BBB. But you could go search on google yourself and see what evidence pops up- do this with an unbiased mind though.

 

OK here's about the only relevant one


http://www.bhf.org.uk/professionals/printout.asp?secID=15&secondlevel=471&thirdlevel=759&artID=3689



The British Heart Foundation. I'll save you the trouble of clicking, this is what it says:


"LSD has relatively mild effects on the heart and blood vessels and is unlikely to produce cardiovascular complications"

 

It's my fault really - wish I'd never mentioned the verse in a way. Then again, it does lend itself to some kind of substance related interpretation.

 

On the topic of drugs though, I might as well make my position clearer.


On the whole, I am not in favour of the widespread use of most recreational drugs. Most of the things used are toxic, and can lead to addiction, physical harm, and death, along with many unpleasant social and psychological consequences.
Such drugs include - opiates, inc. heroin and morphine, cocaine and all it's derivatives, alchohol, methamphetamine, synthetic drugs meant to mimic the symptoms of the above such as diconal, palfium, etc etc.
And of course, the old 'baccy.

However, I tend to take a broad view with regard to recreational drugs on another level. People will it seems, demand some kind of recreational drug. Look how abysmally prohibition of alchohol failed in the US back in the old days...IMO the only realistic course for the authorities is one of 'harm minimalization'. Keep people off the more dangerous substances, but let them have access, under some scheme of liscene if deemed necessary, to those things which are known to be relatively harmless.
IMO cannabis is relatively harmless in most cases, and would be even more so if there were better education around it's use, and a break of the link between it and tobacco, as often the two are unecessarily mixed by users.

There are other things too which could be looked at as potentially useful replacements for alchohol.
And if our rulers were wiser, perhaps money would be going into designing new and safer recreational drugs. MDMA analogues, that sort of thing.

Psychedelics on the other hand I regard as totally useless as 'social drugs'. Or 'party drugs'. They are potentially tools for investigation of the mind perhaps..
The fact is though that once again, a certain number of people are attracted by what psychedelics seem to offer.They will no doubt try them, and some will be ok and maybe learn something, whilst others will perhaps get into difficulties. To what extent that is a result of the current social and legal realities surrounding drugs in general is hard to say. Education once agiain is the key thing.

I haven't taken a psychedelic for a decade - and don't plan doing so any time soon. From them, I gained a certain amount - and to an extent perhaps also began to see things in a slightly imbalanced way. It is all too easy to read too much into stuff one encounters on things like LSD. it can be interesting and it can give some flashing vision - it can also be deceptive.

I can't say I regret having tried it, and I'm sure I'd be quite different now if I had never done so. But if there is a use for these things, and I do think that's the case, I'd say it is more to do with scientific research into consciousness and the mind than mysticism.

 

Someone told me Bill that 97% of people who become addicted to crystal meth (think it's that one) die from it. By allowing people access to this I just wonder if it's a wise move, considering the trouble we have with alcohol in the UK at the moment. But I think the heart of the problem is why do people want to use drugs etc. Banning them alone is never going to solve it. My personal take is that suffering will never be alleviated by requiring any substance. My experience from when I was a more hardcore meditator indicated they are not required either for an investigation into consciousness/mysticism. Noted though, as I havent used LCD I cannot back that claim up.

 

I'm not saying though that things like crystal meth should be legal!My point is only that people will use something in the way of drugs whether it's a good idea or not, so let them have things which are less harmful to keep them off the harder stuff. One way and another it seems people have used drugs from the dawn of humankind.

 

In my humble Opinion BBB, I think it is dangerous to try any drugs, I am sure if we search more, we will find cases where LSD causes convulsions. Ofcourse, I know that if I try drugs, I will lose control of my own body- mainly because I will lose grasp on reality, which is basically opposite to what my religion demands: Which is mainly to be in complete control of my body and my senses and become a bhakti yogi in God's service.
However, I am sure there are people who are so adept that they can take these drugs and still remain somewhat sane... I guess it depends on what your limitations are.

I know one thing for a fact though, that is - if they make drugs legal and promote drug use, then naive people like me who believe FDA and all these other government organizations are doomed. The world will just go to hell... but I guess thats what kali yuga is all about.

 

Jedi, it seems to me that in some places, it has already gone to hell, but not because of drugs, but other issues like power, religion, hate etc.

But I'm not saying you should take drugs - I'm simply saying let's look at this issue in practical terms - without the moral indignation and panic - and minimalize the possible harm.

The one place on earth which drugs, or specifically, cocaine have turned into a hell is probably Columbia. Once again though, it devolves beyond the drug issue to more basic things like greed, exploitation etc.

On the topic of the danger of LSD - you'll actually find that peanuts are responsible for far more deaths every year.