I'm confused ((psychedelics))

that he is an authority on marriage life besides hallucinogenics

 

here are some examples of people who aren't following the program of the gita and are in the clutches of maya

HARD TO BELIEVE, BUT THESE ARE ALL TRUE STORIES FROM EMERGENCY ROOMS AROUND THE U.S.A : FEMALE SOFA----- A 500 lb. woman from Illinois was examined in a hospital. During the examination, an asthma inhaler fell from under her armpit, a dime was found under one of her breasts and a remote control was found lodged between the folds of her vulva. eeewwwww.....

PRICKLY PAIR-----OUCH! In Michigan , a man came into the ER with lacerations to his penis. He complained that his wife had "...a rat in her privates..." which bit him during sex (not the first conclusion I would have drawn, I don't think). After an examination of his wife, it was revealed that she had a surgical needle left inside her after a recent hysterectomy.

PING PONG ANYONE? ----- A 20 year old man came into the ER with a stonymass in his rectum. He said that he and his boyfriend were fooling around with concrete mix, when his boyfriend had the idea of pouring the mix into his anus using a funnel (you'd do the same, I'm sure!)?!!. The concrete then hardened, (no sh*t Sherlock)! causing constipation and pain. Under general anesthesia, a perfect concrete cast of the man's rectum was removed along with a ping pong ball. (Boy - we live sheltered lives!)

BLIND DRUNK----- A drunk staggered into a Pennsylvania ER complaining of severe pain while trying to remove his contact lenses. He said that they would come out halfway, but they always popped back in. A nurse tried to help using a suction pump, but without success. Finally, a doctor examined him and discovered the man did not have his contact lenses in at all. He had been trying to rip out the membrane of his cornea. (Oh my gosh!)

OUCH AND DOUBLE OUCH! ----- A couple hobbled into a Washington State emergency room covered in bloody restaurant towels. The man had his hands around his abdomen and the woman had hers around her head. They eventually explained to doctors that they had gone out that evening for a romantic dinner. Overcome with passion, the woman crept under the table to administer oral sex to the man (Classy or what??). While in the act, she had an epileptic fit, which caused her to clamp down on the man's penis and wrench it from side to side. In agony and desperation, the man grabbed a fork and stabbed her in the head until she let go.

 

that really has nothing to do with anything.

 

thank you.

but, that doesn't say that psychedelics can't be helpful in spiritual life. it says that athiests believe spiritual experiences are like intoxication from a chemical reaction.

if i chant, i know i'm getting a reaction from it because krishna is nondifferent from his name. if an athiest chants and gets the same reaction, they'll think it's a combination of placebo and chemicals in their brain.

you can have illusions when you're on lsd. anyone who says you can't is probably a goombah . that doesn't mean anything you learn or realize is bogus.

i know how prabhupada feels about the subject. but as far as i know, he didn't really know very much about psychedelics, and never used them himself, so he isn't an authority on the subject. despite the fact that he is of course my guru and i have all the respect in the world for him, i don't think he is an expert on the spiritual effects of psychedelics. just like i wouldn't want him to, say, fix a car for me.

let's say i take initiation and afterwards i want to make a cake. so i ask my guru, "are these ingredients okay to make *suchandsuch* kind of cake?", and he doesn't know. that's because he's never made that kind of cake before; he doesn't understand it. so i have to go to someone who does understand it. and whether my guru accepts the recipe or not, i have to make the cake according to the recipe the person gives me. and because the cake is offered to krishna, it's acceptable to make it, even though i'm not making it under the instruction of my spiritual master.

you could even say that the cake is a drug. maybe it has some ginger in it. or some nutmeg. both could be considered intoxicants. actually, anything you put into your body affects your consciousness. and anything you put into your body can be used to the point of abuse, where you fall into maya. i could eat so many pakoras that i get fat. that doesn't mean i should never make pakoras to offer to krishna.

 

You may even consider, what is the actual nature of the spiritual experience? Is it caused by the brain, by god, or the interaction between them or something else?


I would like to point out, that there are religions (that have existed since prehistoric times till present) that surrounding pretty much all of the natural psychedelics, ie. mushrooms, ayahuasca, san pedro, salvia, peyote, etc and they all basically believe that consumption of them, puts them directly in connection with the divine. Being that they are the ones that have the most, longest experience and relationship with the psychedelics, I don't know how someone else would say that its not true based on a lower knowledge of them, other then coming from a different religious perspective.

 

it actually doesn't have anything to do with anything... prapad just shot off groundless opinions

 

Many religious authorities want to monopolize spiritual experiences - 'this is the only way' many will tell you. To such people, psychedelics, about which they usually know absolutely nothing beyond the ususal propaganda, are simply an intoxicant. They have no conception of the changed state of consciousness induced by such agents.
Even if they did know, they'd ban them anyway, as people with actual spiritual vision/experience are actually a threat to organized religions, unless that experience can be contained within their existing framework of dogmas, power etc.

Too much religion is based on a world denying type of attitude - renunciation etc. To such people, spiritual life is seen, to quote Ayotollah Komheni as 'a life of hard work and prayer' - there is no place for ecstatic experience, or any kind of sensory pleasure.
This isn't true of all Indian religion - there is Tantrism for instance which uses the senses to rise to a higher level. Even in Krishna Consciousness, there is the example of the noted ecstatic Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.
However, the more organized and economically powerful a religion, the less likely they are to accept psychedelics, which would bring them into conflict with secular authorities - in effect, they are part of the establishment.
The last thing they want is people having independent spiritual experiences which can't be attributed to the particular cult or its practices.

The tribal shaman who uses such substances is not under such a religious heirarchy - not bound by dogmas. Their experience is, I would think, much more direct and less constructed than those who cleave to a particular set of religious beliefs.

In the end it comes down to freedom. Do you trust yourself, or would you rather trust religious authorities? Many of them speak of freedom - but actually they often mean a different form of bondage. But it's freedom we want - isn't it?

Being an expert on the Gita, philosophy etc doesn't mean one is also an expert in the application of entheogens.

Also, Salvia is not a psychedelic but a deliriant.

 

Nothing to forgive - but you didn't answer my question - if putting things into the body and mind is no good for spiritual purposes, how can putting the words of a scripture into your mind be helpful? It seems like a contradictory view.

 

http://www.hknet.org.nz/SexISex.html

Sex is sex
One day in Montreal, during afternoon guest hours a young devotee from the temple asked me for an appointment to see Srila Prabhupada. I agreed and told her to come in the late afternoon, as it was his custom to visit with guests and devotees after his afternoon nap. This girl was an artist, her name was Madhavi Lata and she had come from New York. She was now living at the Montreal temple and I assumed she wanted to discuss her paintings with Srila Prabhupada and ask questions about them, as did Jadurani and the other artists from time to time. However, her intention was different. When she came, she began to explain her problem to Srila Prabhupada, and Srila Prabhupada having difficulty understanding her, called me into the room. I was working in the kitchen nearby and heard his call: 'Govind Dasi!' He always pronounced my name with 4 syllables: Govind Dasi, other than Govinda Dasi. I rushed in and made obeisances and he told me to bring prasadam. Then he motioned for me to sit down and listen to the discussion. Madhavi Lata was explaining to Srila Prabhupada that as a brahmacarini at the temple she was having difficulty being around all the other girls as they were often dressing and sometimes wearing only slips and cholis while putting on their saris. She tried to explain to Srila Prabhupada that this was a great agitation for her and she needed a different living situation. She was very upset and didn't know what to do. Srila Prabhupada was having difficulty understanding her problem. Srila Prabhupada was encouraging her to chant Hare Krsna, read his books and do her wonderful art work. He inspired her and preached to her and talked to her about Krsna and the temporary existence in the material world. I sat quietly listening to the conversation nearby and observing that he was giving her the highest instruction that was applicable in every case. However, there was clearly a lapse in communication. Eventually, the girl graciously respected prasadam and left. Then I sat down in front of Srila Prabhupada's desk and he asked me: 'What is her problem?' I groped for words, trying to find a way to express it and finally said: 'Srila Prabhupada, in this country there are some women who are attracted to other women sexually, not to men. So she is having this problem living with the other girls and doesn't know what to do about it'. Srila Prabhupada's eyes grew large and round and he said: 'Oh'. He saw the whole thing immediately. Then he said in a very surprised tone: 'In India there are some such low-class men but not women, never women'. His face was full of surprise. I said: 'Yes, Srila Prabhupada, in the West there are such women also'. Then he leaned back and wagged his head side-to-side, Indian fashion in a very amused and almost amazed look. 'Just see, this sex life. Men to men, women to women. Men to women. Sex life is the bondage. It is all bondage. But, he opened his eyes wide: the sex life between man and woman can be sanctified by marriage. That is the difference. Krsna says in the Gita that I am the sex life within marriage. So within marriage it can be used for having nice Krsna conscious children but not like this. This is very low class'. Srila Prabhupada you clearly cut through the illusion of homosexuality, simply and concisely. Never mind arguments one way or another. You saw it simply as another form of bondage, one that cannot be sanctified by God or purified within the marriage institution of God. Nowadays, Western society has begun to aggressively promote homosexuality but their promotion cannot change the truth. It is simply another form of bondage in the material world, forcing the soul to take birth after birth of endless suffering. Unlike us, Srila Prabhupada you never became swayed by personal likes or dislikes, preferences or passions. You cut through our illusions with the swift and sure knife of knowledge and irrefutable truth. Then you stitched the wound with your divine love and instruction: chant Hare Krsna and be happy. Thank you. Your opinion, Srila Prabhupada is as valid today and unchanged by time as it was in 1968. All these various modern trends of society you once commented to me, that nothing is new, they are all old, these things have been done again and again and Krsna knows them all. He spoke about them and he deals with each on in the Gita. Thank you, Srila Prabhupada, for being above everything and being able to teach us so that we also can see things from the window of spiritual realization. Thank you, Srila Prabhupada.
- From the 1008 Ways to Remember Srila Prabhupada by Govinda dasi ACBSP

 

what is the basis of your point of view? In more civilized circles the ettiquette is to not present anything without a reference from the vedas. Why? because your opinion isnt worth a plug nickel. nor is mine nor anyone elses. But the vedas are infallible,
"Mistakes, illusions, cheating and defective perception do not occur in the sayings of the authoritative sages."
>>> Ref. VedaBase => Adi 2.86
This addresses your first point that many spiritual authorities want to monopolize spiritual life and create an only way. Who cares? Where does it say anything like that in the vedas? It is very important to note the vedas are very broad, the word "veda" means "knowledge" and there is room for just about every person in every situation of life to make spiritual advancement by gradually following the injunctions of the vedas.

The problem is that you are too proud. You would never admit "i am imperfect" rather what can be experienced by your limited senses is taken as truth. some time ago i heard katie give the example of the elephant in a dark room. A very good example, we have heard it many times, but despite hearing it many times we still fall prey to taking our opinions as the final word.

Its very interesting that you mention tantra. Tantra originally meant ritual or the method by which the divine is experienced within the human microcosm, nowadays, because there is no reference to vedic authority, tantra means sex. its an excuse used by people who are attached to their senses. Tantra is very good if you identify with the body but not if you are into spirituality.

There is actually nothing more glorious(materially speaking) than self control. "One who works in devotion, who is a pure soul, and who controls his mind and senses is dear to everyone, and everyone is dear to him. Because one who works in Krishna consciousness is servant to all, he is very dear to everyone. And because everyone is satisfied by his work, he is pure in consciousness. Because he is pure in consciousness, his mind is completely controlled. And because his mind is controlled, his senses are also controlled. A man of controlled senses cannot be offensive to anyone."
>>> Ref. VedaBase => Bg 5.7

What is offensive however is equating caitanya mahaprabhu with someone on the material platform of sense enjoyment. In fact the ecstasy experienced by mahaprabhu has absolutely nothing to do with the interactions of material elements. There is no better example of renunciation! Mahaprabhu took the renounced order of life according to vedic ettiquette at the age of 24, neglecting all bodily attachments he left home to focus on nothing but chanting Hare Krishna.
And he is the perfect example! when you give up material things you experience a much higher happiness! Do you know anything about mahaprabhu's life?

Only a person who is not strong enough to try and control their senses would denounce the process as a hard life of work and prayer. its just damn weakness and pride. an intelligent person will care nothing of such persons limited opinions nor of the views of secular society. I will stick with the vedas thank you very much.

your last three statements are quite bold and i will now address them.

by tribal shaman you must mean every tom dick and harry who conjured up "their own way" because they werent strong enough to follow vedic injunction. This always happens. thats why there is a deviant on every corner spewing their opinion.
sruti-smrti-puranadi-
pancaratra-vidhim vina
aikantiki harer bhaktir
utpatayaiva kalpate
"Devotional service that ignores the authorized Vedic literatures like the Upanisads, puranas and Narada-pancaratra is simply an unnecessary disturbance in society."
>>> Ref. VedaBase => SB 8.12.10
also, what do you mean by direct!!?!? does that mean that you have a definition of what your trying to achieve? for something to be direct it has to channel or focus toward a given result, object, or end. if thats what you mean by direct than how is that possible without structure? I think you are just speculating.

again, freedom needs a definition. you want the freedom to do what? to sense gratify and entangle yourself in material problems? you want the freedom to ruin your body? you want the freedom to take another body?:H
thats all fine. i personally respect such a decision, and even Krishna gives you the free will to fulfill such desires. but dont do it in the name of spirituality.
"For self-realization, one can live a controlled life, as prescribed in the sastras, and continue carrying out his business without attachment, and in that way make progress. A sincere person who follows this method is far better situated than the false pretender who adopts show -- bottle spiritualism to cheat the innocent public. A sincere sweeper in the street is far better than the charlatan meditator who meditates only for the sake of making a living."
>>> Ref. VedaBase => Bg 3.7

your last statement gets me the most.
Its just not true and it shows a very poor understanding of philosophy and bhagavad gita. I geuss were just stuck on the basics here.
i will now explain how such a person can be an expert on entheogenic uses.

Vedic knowledge is comprised of three sections the first is sambandha or knowledge of our ontological position and relationship with the world(what am i and what the heck is going on around me)
the second section is abhideya (knowledge of the path to take according to your unique position) and third, prayojana (knowledge of the goal or purpose of life)
Basic sambandha knowledge is you are not material. you are spiritual and as such only spiritual things can satisfy you.
this body that you have is simply a combination of mechanical sub-units. this combination is not sufficient to produce consciousness.consciousness is seperate and a symptom of spirit. therefore as spirit you are seperate from the brain and its concomitant reactions. CHEMICALLY ALTERING THE BODY may produce more material knowledge, profound experiences, deep realizations, but it just keeps you in the material sphere. you become dependent on those chemical reactions to give you a so-called spiritual experience. right now, right this very second, you are covered by a material body and mind and intelligence and ego, symptomized by desires to be the enjoyer or lord of all you survey.

why not try acting on the platform of the soul? why not try acting on a platform of freedom from sense gratification?

your comment was just like saying "you have to be sick to know a sick person is suffering"
Srila Prabhupada lived in the bowery in new york, sharing a studio apartment with people taking entheogens. he had experience. alot of it. and not only that but he has direct experience of God. He was also presented with the same argument you presented and said that while he hadnt taken any such drugs, his disciples had. and they had immediately given them up upon experiencing the higher taste of vedic knowledge and truth.
"The embodied soul may be restricted from sense enjoyment, though the taste for sense objects remains. But, ceasing such engagements by experiencing a higher taste, he is fixed in consciousness."
>>> Ref. VedaBase => Bg 2.59

How can a person suggest that taking intoxication can be compared to spiritual realisation without experiencing both? arent you being completely close minded?
I spent my whole youth taking dose and mushrooms and extasy and it gave me something. it gave me some awareness and realization. but what it gave is not spiritual nor accepted by vedic authorities.

Just by understanding the first section of vedic knowledge you can see that the soul is not influenced by drugs. the soul is covered and more material stuff wont uncover it. Im sure we can agree on that.

But then the question comes, what is material? what is spiritual?

should we sit around and speculate? i think i would rather not depend on myself. i will not depend on your opinion either.

"In other words, those who depend upon the strength of their poor fund of knowledge and morbid speculative habits, without submission and service in the forms of hearing, chanting and the others mentioned above, cannot penetrate to the mysterious region of transcendence where the Supreme Truth is a transcendental person, free from all tinges of the material elements."
>>> Ref. VedaBase => Adi 1.52

"A vairagi [a person in the renounced order] should not depend on others. If he does so, he will be unsuccessful, and he will be neglected by Krsna."
>>> Ref. VedaBase => Antya 6.224

because i am a very small and imperfect human being, i have repeated the words of sastra and guru, as a matter of service and duty. please dont take it offensively.

 

both could be considered intoxicants by whom? by you? if you have a guru why dont you take what he says?

 

because a guru saying something does not make it a fact... a guru who would want us to give up our sense of discrimination, reasoning and self determination is no guru

 

Are you saying I'm not "civilized" because I don't play your game of quotes?
What you mean is that I'm not controlled by the same ethos as yourself. It's sad when people abrogate responsibility for thinking for themselves and rely on others to tell them waht to think.
As to the 'infalibility' of the vedas, I don't think any scripture or set of ideas is infallible. Certainly, no guru is infallible - Prabhupada's lack of judgement over his choice of successors is proof enough for instance, of his fallibility.
You can place as low a value on your own self and your ideas as you like, but don't make the mistake of thinking that's the way to get to the truth in any area of life. Phoney 'humility' is not the way to influence people. It is actually simply a learned form of behaviour I've seen before among iskcon folks. It is tiresome, and masks a great deal of arrogance.

What you could do is try giving a straight answer to my question; if putting things into the body and mind is no good for the soul, how can adding the words of the Gita or any other scripture be of help?

I'm not interested to hear Prabhupada's answers repeated once more. If you don't have any real views of your own, then please quit spamming this forum with stuff we've all seen many times before.

 

OK - HERE GOES - I am imperfect. However, not so imperfect as some. Certainly, not so imperfect as to imagine that on the baisis of one or two interactions on the internet I can come to a conclusion regarding someone's character, unlike yourself. Perhaps it is you who are proud...and perhaps a wee bit judgemental too. Maybe you need to move beyond the tiny orbit of iskcon literature.....

 

Getting back to the question of consulting gurus - if you don't agree with something in the vedas (or whatever scripture your religion relies on) or you're confused by something it says, you can go ahead and ask a guru for answers. You can ask over and over again, to as many gurus as you want, but if they keep coming back with the same answers - regardless of whether it's a direct reference to the vedas or something more independent or unique - then there's a decision you have to make: either buckle down and accept what the gurus are telling you or break off from the traditional path and venture out on your own - maybe your path is not meant to be labeled under "Hinduism" or "Christianity" or "Science" or whatever. It might still fit under these labels as a new denomination or just a new brand, but it's quite possible that it doesn't - in which case, you've got a whole new religion to yourself.

 

truth is we are perfect and this harping on our imperfection or original sin is the path to hoodwink people into a wacko cult

 

totally_dissapointed; the things i mentioned could be considered an intoxicant by science. they alter your consciousness. any psychonaut can tell you that.

you didn't answer my questions or address my points .

but that's okay because just reading all of this has convinced me NOT to be as heavily involved as i thought i would be.

i don't care if i'm being offensive, i'm still going to chant and offer food and flowers and go to classes and festivals and everything, but i think it's bullshit to accept things without question, no matter what they are. there are too many theologies that contradict eachother and at the same time tell you the only way to god is surrender to THEIR strict system. i'm just going to take the best elements from each, and never accept that god is such a dickhead that he OR SHE, or IT, would ignore my effort unless it's approved by some guru.

i agree with chiefcowpie . we are all perfect. we're not GOD in god's ENTIRETY, but we're not scum.

 

Of course, when I say I am imperfect, I mean it only in a relative way.
There are things we can't control - like some diseases and death. Perhaps we will one day evolve to a greater perfection where these things too will be under our control.
Even now, we could create a society that was near perfection. It is arguably entrenched religious ideologies that are one big factor preventing that from being realized.

Of course, as usual, it all depends what you mean by perfection.

Doctrines such as 'original sin' or the idea that we are somehow helpless and incapable of improving our selves and our conditions of life are to be entirely rejected, as is the notion that physical existence itself is somehow a mistake, or some low condition into which we have 'fallen'.

The idea that this world is an intrinsically miserable place, and that our only hope lies in escape is likewise something which I feel is simply a neagative and depressive view which has led to all manner of nonsense. It's easy to see how in past, pre-scientific ages when no progress happened for centuries, people fell into such a 'slough of despond' regarding life here on earth. However, we know differently. We've seen many 'inevitable miseries' conquered even during the last 50 odd years. Antibiotics being one small example.

 

Do you mean involved with iskcon ?

 

In a sense, we all have 'our own religion' - each one is unique, the way is different for different people.
There is no such thing as 'one size fits all' when it comes to spirituality, consciousness expansion or whatever you want to call it.