Direct Consciousness & Psychedelic Drugs

[UnbornTao]

I think these haven't been shared yet: 

Quote

I’m glad your personal challenges and deep existential assumptions are finally opening up for you. As you know I don’t support drugs in the pursuit of consciousness, but my views on this are likely misunderstood by most people. Let me give you some history to start.

Long ago in the San Francisco bay area there were many new pursuits arising—spiritual movements, new psycho-therapy views, challenges to what was called “the establishment”, and so on. One aspect that came along during that time were newly created as well as ancient drugs. A distinction was made back then between “consciousness raising” drugs (psychedelics like LSD, psilocybin mushrooms, peyote, MDMA, wachuma, toad juice, etc.), “recreational” drugs (marijuana, hashish, cocaine, xtc (mdma in a social context), etc.), and “bad” or addictive drugs (heroine, PCP, meth, etc.).

The consciousness raising drugs were taken with growth in mind, usually with a supportive environment. I took very high doses of a lot of them. After some time with this, I stopped. They can certainly alter one’s state in huge and unprecedented ways, and with a contemplative approach can even seem to provide insights or apparent breakthroughs. But these “insights” do not last and they do not really increase consciousness, they just temporarily change one’s experience. This might have a lasting effect in some way and might alter one’s mind, but that is different from direct consciousness, and a great deal of it ends up just being fantasy.

After I had my first enlightenment, getting What I am, I certainly had no interest in drugs, nor did I imagine that they could possibly lead to enlightenment. At some point, however, months afterwards, perhaps to prove that my consciousness was clear and unshakable, I took a strong psychedelic, knowing that no experience no matter how impressive, weird, or scary, could ever touch me—my true nature. It did not, and as I knew, could not. No experience can touch or alter the consciousness of one’s true nature.

Some drugs might be useful in the sense that they certainly offer very different mind states and sometimes what seem to be great insights. These can alter one’s views and dispositions. Yet, in the end, little tends to change long-term, and the “insights” most often don’t survive in life. Drugs can only change the brain, they act on the physiology of the brain and create some very different views of reality. They do not and cannot increase consciousness or produce any direct consciousness. This is a fact, although there are those that claim enlightenment or some such through such methods, that is impossible.

It’s perhaps a bit like saying that you can dress yourself by using a computer. The two exist in different domains, so no matter what you do on the computer—and you might even dress up an image in imaginative ways—it is never going to put one stitch of cloth on your body! The analogy falls short of the reality that I’m talking about but it might give you an idea why I say drugs CANNOT produce direct consciousness.

There seem to be quite a few people that don’t want to accept that these kinds of drugs won’t lead to enlightenment. They just choose to believe I’m wrong. I know it is difficult to give up some hopeful belief or path you have adopted. But when all is said and done, after the effects of the drug have worn off, ask yourself: what did you become conscious of? Not what did you experience or what state did you achieve, but what are you really conscious of about you or reality that you weren’t conscious of before, and are still conscious now that the drug is completely gone? Not as a memory, or a conclusion based on the experiences of the drug-trip, but are you genuinely and permanently directly conscious of your true nature or the nature of existence? No. You will just have memories of exceptional experiences that you thought gave meaning to something, and it may help you challenge some conventional assumptions, but it won’t give you a direct consciousness of the nature of you or reality.

Direct means direct, drugs can NOT be direct—by definition they are completely indirect, since they are not YOU! Direct means it must be you, not an experience or perception of any kind that you have, which are actually both indirect. Changing your brain physiology isn’t YOU—the conscious entity you are, which is NOT what you experience or perceived—no matter what changes in your experience. I know the vast majority of people can’t grasp this because they think they are their experience, and found in their experience. Therefore, they think fantastic experiences increase their consciousness, without realizing it is just an experience they are having, not what they are.

Consider, even if you think you are your brain, why do you think that drugging that organ would allow you to directly experience the brain that you are? Most people only know their reality through what is perceived and experienced and so assume that a direct consciousness would be to perceive or experience yourself. But again, this isn’t possible, because the “you” you would be trying to perceive is the one doing the perceiving, and so that isn’t going to happen. Perceptive-experience is always indirect, it isn’t you. Therefore, no drug, no change of state, no perceptive-experience, no matter how fantastic it is, can produce a direct consciousness.

OK, that’s my communication about why I say it is a fact not up for debate that no drug can produce direct consciousness, or “enlightenment.” But to be clear, there is much that happens in the mind and brain that might make a difference to your experience of life. In this case, some careful “consciousness raising” drugs may be helpful to work with mind and emotions if done properly, like in your case. Yet, I should also say I have known and seen many people over decades who have tried hard working with many of these drugs, even with genuine shamans in the Andes, and ancient rituals, etc. These are true believers, who may also pursue Buddhist teachings and have lived in monasteries and such. But all of these drug induced experiences and rituals haven’t changed their life at all, except very temporarily, and certainly hasn’t increased their consciousness at all. So, there’s that.

In my own experience from long, long ago, I can attest to the fact that this fad pursuit doesn’t really make any personal changes that last. On the other hand, those that are mentally closed off or stuck, or emotionally bound to buried dysfunctional existential assumptions or disempowering patterns, for them assisted and guided use of some drugs might be beneficial.

I know you know all this, my response was primarily written to serve others.

Take care and be well.

Another one: 

Quote

As for all drugs, they can’t create direct consciousness or enlightenment, only you can—that is the definition of “direct.” You are putting the cart before the horse and are imagining outcomes and methods without knowing either. Such a drug might help open your mind and will alter your state quite a bit I suspect. This could be useful if your mind is stuck or closed, but it can’t create consciousness and when the drug-state has passed you will again be only as conscious as you are.

You may get that your fears and self-imposed limitations are unreal and are not really obstacles like you think they are. You may also experience new possibilities and states that encourage a feeling of connection to life and the possibility of awakening. I don’t know that would happen, I’m just saying it is possible, and might then empower you to commit to pursuing direct consciousness with more vigor and with the sense of more possibility. But the drug can’t do it for you.

I know two people who’ve had enlightenments that tried this drug to see what it was about. They report that it is a strong and demanding drug that can have positive or negative effects, but none of it increases consciousness or is enlightenment.

The truth is you don’t need any of it. You only need you and the desire to know what’s true. I think you are misinformed and would be served to come here and do some real work and clarify a great deal for yourself.

- From Peter Ralston's newsletter.

 

Edited 9 hours ago by UnbornTao

[zurew]

I still have issues with how it is framed. He frames it as a category error, but then talks about how only you are able to do/trigger enlightenment and to "come here do real work". How is going there doing real work isn't category error?

Quote

As for all drugs, they can’t create direct consciousness or enlightenment, only you can—that is the definition of “direct.

And im not talking about the dismissive "how could you have enlightement bro, since there is no you bro" objection, im talking about you not being able to will yourself to enlightenment. You can have all the desire to get enlightened, but that isnt insufficient (and it doesnt even seem to be a necessary condition). Even intention is irrelevant (if you accept that some incredibly depressed people randomly got enlightened - like Eckhart Tolle if im not mistaken about his background story).

 

Taking a step back from enlightenment - if you actually reflect on what can have a change/effect on what you are conscious of any given moment - then the honest answer is that both external and internal conditions absolutely have an effect on it. Anything that fucks with your attention fucks with what you are conscious of at that moment. (But I grant here that I might be equivocating on the term 'being-conscious' and something different is meant by it).

He is probably using "conscious of" in a way that isnt related to adverbial nor to adjectival qualia because both of those can be fucked with by both inner and outer conditions.

Edited Tuesday at 04:06 PM by zurew

[UnbornTao]

@zurew 

Probably because the questioner - who isn't shown - has been misinformed and is approaching the subject with wrong preconceptions. Not everything is about enlightenment. Obviously, practices like focusing the mind help in that regard, by giving you more control over your mental state. That's likely what the "real work" sentence refers to - at least, that's my guess.

Desire, intention, and intent aren't the same. Intent co-arises with the "doing" of something. In that sense, it's almost indistinguishable from the action itself, though in this context it isn't an action per se.

So, if something ends up being done, intent was a component of it, whether one is aware of it or not.

You might want to ask him, but what you're probably referring to is awareness - being aware of something. For example, there may be aspects of your current experience that you're not aware of: a sensation, an object, a part of your body, an emotional disposition, a belief, or a thought. This occurs entirely within experience.

Edited Thursday at 11:25 PM by UnbornTao

[Leo Gura]

11 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

I know two people who’ve had enlightenments that tried this drug to see what it was about. They report that it is a strong and demanding drug that can have positive or negative effects, but none of it increases consciousness

Pure BS.

Daddy Ralston will not save you from self-deception.

Think for yourself. Think seriously.

Edited Wednesday at 01:36 AM by Leo Gura

[Terell Kirby]

Rule of thumb- don’t knock it until you try it.

[koops]

but are you genuinely and permanently directly conscious of your true nature or the nature of existence? No. You will just have memories of exceptional experiences that you thought gave meaning to something, and it may help you challenge some conventional assumptions, but it won’t give you a direct consciousness of the nature of you or reality.

>Enlightenment is not the same as awakening. 

 

Direct means direct, drugs can NOT be direct—by definition they are completely indirect, since they are not YOU! Direct means it must be you, not an experience or perception of any kind that you have, which are actually both indirect

>Yes they can. He talks about experiences or perception, but the ''drug'' can get you to Oneness, the colapse between subject and object. It seems like he talks about having cool visions, which of course is not awakening.

You can totally understand what you are without experiencing/perceiving nothing new (0 changes in the content, just a change in CONTEXT).

 

Therefore, no drug, no change of state, no perceptive-experience, no matter how fantastic it is, can produce a direct consciousness.

>He still asumes that the drug cannot erase (momentarily) the object-subject duality.

 

These are true believers, who may also pursue Buddhist teachings and have lived in monasteries and such. But all of these drug induced experiences and rituals haven’t changed their life at all, except very temporarily, and certainly hasn’t increased their consciousness at all. So, there’s that.

>LOL. Cherrypicking. And if someone says to him that he had a proper awakening with drugs, he would dismiss it. So damned if you do, damned if you dont.

 

 

I know two people who’ve had enlightenments that tried this drug to see what it was about. They report that it is a strong and demanding drug that can have positive or negative effects, but none of it increases consciousness or is enlightenment.

>Same as before. There are yoguis who took mushrooms, and said that yes, that it was the same state they reached from years of meditation. So, who's right?

 

[Dodo]

I think enlightenment is the simple noticing of awareness/direct consciousness/direct seeing. 

But just like in gym training, picking up the weight is not the hard part, the hard part is sticking to it and doing it again and again and again, until it's muscle memory for the human to notice the wider awareness in all situations, and to trust that this is going to yield results. 

If you start gym training without knowing results will follow or that its important to lift that weight,  you might give up before the payoff. 

Same way with noticing awareness, maybe you practice it so much that next time something overwhelming happens, you automatically notice and rest as the awareness instead of getting lost, your spiritual endeavour starting to pay off. 

We always are with that awareness, but its elusive to be aware of it, because its not an object. Its easy and hard at the same time. Its confusing when thinking about it, but natural in practice. 

Intellectual stuff is important to get us to know its important when we are beginners and won't see immediate results. To know this simple seeing of knowing itself is important.

 

Edited Wednesday at 05:07 PM by Dodo

[Salvijus]

It seems like he has no problem admitting that under certain altered states it is easier to have an insight into your true nature. He just has a problem of calling it "a rise in conciousness". Because it's not the conciousness that has risen, it is the circumstances that changed that enabled the insight to be more accessible. But when the state goes back to normal, "you're still the same smuck" as he calls it, because your actual penetrative power of awareness hasn't deepened one inch. Therefor, psychedelics are useless. And by definition it doesn't rise awareness then. Which kinda makes sense I guess. 

That's me trying to interpret what Ralston is saying. 

Edited Wednesday at 06:36 PM by Salvijus

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Salvijus this is how I understand it also 

[UnbornTao]

17 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Think for yourself. Think seriously.

They said it - informed by their "sober" enlightenments. And I've done my fair share of thinking. Not only that, but I've had 5-MeO breakthoughs too. It's an experience.

Edited Wednesday at 07:32 PM by UnbornTao

[UnbornTao]

17 hours ago, Terell Kirby said:

Rule of thumb- don’t knock it until you try it.

Who hasn't done what?

Edited Wednesday at 07:45 PM by UnbornTao

[UnbornTao]

7 hours ago, koops said:

These are true believers, who may also pursue Buddhist teachings and have lived in monasteries and such. But all of these drug induced experiences and rituals haven’t changed their life at all, except very temporarily, and certainly hasn’t increased their consciousness at all. So, there’s that.

>LOL. Cherrypicking. And if someone says to him that he had a proper awakening with drugs, he would dismiss it. So damned if you do, damned if you dont.

He doesn't fall into that misunderstanding in the first place.

It's like having a realization while drunk - do you think the presumed increased consciousness would be attributed to the alcohol? They're completely different domains. 

Quote

 

 

I know two people who’ve had enlightenments that tried this drug to see what it was about. They report that it is a strong and demanding drug that can have positive or negative effects, but none of it increases consciousness or is enlightenment.

>Same as before. There are yoguis who took mushrooms, and said that yes, that it was the same state they reached from years of meditation. So, who's right?

 

It's not even about context, what you're describing is experience. Everything that they do is affect your experience. It isn't a state either, and the points above still apply to the yoguis.

Reread and pay closer attention.

Edited Wednesday at 07:48 PM by UnbornTao

[UnbornTao]

1 hour ago, Salvijus said:

It seems like he has no problem admitting that under certain altered states it is easier to have an insight into your true nature. He just has a problem of calling it "a rise in conciousness". Because it's not the conciousness that has risen, it is the circumstances that changed that enabled the insight to be more accessible. But when the state goes back to normal, "you're still the same smuck" as he calls it, because your actual penetrative power of awareness hasn't deepened one inch. Therefor, psychedelics are useless. And by definition it doesn't rise awareness then. Which kinda makes sense I guess. 

That's me trying to interpret what Ralston is saying. 

It sounds like you may be reinterpreting the argument so that you can confirm its opposite view.

To be clear, it isn't about awareness.

[James123]

26 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

They said it - informed by their "sober" enlightenments. And I've done my fair share of thinking. Not only that, but I've had 5-MeO breakthoughs too.

Drugs are unnecessary.

Because, any experiences, feelings, knowledge etc... is not it.

[Leo Gura]

Ralston is doubly wrong. Not only do drugs absolutely raise consciousness, no sober effort of any kind can raise your consciousness as much as drugs can.

It is not just that drugs can, it is that those who haven't taken drugs can't even imagine what drugs can do.

I have seen Ralston's students. None of them are conscious of what I have become conscious of and they never will be.

Self-inquiry is a joke.

Ain't nobody at Ralston's workshops conscious to the level of DMT. Nobody!!! Stop this BS.

It is hard for me to even recommend Ralston any more because of how wrong and dogmatic he is on this issue. He is misleading all of his students about psychedelics.

One breakthrough DMT trip is worth 10 Ralston workshops.

Edited Wednesday at 08:12 PM by Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

On the other hand, it is great that this issue forces you guys to test this matter for yourselves rather than believing either one of us.

I don't want you to believe me, I want you to test if psychedelics raise consciousness. This is a simple empirical test.

Edited Wednesday at 08:22 PM by Leo Gura

[Princess Arabia]

55 minutes ago, James123 said:

Because, any experiences, feelings, knowledge etc... is not it.

Everything is it.

[Daniel Balan]

7 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

On the other hand, it is great that this issue forces you guys to test this matter for yourselves rather than believing either one of us.

I don't want you to believe me, I want you to test if psychedelics raise consciousness. This is a simple empirical test.

However there is a lot of value in Ralston's teachings. I think the most correct spiritual journey is that of doing all the sober spiritual practices first. Firstly do sober spiritual practices for a decade then try psychedelics.

If you try psychedelics without firstly doing proper spirituality you might end up with visions that Jesus is the king of the universe. 

Ralston's teachings are less prone to self deception because it teaches rigor and proper conduct.

With psychedelics, without proper conduct, you might do yourself more harm than good if you are a newbie.

[Leo Gura]

The high quality of Ralston's work is precisely what makes it so deceptive. You will be so seduced by the quality that you will completely overlook the falsehoods in it.

I don't expect any of Ralston's students to be intelligent enough to spot the falsehoods. It's extremely tricky. It took me years to understand where he is wrong and I was only able to do it because I took enough psychedelics to kill an elephant.

Edited Wednesday at 08:40 PM by Leo Gura

[bazera]

@Leo Gura

Quote

I don't expect any of Ralston's students to be intelligent enough to spot the falsehoods. It's extremely tricky. It took me years to understand where he is wrong and I was only able to do it because I took enough psychedelics to kill an elephant.

According to you, where do you think he is wrong exactly? I know two points that you've mentioned so far, those were Love and psychedelics.

Any others?