I'm confused ((psychedelics))

i'm sorry this is so long, but i'd really like someone's opinion on this...

i've googled it in any way i could think of, but i can't figure out exactly why psychedelics are such a hindrance to spiritual life. there is one devotee i talked to, and we were saying how when we used to do drugs all we thought about was god. i can understand how the drug culture would be maya, and dependence definitely would tie you to the material world. but if there are people who eat so much that they are overweight and sick, or are hurting animals by eating so much meat, but can still eat after taking to krishna consciousness by offering their food to krishna, why isn't the same true with psychedelics?

this isn't from vedic literature, but i think all genuinely inspired spiritual material/material that manifests without anyone's personal material gain should be paid attention to. it's all the same god. so... in one of the conversations with god books, god says to do whatever it takes to find Him and feel that connection. whatever rituals or practices work personally for us. it can't be "wrong" if it brings us to god.

we're not supposed to cease activity or change what we're doing, we're just supposed to change the focus of our actions. we still shop, but we're buying things for krishna's service. we still listen to music, but we only listen to songs about krishna. you probably know all the other examples.

so i agree that sex is a different thing. some might say it can be spiritual, but i feel like it causes too much attatchment and suffering and illusion, and it's easier to avoid it. but even here i think that krishna consciousness (at least in ISKCON) is taking it too far, to the point of making women feel degraded simply for being born in a woman's body. i think if you are god conscious you can be friends with the opposite sex and not care about sex, and if you can't, you're in denial. it's true that most people can't just give up all of their desire the second they decide to, but when you make an enormous deal out of something like that you just reinforce it as a real problem. not to mention you discourage half the population from krishna consciousness. i could really rant forever about that, but that's not what this thread is about....

so, i feel like the same thing should be true with psychedelics, that we don't have to be so radical as to just call them bad and that be the end of it, the way it has become "bad" just to be a girl or associate with a girl. even things like listening to music or going to movies, i think, can be done god consciously. indradyumna swami came to my temple last week and told a story about a time he flew on an airplane with prabhupada, and while he was trying to block out the in-flight movie by reading bhagavad gita, prabhupada was watching it and laughing. he asked him later what he was doing, and prabhupada told him that all humor originally comes from krishna, and he was appreciating the reflection of krishna's personality in the movie. something like that.

so krishna is inside every atom and inside everyone's hearts... why should we renounce his creation and deem it "wrong"? why not just see it as part of krishna, but not the whole, and strive to serve the whole directly instead of the parts? isn't that the goal?

the purest devotees willingly take birth as demons. i can't accept that anything krishna created is bad. the only thing that could possibly be bad in my mind is seperation from god.

when you really get down to it, meat eating is of course terrible because it hurts the animals and the environment and your body... but what is the most important reason we don't eat meat? because we can't offer it to krishna. it's not really the killing, because the soul doesn't die. that's the whole basis of the bhagavad gita. it doesn't matter what we do, if we do it for krishna. if we can't do it for krishna, we shouldn't do it. and i don't see why we can't do psychedelics for krishna.

there's the example of a knife. you can either use it to stab someone, or to cut up vegetables to offer to krishna. a physical object has no intrinsic quality of good or bad; it only matters how you use it.

so i'm at the point where i'm being redundant, and i'm not being very eloquent at all, but whatever. i just don't see how we can say, krishna is in everything, but the experiences of god you have while on psychedelics aren't real. so i'll end it there. please, please, please, reply with any thoughts you have on this subject, especially if you can quote the vedas or prabhupada or any other swamis or gurus or whatnots. any kind of scripture really. or anything that seems applicable .

 

The idea is to keep the mind sober so that it is in touch with reality. With psychedelics you lose touch with reality, this is not what Hinduism is about. Hinduism is about being aware of the reality which you live in, not forget about it.

There are rules given in the scriptures to uplift the mind, if such rules are becoming a very problematic ordeal for you personally, then surrender to krishna and act on what comes naturally to you. Don't stress yourself dude.

 

Or perhaps it is to be aware of the reality that lives in you

 

thank you. it's really appreciated.

what i don't understand is how an experience can be outside of reality. it seems like there are only two categories of experiences; god centered and ego centered. every second is a completely unique experience for every living entity, just based on subtle things like what we eat or where we are or things like astrology or our own karma... so the only entity that can know the ultimate truth, the core experience, would be krishna. and we know that krishna doesn't just experience the one same truth constantly... even he loves variety...

 

Re: psychedelics

Stay away from them...IMO, they rip a hole and let you have a peek, but often at great cost.

Srila Prabhupada called the experiences had with LSD, etc. "effective hallucinations" that users mistake for real transcendental consciousness.

I need to dig up what Sri Krishna Prem, a British professor turned Vaisnava sadhu, personally told Timothy Leary regarding drugs...you'd find it interesting.

Astute observations you have on sexual neuroses, ISKCON-style.

 

thank you...

is it thought of in the same way that every material thing we have here is a perverted reflection of it's real counterpart in the spiritual world? so a spiritual experience brought on by psychedelics can't be spiritualized because it's like the other side of the coin...?

could it be different for different substances? all i've ever read prabhupada talking about was LSD. and does he mean full-on hallucinations, or the actual change in perception of real things? because i have a really hard time trying to accept that some of the things i've noticed, connections that seem divine, little patterns and perfection that i took for granted before, could all be false. that's not what i've experienced in my sobriety. they just seem more and more real.

 

The thing is that Hinduism, like other paths, has its traditional methods of inducing a consciousness of the divine. This is both a stregnth and a weakness - a stregnth, because the methods of yoga etc are useful and unique in the world's spiritual cultures - a weakness because other methods tend to be rejected if they don't fit in with the established practice of this or that school.

In the case of psychedelics, there is much controversy. Some, like Prabhupada, simply dismiss the effects as hallucination, and really, that is coming from a standpoint of total lack of knowledge about these things.

Others express concerns along the lines that in some people, using lsd etc can lead onto abuse of hard drugs, with all the negative consequences that brings.

Anyway - my own view is slanted by the fact that it was using psychedelics which first made me interested in spirituality etc in the first instance.
I think thay can give a temporary experience of higher levels of perception, and even visions of the divine. Thay can also take you in quite other directions.
This can be of benefit to some people - but they don't do it for everyone. Also, there are risks - mainly of a psychological nature.

My own experience over years (haven't taken a psychedelic for a decade nearly now though) is that they can also be deceptive. One can fasten onto something one sees on acid or mushrooms and become fascinated by a particular experience, and this is not necessarily helpful, as one can recieve a very powerful shove in the wrong direction for you personally.
To quote my experience - I had a time when I used to see christian images etc, and consequently spent much time studying esoteric and mystical christianity. The power of the lsd state led me to accept all of this in a way which in retro was too all-accepting, and not critical enough. Thankfully, I have now long come out of that state, but I mention it hoping you will understand my meaning.

To become dependent on psychedelics as the main way of getting into an elevated state is not at all a good idea. However, I feel thay have their place and can be useful if used wisely by the right person, and in my experience, it is only a small minority of users who derive much real benefit from them.

That said - there is the 'soma' myth in the Veda - some say that the soma may have been a psychoactive mushroom. That would fit, because the Rishis were probably more like shamans that modern yogis, and many shamans use such things, esp those of central asia, from where the Aryan race are thought to have originated. This is explored by Terrence McKenna in 'Food of the Gods'.

If you want to know more about psychedelics I suggest you read 'The Doors of Perception' by Aldous Huxley, 'Politics of Ecstacy' by Timothy Leary, 'The Centre of the Cyclone' by John C.Lilly.

Incidentally - one of the 11 sucessor gurus appointed by SP to run ISKCON after his death, Tirthapada, broke away from the mainstrem movement and advised his followers to use LSD. He ended uo being murdered by a mentally unstable devotee (not because of drugs, but because the guy was insane to begin with).

Psychedelics can be an initiation - beyond that, I think their real value would be for psychological research etc, which is unfortunately banned.

I'm more than happy to discuss all this prismatism - if you have any questions please don't hesitiate.....

 

Spook - I believe it is in Leary's 'Jail Notes' - if you can't find it I'll dig out my copy and post it here.

 

hindu mysticism evolved with the use of hallucinogens of the soma rasa believed to the amantia muscara mushroom but now since all the principal tools and info was gained with the use of this psychedelic, its use is no longer prescribed but just the practices of yoga

 

McKenna thinks a mushroom of the genus psilocybe is a more likely candidate - they do grow in northern India.
I tend to agree with him for various reasons - mainly because amanita is a very strange thing, unlike psilosybin or lsd - they have a definite narcotic type effect, and if too many are eaten, they can induce a comatose state. I've seen this some years ago.
People who have had both types of mushroom say generally that psilocybes induce a much more clear state of mind, where things like basic motor functions aren't impaired. Also amanita contains toxins, which though rarely fatal, can cause nausea and vomiting as well as coma.
One to leave alone in my opinion.

The ritual use of amanita muscaria by the Koryak tribe of mongolia includes the tribal women chewing the mushroom, and then it is swallowed by the men. The Koryak have myths about how they came to use amanita, which involve a whale that they, or their ancestors, returned to the sea, and in return he gave them the amanita. It is a central part of their tribal culture, even if it seems strange to us westerners.

Para-pyschologist Andrea Puharic did some interesting work with amanita in relation to human telepathy some years ago - unfortunately I've forgotten the name of the book in which he describes the reults.
I do recall that in the book a claim is made that in ancient Egypt, there was a cult of the 'golden amanita' -

 

Just to add that amanita seems to have penetrated into european folklore - often in children's books, pixies, fairies and other such 'wee folk' are shown with amanita in the background - sometimes they even live in little amanita houses.

'Tis most strange.

 

one or the other

 

Or maybe neither - Sri Aurobindo for example dismisses the idea of soma as a physical substance at all.

It's one of those things I doubt we'll ever know for sure - at least whilst we remain in our present status of being and knowledge.

 

I think amanita used to be quite popular in Russia. Sorry for going off topic :tongue:

 

That's what I've heard too. Also, I've heard that the popular name 'fly argaric' is because it was used in Russia to kill flies - it was placed in milk and supposedly produced fumes toxic to them.

I also recall that in the book I mentioned before by Puharic, he was giving his subjects small doses of amanita infused in milk.

To get even further off topic - many herbs are better infused in milk than water - it's probably the fats in the milk as well as acids which help dissolve active constsituents.

 

Yea I remember reading about the upper class people eating the amanita, or drinking a tea I dont remember exactly, but then they would pee off the upper floor and the poor people would collect the urine and drink it. And the reindeer would eat them and start biting people lol
I also remember reports of people being able to do weird things while intoxicated from amanita, such as jumping further than normal, and having more strength.

 

Well, I don't know about Hinduism, but I certainly believe that psychedelics reveal more of reality than we normally see without them. I'm very much a subjectivist which means I believe our experiences and perceptions determine reality. I don't believe reality is constant - some things can be real at one point and then cease to be real at a later point. Whenever I have a deep insight or a highly spiritual experience, I first of all decide whether or not I want to believe in it, and if I do I take it to be real in the moment. When I sober up, I'm in a state of mind in which I either continue to accept my experiences as real or as just drug induced fooey. Most of the time, it's the latter, and I usually can't help but to reject it. That's okay. I accept reality as I experience it in the moment. So the insights and experiences I have while high are almost always transient, and there really isn't anything reliable or substantial that I can learn about reality based on them. However, the lesson that this is the way reality works is more long-lasting, and I did learn it from the psychedelic experience. It didn't come to me while high, it came to me after having had many psychedelic experiences of a wide variety of qualities, and then reflecting on them in total. The most profound lessons about reality are learnt this way - through experiences, and the wider the variety and intensity, the better - because you end up taking the commonalities of all of them and noticing what keeps repeating with all of them. I've learnt that there are 3 major characteristics of all experiences: 1) they are each qualitatively unique and there is no a priori reason to suppose that there is any limit on what quality they adopt, 2) all experiences feel real or independent from consciousness, and 3) all experiences have a fundamental meaning, some of which may not be expressable in words. I think these 3 traits apply to all experiences, drug induced or not. To me, this is the most real of spiritual lessons one can learn.

 

Up to a point I agree - but I think there actually is an objective reality. It is our perception of that reality which is subjective.
In one sense, the object of Hindu yoga, as of all systems of self-development, is to attain to an objective consciousness - or as it is sometimes expressed, a form of consciousness where categories of objective and subjective are obliterated in an experience of the One Reality or Brahman.

So long as there is an 'I' and that which is being experienced by this 'I', all experience of reality is relativistic and highly subjectivised.

There is no other interface with reality other than experience. To be conscious is to experience.

Personally, my experience with psychedelics is that the actual content of the experience can be more or less random. It is more the 'backgroud reality' that one can become attuned to - it is impossible to express in words, but it's something like the one constant which runs through all the diversities of experiences. The thread if you like, on which all is strung.

 

you guys have seriously great answers. thank you .

 

Prismatism - I think this is something you might find interesting. If you go to the link below and scroll down the page, you'll find two talks by Robert Anton Wilson entitled 'Consciousness, drugs, yoga and more...'

http://www.futurehi.net/media.html

Some other interesting stuff there too.