Sadhguru disapproves of psychedelics

[karkaore]

@Arzack That's not true. Every teacher is advocating the path that worked for him/her. Speaking against them is another topic that none of us actually have any ground to farm on. His motives are unknown.

[Lento]

34 minutes ago, karkaore said:

@Lento you are wrong saying that direct experience isn't the only way of understanding reality. Your concept of "understanding" is wrong.

Then why are we even communicating? Why do teachers exist? Why does research exist? We clearly should just shut schools and universities and this forum down.

Reality is not only understood through direct experience. Perhaps you should expand your concept of understanding. To me, understanding is a symbolic/metaphorical thing. It happens through symbols/metaphors. If you are talking about being, then your concept of understanding is different than mine. To me, being cannot be understood. It can only be. For an understanding to occur, a symbol/metaphor has to get created in "the mind".

34 minutes ago, karkaore said:

@Lento You do not know how strong the mind is. It's literally God. ?

Instead of throwing out phrases like these, how about attempting to explain your point of view like I did? How do you know that I don't know how strong the mind is? You're just assuming things about me.

.........

8 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

My apologies. I should re-phrase: . . . To me, the opinions you wrote about psychedelics are based on little understanding.

Fair enough, and same here by the way.

I don't equate direct experience with proper understanding. You can directly experience whatever you want and still misinterpret and misunderstand it. We all experience the sunrise and the sunset. Most people think that the earth is round, and some people think that the earth is flat. Does either of them actually know? Or do they both rely on their "understanding"?

[Forestluv]

3 minutes ago, Lento said:

I don't equate direct experience with proper understanding. You can directly experience whatever you want and still misinterpret and misunderstand it. 

That is why a variety of direct experience, coupled to concepts, integration and embodiment is important. Ime, I had little understanding of psychedelics early on. After 100+ trips - with various psychedelics, dosages, ROAs, settings and mindsets -  and years of integration and embodiment, I have a much better understanding. 

[karkaore]

2 minutes ago, Lento said:

Then why are we even communicating? Why do teachers exist? Why does research exist? We clearly should just shut schools and universities and this forum down.

Communication is one of the tools we use to point to something. I am quite sure You know the limitations of it.

6 minutes ago, Lento said:

Reality is not only understood through direct experience. Perhaps you should expand your concept of understanding. To me, understanding is a symbolic/metaphorical thing. It happens through symbols/metaphors. If you are talking about being, then your concept of understanding is different than mine. To me, being cannot be understood. It can only be. For an understanding to occur, a symbol/metaphor has to get created in "the mind".

Let me try here, I hope this will make some sense to You. Here is how I see this, anything that is "understood" by anything other than direct experience cannot really be trusted since it is going through the nets of the mind. It automatically gets recontextualised from the minds POV. Therefore, by definition, it becomes concept and belief. So then what exactly are You understanding?

18 minutes ago, Lento said:

How do you know that I don't know how strong the mind is? You're just assuming things about me.

Yes. I am assuming this about You. You seem to trust your mind and dismiss direct experience. That's where this assumption gets created.

[Lento]

9 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

I have a much better understanding. 

A much better understanding of what exactly? Psychedelics and how they work? Reality as a whole? Both of them?

Also, "better" is a relative term. It's comparing your current understanding with your past understanding. I believe it depends on the person themselves. Perhaps for a rational person, psychedelics are helpful for breaking down logic. For some other person whose logic is already broken down, they may be completely useless. What do you think about this?

[Lento]

29 minutes ago, karkaore said:

Communication is one of the tools we use to point to something. I am quite sure You know the limitations of it.

So, you're basically saying that communication is one other way than direct experience for understanding reality.

Sure, it has its own limitations just as direct experience does. Everything has its pros and cons. For example; I can't directly experience everything in the world. There's not enough time for that. Learning through direct experience is time-consuming. Learning through communication is time-effective.

29 minutes ago, karkaore said:

Let me try here, I hope this will make some sense to You. Here is how I see this, anything that is "understood" by anything other than direct experience cannot really be trusted since it is going through the nets of the mind. It automatically gets recontextualised from the minds POV. Therefore, by definition, it becomes concept and belief. So then what exactly are You understanding?

This is a tricky one to tackle. Where is this thing you call "the mind"? I don't see it. I don't directly experience it. Perhaps you're referring to logic or conditioning, in which case, I would say that you have some point. I don't rely on logic or my past knowledge to understand reality. But here's a shocking truth for you; you shouldn't rely on direct experience either because it may change in the future. Notice that you have an assumption that the direct experience will always remain the same. But how do you know that? Have you directly experienced that? Or is it just an assumption? Notice how tricky "the mind" is. It clings to direct experience as if it's the absolute truth, but in reality it's merely a tool for understanding reality. A neutral tool with pros and cons, just like concept and belief.

29 minutes ago, karkaore said:

You seem to trust your mind and dismiss direct experience. That's where this assumption gets created.

Oh, boy! This duality has collapsed for me. Apparently, it still hasn't collapsed for you. Try using a mirror. Turn your skepticism on itself, and you might see something deeply profound.

Edited February 28, 2020 by Lento

[karkaore]

30 minutes ago, Lento said:

Sure, it has its own limitations just as direct experience does. Everything has its pros and cons. For example; I can't directly experience everything in the world. There's not enough time for that. Direct experience is time-consuming. Learning through communication is time-effective.

You can't understand everything in the world through symbols/metaphors either. Direct experience allow for much deeper understanding. Let's imagine having sex with a condom since forever and only now taking it off and soaking it in raw. That's a metaphor of symbols vs direct experience for You. ?

 

30 minutes ago, Lento said:

Perhaps you're referring to logic or conditioning, in which case, I would say that you have some point. I don't rely on logic or my past knowledge to understand reality.

I wasn't inherently referring to just logic or conditioning. I was trying to point out that each of our POV's are self-biased, therefore everything gets interpreted accordingly.

30 minutes ago, Lento said:

But here's a shocking truth for you; you shouldn't rely on direct experience either because it may change in the future. Notice that you have an assumption that the direct experience will always remain the same. But how do you know that? Have you directly experienced that? Or is it just an assumption?

Nono. I feel You are confusing actual direct experience with the thing experienced or contextualisation made out of the experience. And I am sorry, but I cannot translate exactly what I mean by direct experience into language. 

 

30 minutes ago, Lento said:

Oh, boy! This duality has collapsed for me. Apparently, it still hasn't collapsed for you. Try using a mirror. Turn your skepticism on itself, and you might see something deeply profound.

I am doing my best! At least I assume so. ? Thank you.

Edited February 28, 2020 by karkaore

[Forestluv]

34 minutes ago, Lento said:

A much better understanding of what exactly? Psychedelics and how they work? Reality as a whole? Both of them?

Yes, all of it. Yet this is all within creation. There is transcendence of this that I would describe as full deconstruction to Nothing and full construction to Everything. Such that Nothing = Everything. Yet not in terms of words, images, concepts, ideas, things.

40 minutes ago, Lento said:

Also, "better" is a relative term. It's comparing your current understanding with your past understanding. 

Yes. In this context I am communicating as a human being with a personal story over a timeline. In another context, what I wrote is false and I have no understanding of psychedelics as these thoughts and images are merely appearances of "experiences" - similar to the appearances of bird chirps. In this context, I have never done psychedelics in the past and have no experience with them. I'm comfortable with both contexts.

44 minutes ago, Lento said:

Perhaps for a rational person, psychedelics are helpful for breaking down logic. For some other person whose logic is already broken down, they may be completely useless. What do you think about this?

I would agree with this. As well, I'm not saying that your ideas and insights don't have value. I think they have value from certain POVs. 

In this context, I would agree with you. The benefits of psychedelics are relative to the person. I know someone who did psychedelics and contextualized an experience of meeting the Trinity and it confirm everything in the Bible. I've also known a level 1 Reiki student that advanced a full Reiki level during one trip. We were together in Sedona, AZ and it was amazing to observe and feel. These arevery different impacts.

So yes, some people just don't resonate with psychedelics. Humans like Sadhguru, Ram Dass and Alan Watts didn't resonate with psychedelics, yet are highly advanced in many areas. Much more advanced than I am at a human level. Yet we don't know to what extent their small amount of psychedelic use shaped them. 

And I would also agree with those who say that psychedelics can induce dynamics of distraction, confusion, getting lost in illusory constructs, chasing experiences etc. A lot depends on the baseline conscious level of the person and contextualization into an "experience".

The question about breaking logic is a tricky one. A person may think they have "broken logic" yet still be using logic. One thing about psychedelics are they are nearly guaranteed to take a person into non-logical realms and it may be shocking. For me, the higher doses are so far beyond logic and symbolic representation it's super hard to describe and I think it takes a lot of trips, integration and embodiment to express the implicit explicitly. 

Also, this whole discussion is from the perspective of a human person. That's the filter a human person uses "how would it effect me? what's in it for me? What insights can be gained to improve understanding of reality, relationships, insights etc". Yet there is also something beyond this in which there is no personal human. This personal human doesn't matter at all. This opens up a lot. One metaphor I've used is going from an ant consciousness to a human consciousness. Being an ant is now completely irrelevant. Stuff like building ant hills, fighting other ants, having ant sex and figuring out a life purpose of an ant are completely irrelevant. The new human level of consciousness opens up entirely new domains. Upon returning to ant consciousness, it's really hard to express in ant language. All they have are a few pheromones and knock each other antennae. As well, if the other ants said "that was just an illusion you had", it would seem silly (unless the human consciousness was contextualized into a silly ant consciousness - which happens a lot). As well, it would seem odd if asked "how does that experience now help you as an ant?". Why would the perspective of ant consciousness get more relevance than the human consciousness?. . . From the perspective the ant, it might say "Because I'm an ant and I have to live with ants". This has partial truth, yet the tendency for humans is to become attached/identified to their human-centric narrative in the mind. 

[Lento]

5 hours ago, karkaore said:

You can't understand everything in the world through symbols/metaphors either.

Sure, if we're talking about experiencing something new. But here we are talking about God. God is nothing new. It's not something you meet on psychedelics. This is why I say that drugs are unnecessary for realising the truth of being.

5 hours ago, karkaore said:

I wasn't inherently referring to just logic or conditioning. I was trying to point out that each of our POV's are self-biased, therefore everything gets interpreted accordingly.

Okay. Although, I don't follow here. I don't think that I am biased. I don't even believe that bias exists at all as an actual phenomenon. I think it's just a human concept that was created for some purpose(s). As well, a point of view is a human concept. And so is interpretation. Those things don't actually exist outside of the human imagination.

5 hours ago, karkaore said:

Nono. I feel You are confusing actual direct experience with the thing experienced or contextualisation made out of the experience. And I am sorry, but I cannot translate exactly what I mean by direct experience into language.

I can; Direct experience is being, or the present moment. Now, what is being or the present moment? I said earlier that it cannot be understood or communicated, it can only be. The reason why you can't translate it into language is because there's a baggage of subtle interpretations that comes along with it. With enough meditation (maybe psychedelics, I don't know), this baggage gets emptier and emptier, until you get to pure direct experience which is the present moment without a single thought. The next level is realising that the baggage was always empty, and that the weight was imaginary. It's when you realise that mind and no-mind are identical. There, the duality collapses and you enter the "gateless gate". I personally have realised all that without drugs, and I am aware of it right now. Not bragging, just saying that this was my experience, and that it might not apply to you. Notice that I didn't use my direct experience to create universal standards that my story will apply to everyone. Hell! It might even not apply to me in the future. That story has occurred once for me, and as reported, for many other people. However, it might never occur again in the future. I don't know!

Edited February 29, 2020 by Lento

[pluto]

Sadhguru is more a speaker for the general masses. Some have deeper missions than the general masses.

Some of us are modern shamans to master all realms so we can guide others into the light.

What he speaks is correct but at the same time does not apply for everyone. There are those who are much more enlightened than sadhguru and use psychedelics time to time to amplify and finalize their work because they work on higher/deeper cosmic/universal levels and a greater task at hand.

Sadhuguru is more for society and a modern-level teacher/guide. Earthly-bound concepts.

He is exactly where he is needed to be because the general masses will not understand a thing if Babaji, Lao Tzu or Rumi were in his place. They are more in-tune with heavenly/godly rather than earthly and most of the world will not grasp.

Sadhguru is more of the middle way, like cannabis, a middle-way psychedelic, where higher masters are more like Mushrooms, DMT ect.. Use your imagination, its not too complicated.

The general society can get completely blinded and deluded from psychedelics but not a shaman or a master. They are wise enough to use the tools to benefit all creation and because they truly know thyself, they can never lose thyself.

Hope this clears things up

 

 

 

Edited February 29, 2020 by pluto

[Raptorsin7]

@pluto well said.

[Lento]

@Serotoninluv

YES! I agree with everything you said. And sure, I understand that my human-centric narrative is only partially true, but I've consciously chosen to have this narrative due to the lack of "better" narratives for me right now. Sure, detaching oneself from the narrative (which is still a narrative though) has its benefits, such as relaxation, meta-understanding, curing anxieties, and other benefits. So, if that's what you seek, then great! Then again, it has its cons, which I personally don't prefer to have at the moment. This narrative feels limiting for me as a human being at the moment. Maybe in the future when I will have enough growth I will want to use that narrative again (I used to have it last year or so). Right now, I have more growing to do. Besides, I prefer being aligned with my environment. Radically different views usually cause a lot of trouble.

So, it's not that my or your narrative is truer than the other. It's that a narrative is just a narrative; A human being is just a human being; An ant is just an ant. However, tier two thinking is more about using the narrative as a tool. Since there is no inherent truth to it, there's a freedom in utilising it for our human purposes. Again, this human life, from a certain perspective, does not matter at all. Yet, from another perspective, it's all that matters. In certain occasions, I find it better to use the former perspective as the main narrative, although it sometimes creates a sense of depression and nihilism for people. In other occasions, I find the latter to be more effective, although it may cause neurosis and attachment to the human identity. This is all relative and very nuanced in the end and I'm trying to make the best out of it. I'm looking for balance; perfect alignment with reality in every single moment.

This understanding has not been intermediated by psychedelics for me. It's something I learned, deeply contemplated, derived from my direct experience, and mainly gathered through observation. All with the help of meditation. This is why I say psychedelics are not necessary to have a deep understanding of reality, because my experience "proves" that.

[Forestluv]

@Lento I didn’t intend to suggest psychedelics is the only path or the best path. For many, it may be counter-productive. And there are many many people that have gone to very deep and expansive areas without psychedelics. I spent 20 years on a spiritual path that was substance-free. There were a lot of benefits that I received. 

[Lento]

@Serotoninluv

I see. But the point is that I have a similar understanding to yours both of psychedelics and reality, although probably not as comprehensive. And this understanding was not intermediated by drugs, which proves that it's completely valid to have opinions on psychedelics without having to use them.

[Forestluv]

Just now, Lento said:

@Serotoninluv

I see. But the point is that I have a similar understanding to yours both of psychedelics and reality, although probably not as comprehensive. And this understanding was not intermediated by drugs, which proves that it's completely valid to have opinions on psychedelics without having to use them.

It’s fine to have opinions on psychedelics, anyone can have an opinion. Yet some opinions are limited. For example, you could do psychedelics and realize “whoa!! My opinion was inaccurate!” Or perhaps you realize your opinion is somewhat inaccurate. Or perhaps it verifies your opinion is accurate. One would need to try psychedelics to find out. 

And perhaps if I were you for a day I would realize “whoa!! This mind has deep understanding of psychedelics without ever doing them!! Amazing!!”. Who knows?

And each of us has limited understandings, since understanding is infinite. I have a limited understanding of what it’s like to live in China - I’ve never been there. I have a limited understanding of what scuba diving is like or what being in outer space is like. 

Ime, psychedelics are unlike what I could have imaged. Yet perhaps others of different imaginations and are like “yea, thats pretty much what I imagined it would be like”. 
 

[Lento]

13 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Yet some opinions are limited.

I'm sorry, "some"? ?

[Vipassana]

it is harmful for his survival as a YouTube yogi to admit that he doesn't know an answer to ANY question. Therefore he improvises using his self biases. 

 

[Forestluv]

26 minutes ago, Lento said:

I'm sorry, "some"? ?

I should rephrase - all opinions are limited - yet some are more contracted than others. 

A US ambassador to China that speaks English and Chinese fluently, has 20 years experience living in China, has worked within the Chinese political, school, business systems, married a Chinese woman and has three children they are raising in China. . . will have a deeper understanding than China. Will his views on China be limited? If course. Yet they will be much deeper and expansive than an American high school student that had one class on China. 

[Lento]

@Serotoninluv

I understand. Although, consider the following; say I've had one trip, whether psychedelic or not, in which I've "become" God and experienced multiple lifetimes, some of which were of highly experienced psychonauts like yourself. Now, this is not likely to be the case, but still, it could be. In the case of someone like Sadhguru, could that be the case? And if it was, would that make his opinions more legit say than someone like you or Leo?

[wavydude]

On 2/28/2020 at 0:04 PM, Lento said:

You probably know that direct experience is not the only way for understanding reality.

Tell me what else is there other than direct experience ? What thing did you deeply understood with something else then direct experience ? I'm curious.