"I believe you have taken his comment of of context. If I'm not mistaken he was referring to psychedelics with regards to Buddhism which he is quite familiar."

There is enough hinting towards a long history of entheogenic use in the area(including Buddhism) to make that questionable.

http://www.erowid.org/sp...m_tantra_article1.shtml

and nen has said that he got Buddhist monks to admit to him that they do utilize the acacias during certain times in they're training.

There is evidence of mushroom use in buddhism, especially amanitas.

"People that believe psychedelics will lead them to the same place as deep focused meditation are wrong. They are not the same and there is no reason to try and make them the same. Each has it's own gift. Psychedelics are often useful for introducing someone to altered consciousness which can then lead them to study meditation and self work, but the deep psychedelic experiences can ultimately be described by the same 3 characteristics (tilakkhaṇa) that all phenomena share.

1) It's impermanent
2) Because it's impermanent clinging to it will lead to unhappiness (Dukkha)
3) Because it's impermanent and leads to dukka it is not self (anatta)."

I think there is a lot of subjective projection coming from an eastern bias in that analysis.

The idea that you can sum up all entheogenic experiences in those 3 points is a subjective one, in my view.

I don't care what monks say. I don't care what the leader of monks says. I don't care what scriptures say. I only care about what I feel to be true. I don't feel this to be true personally.

People focus way to much on texts, what some "holy" person says, what others say. They spend far too much time trying to map out someone else's energy as if it applies to them. I think that is forfeiting your own power and not owning your own energy. When you use your own given intuition you move into a much deeper level than any of these other things can produce. My intuition tells me that much of this line of thinking is a kind of trap. Intuitive magic will always be the most pure. I think it is that place from where the voice of creation is the most clear.

Who cares what the texts say? I was a practicing Buddhist for a couple years before I really got into psychedelics. I did yoga and meditation daily and I started doing some meditation when I was 13 because I did martial arts throughout my teenage years. I don't believe that that path holds any more power to awaken people than the path of a huichol indian who eats peyote or a soma drinker, ganja smoker or ayahuasca drinker. It is all relative and subjective to the individual. That is all ANYONE can say about that. Anything else is just people not in line enough with they're own energy to realize that what works for one person might never work for you. Even if it is the only thing that works for them.

The alternative is some kind of spiritually pompous, homogenized bastardization of true gnosis. Gnosis happens for the individual and not for anyone else. It is a truth that is subjective in it's attainment, and possibly objective in it's scope, though I am not sure. Perhaps objective reality is a fallacy.

I am not disagreeing with how things work for you Joe. I am only saying that personally I have abandoned the idea that we can really ever say how things are going to apply to others. Even when it comes to something like the psychedelic experience.

I still believe that a path that involves both the use of the master plants(or chemicals for some) and the other practices is far superior for me than either of the 2 alone.

Ultimatly though, I feel this is an issue of the eastern detached mindset in opposition to the native American/aborigine etc mindset of an animistic world and connection to the earth. I don't buy into this idea that "all is illusion" because it's so obvious it is pointless to go on about. If all is illusion than nothing is also illusion, because it cancels itself out. I turn to the abundance of the earth, and the earth will always be the deity I serve in this life, while accepting the totality of the cosmos as god. When I eat of her medicines, she illuminates me, and she enlightens me. I believe that for me, that is true enlightenment, and true gnosis. This is where we differ.

I don't think either of those paths are wrong, or mutually exclusive, and I don't adhere to only one or the other. I have a deep respect for the yogic traditions and I love yoga, but I find yogi's vastly different from Buddhist monks. It often gets all lumped together in the west. I find tantric Buddhism fascinating though..as well as the Tibetan cosmology.

Can anyone access this whole paper?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8583800

Here (this is a really good thread - I just love reading it):

BTW I should state, that I have experienced the exact identical states of deep clear consciousness with both meditation and with certain psychedelics, like harmine.

Vaporizing tryptamines takes me to the deepest levels of energetic awakening I have ever experienced in my life. Breathwork afterwords inbetween sessions is good to anchor that energy as much as possible.

Meditation itself is fleeting IME, unless you contintue to do it daily. I don't really see how that differs from working with entheogens. I do experience a much deeper state of awakening if I practive my breathwork for a week after vaporizing tryptamines though than I do if I just did meditations or breathwork.

Mostly I just meditation at work. Wash dishes, stack boxes and breath into my organism.

I don't see any firm evidence at all about drug use in Early Buddhism. Later Tantra's aside (those were clearly not the original teachings as they are dated much later)



First of all nothing in this entire page (i've read it many times) has anything to do with the original Buddhist Teachings. Yes plenty of "tantric" Buddhists (tantra is a word never even mentioned in the Pali Cannon) and Hindus used all sorts of drugs. Yes plenty of Buddhist have used drugs. No they (drugs) do not have anything what so ever to do with the Pali Cannon and the aims of Buddhism overall. The Pali Cannon is the most complete of all the early schools of Buddhism it's also in his native language. You can ignore this text all you want, but understand that everything else is the opinion of another human. The Pali Cannon is the closest thing we have to early Buddhism.

Secondly just because drugs like cannabis were in use all over India in no way condemns original buddhism as being a cannabis or Datura cult. You seem to be drawing stark conclusions with nothing but circumstantial evidence and opinions from other people.




Well if you don't care what the scriptures say (and it's obvious you have never read them) then you are only espousing an opinion about such matters and by your own admission opinions are worthless.




Buddhist monks admitting to drug use in no way condemns Buddhism as a drug path any more than one Canadian doing psychedelic drugs implies all Canadians do psychedelic drugs.



Do you not see the complete irony in those two statements? If you never took the time to learn what Buddhism was from the source then I hardly see justification for saying you were a Buddhist. Not to be rude, but it's honestly laughable.




I don't completely disagree with you. Yes psychedelics can help to start your awakening. They can not do it for you. Meditation, regardless of your experience, can and does work but you have to learn to do it right and you have to practice. The goal of Buddhism is complete and total inner peace that lasts uninterruptedly. I've never had a psychedelic drug do any such thing and neither has any else.



The goal of buddhism is not to see all as illusion. This is very real. It is however completely interdependent and remains in a constant state of flux and is utter impermanent. To label anything as self that is constantly changing is pretty absurd...at least to Buddha and he used this point to break off his teachings for many other teachers of the day. He went on to found an entire philosophy which actually stands up to quite a bit of scrutiny (If you read the Pali Cannon and treat other texts as later additions...which they were).



Care to elaborate? I actually find them to be blunt truth. I've never seen anything that was permanent. I've observed from repeatedly trying and failing to find any lasting happiness in any sort of attachment or clinging. Since nothing is lasting how could I refer to myself as a self? Doesn't self kind of imply a static entity? I see no evidence of anything being static (not moving). Honestly this is just what I'd call raw truth. As were most of his teachings.



I'm perfectly OK with your view and I embrace the earth as well. I also make use of sacred medicines and have my own mix of spirituality that includes psychedelic drugs (very occasional these days) and buddhist meditation. I have found utility in both of them. Psychedelics often catalyze a transcended state of being that I can then work towards over the coming years and month after the experience. Meditation however is the power that really addresses the issue at hand. My deepest meditation may not be as visually rivaling as psychedelic drugs, but they are easily as tranquil.

I do agree that we disagree on what true enlightenment is.

But back to my main rant.

Show me any evidence that Buddha used drugs to achieve enlightenment or that "HE" taught such things. Beyond the Pali Cannon you are making a gasping reach. It doesn't matter that "Ling Mao" in China calls herself a Buddhist and loves the Mahākāla Sutra. She isn't Buddhism. She is one individual practicing her own path and that's cool with me.

You said this..

"I believe you have taken his comment of of context. If I'm not mistaken he was referring to psychedelics with regards to Buddhism which he is quite familiar."

Then I gave examples of Buddhist traditions that do utilize psychoactive plants like cannabis, datura and mushrooms. The Dali Lama even recognizes the Bon influenced traditions as a legit Buddhist path. So I think I covered that part just fine.

Where did I claim that the first Buddhist text itself talks about these plants? I never mentioned that. I said Buddhism..Buddhism comprises many paths. Like anything else. Find me anything that is not syncretic.

As to the rest of your post, you have assumed many things. I don't wish to debate the merits of holy religious texts. It is old books written by dead people who's existence is questionable. I am more interested in how the energy manifests for people in the here and now.

Have you ever considered how a religion would spring up around a drug cult? Wouldn't psychedelics by nature cause your followers to question your authority? I mean seriously it doesn't even stand the test of common sense. If Buddha was doing drugs people wouldn't have made statues of him all over the place they would have erected massive shrooms temples or some such. He would have long been forgotten and only the mushrooms would have been remembered. That however is not how it shaped up.



Right you completely ignored the CONTEXT of the Dali Lama's words.



The Pali Cannon contains a tradition that is not syncretic. The words are written there. No reason to speculate or 'believe'. Read them. They dont' even HINT at the use of drugs. None of the factors of enlightenment hint at it. In fact all evidence points to the fact that Buddha would have judged psychedelic states exactly as the rest of Samsara:

1) Impermanent
2) Leads to suffering if clung to
3) Can not be referred to as a self (in this context self means something static and seperate).

You said you didn't understand those three earlier and I'm still kind curious why?

1. Do you know of anything that escapes impermanence?
2. Have you ever found it pleasing when a clung to object is initially removed?
3. With the above definition of self can you argue against these as being True statements?


With regards to many sects of Buddhism. This is true. To my knowledge NONE of the major schools agree with your assessment. Beyond that we can't just go around labeling everyone's beliefs as Buddhist or whatever...it makes no sense what-so-ever to have words then. BTW As I mentioned above the Bon influenced Dzogchen practices have made use of Datura at times. In all cases they treat it as illusion. Not some sacred medicine. They use it for a specific teaching. But Dzogchen is not Buddhism. Sister tradition perhaps, but not the same.

Buddhism entails following the words of Buddha. Anything beyond that is irrelevant. If Joe takes drugs and practices Buddhism that doesn't make Drugs Buddhist. It means specifically that Joe practices Buddhism AND Joe takes drugs.



Well if you can't take the time to read the words of those old dead guy's then at least have the decency to not spout your opinions on the matter as fact. I have no issue with your beliefs. But I've seen you rant on this time and again. So I wanted to respond with a VERY detailed initial POST so anyone interested could take the time to learn about Buddhism from a more authoritative source (with references).

Buddha NEVER taught anything related to drugs based on ANY of the Pali Cannon documents.
Until I say real evidence I'm standing by this statement.

If I see authoritative evidence I'll gladly change views, but I certainly won't change views based on a few opinions. It could be new documents that are found to have been missing as long as it was from the earlier schools I'd accept that. I won't accept Tantras written sometimes well over a thousand years later.

I told this was not about sacred texts or religion. Cling to both if you choose. I never stated anything as fact. You are getting defensive about this similar to how Christians and other religious people do.

Right it's about Buddhism. Buddhism is following the teaching of Buddha. You can try and diss the texts all you want, but WITHOUT THEM we know nothing of his words. I mean are you suggesting that anything anyone say's or does and labels as Buddhism should in fact be called Buddhism? Certainly not.

As for your Christian comment that's pathetic. I'm not even a full fledged Buddhist. I hold many views and honestly I don't really care whether Buddhism per say is right or not or whether my current view is correct or not.

What I'm arguing is with your claim specifically about buddhism being hollow without psychedelics. The only thing I'm doing is shining a bright light on the truth of this matter and you don't like it because your ego for some reason is tied to this belief about Buddhism being some how related to psychedelics. I mean you are trying to throw out the only evidence we have for his teachings.... Absurd.

Maybe I'm making this overly personal and I shouldn't. This is a topic that has irritated me on many sites for awhile now. I like you. I like most of what you say and most of your beliefs. This I don't agree with because I have verified it for myself and found it lacking.

BTW just to be clear I also find it laughable when people claim to be Christian, but never take the time to read the Bible.

I feel there is another facet of this conversation being overlooked, that being the phenomenon of having spiritual experiences from suspected endogenous dmt.
It is suspected, at least by myself and some others, that ancient man produced more endogenous dmt than contempory man due to a higher exposure to natural sunlight and a sleeping schedule different from our own, consisting of two shorter sleeping periods separated by a wakeful period in which dreams were contemplated and couples had sex among other things.
Also, it is known that injestion of floride, along with other hazardous chemicals and heavy metals, can calcify and damage the pineal gland, the suspected seat of dmt production in the brain. We in contempory society are subjected to greater exposure to these substances than any person in earlier days
These along with other factors may have caused our ancestors to have more visionary and spiritual experiences without the use of outside drugs than we do today. If this is true then perhaps some people have more success than others with using meditation as a catalyst for spiritual enlightenment and visionary experiences due to their diet, natural light exposure, and sleep schedule.
Some food for thought