SQAAD

Leo what do you think about Rupert's take on Psychedelics?

131 posts in this topic

In this video Rupert claims that psychedelics do not get you any closer to your true nature because they just produce objective experiences. If you are interested in yourself all you have to do is to take the thought 'I' and go to its referend.

He also claims that there are no degrees of awareness.

Also he admitts that he has never taken psychedelics. He seems to have a bias against psychedelics.

 

 

Edited by SQAAD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don´t understand the experience argument.

 

The guy could also replay: you Rupert Spira are not enlightened rn because you are having the experience of talking with me. 

Edited by RedLine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL. Bless Rupert, but he has no idea. 


"The greatest illusion of all is the illusion of separation." - Guru Pathik

Sent from my iEgo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SQAAD said:

In this video Rupert claims that psychedelics do not get you any closer to your true nature because they just produce objective experiences. If you are interested in yourself all you have to do is to take the thought 'I' and go to its referend.

He also claims that there are no degrees of awareness.

Also he admitts that he has never taken psychedelics. He seems to have a bias against psychedelics.

 

 

He said in the end that psychedlics can remove the clouding of mind and feelings so that Consciousness can shine through and be recognized easier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, DecemberFlower said:

He said in the end that psychedlics can remove the clouding of mind and feelings so that Consciousness can shine through and be recognized easier

Yeah, I think that's it.

Rupert may have misunderstood the guy at first because he thought the guy was asking "can LSD make me enlightened?"

Then, at the end of the video, Rupert rephrased the question for him and the guy said that was the real meaning of his question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Nahm said:

Not sure what you’re asking. 

I think the confusion was about whether you @Nahm think that Rupert is spot on correct or whether you agree that he's biased etc. 


"Love is all that I can give to you ❤ Love is more than just a game for two!"

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JErVP6xLZwg 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@SQAAD His own sun analogy fails him as it's obvious there are degrees of sunlight.

Don't take psychedelic advice from people who have not done lots of psychedelics.

There are certainly degrees of awareness and consciousness.

This confusion happens with spiritual teachers because they mistake pure empty consciousness with states of higher holistic God-consciousness. These are different things. If your only focus is pure empty consciousness, then yes, that has no degrees or qualities to it. But that's a bias and it's not the highest form of consciousness, it's the lowest.

In a sense, you can strive for the lowest possible level or the highest. Zen and Advaita strive for the lowest. Which is fine, but it's only half the game. Just because you've reached the lowest level: zero, does not mean you've reached the highest levels of Infinite Consciousness.

What people like Spira are guiding you towards is the lowest level. And what I'm guiding you to is the highest. Hence there is a disparity and confusion. The problem is that this distinction is not made clear to students and teachers love to dismiss the higher levels because they love to reduce everything to the lowest. It's a form of spiritual reductionism. People like Ralston fall into this trap.

When your only method is something like self-inquiry or meditation, you end up reducing everything down to pure emptiness. Which is not the same thing as Infinite Consciousness or God-consciousness. The problem is that self-inquiry is not enough to get you to Infinite Consciousness. It gets you to emptiness, which is nice, but not the end-all.

And psychedelics can get you to emptiness too. So his characterization of psychedelics are merely expanding the range of experience is simply false. Psychedelics will do both. They will expand range but also make you conscious of emptiness and the groundless ground.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nahm said:

Spot on.

Couldn’t agree more. 
 

He’s not saying Psyches aren’t useful for helping clear away the dirt on the windshield, just like many other things help, but that the windshield at its essence is always pristine & clear whether we are conscious of this or not 


'One is always in the absolute state, knowingly or unknowingly for that is all there is.' Francis Lucille. 

'Peace and Happiness are inherent in Consciousness.' Rupert Spira 

“Your own Self-Realization is the greatest service you can render the world.” Ramana Maharshi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@SQAAD His own sun analogy fails him as it's obvious there are degrees of sunlight.

Don't take psychedelic advice from people who have not done lots of psychedelics.

There are certainly degrees of awareness and consciousness.

This confusion happens with spiritual teachers because they mistake pure empty consciousness with states of higher holistic God-consciousness. These are different things. If your only focus is pure empty consciousness, then yes, that has no degrees or qualities to it. But that's a bias and it's not the highest form of consciousness, it's the lowest.

In a sense, you can strive for the lowest possible level or the highest. Zen and Advaita strive for the lowest. Which is fine, but it's only half the game. Just because you've reached the lowest level: zero, does not mean you've reached the highest levels of Infinite Consciousness.

What people like Spira are guiding you towards is the lowest level. And what I'm guiding you to is the highest. Hence there is a disparity and confusion. The problem is that this distinction is not made clear to students and teachers love to dismiss the higher levels because they love to reduce everything to the lowest. It's a form of spiritual reductionism. People like Ralston fall into this trap.

It would be great that someday you expand that low level vs high level notion you are talking about.

 

It basically goes against teaching of 99% spiritual teachers.

Edited by RedLine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RedLine said:

It basically goes against teaching of 99% spiritual teachers.

Most teachers come from traditions such as Zen, Buddhism, or Advaita -- all of which they never question. These traditions guide students towards pure emptiness. When a student hits this pure emptiness, he assumes that's the end of the road, when really, it's just the end of the road for the methods he was using. But by this point he's so steeped in nondual dogma that he has no desire to even try new methods because he assumes emptiness is all there is.

This is why people can be "enlightened" but still not be conscious of what God or Love is. To realize what God is it is not enough to fall into emptiness, you must raise your consciousness to a high holistic level to grasp the entire dynamic of the imagined dream. It's not enough to just extinguish the mind, the mind must become Infinite -- at which point you will have infinite self-understanding.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Leo Gura leo but you have to lose your moral don't you? 

Pure emptiness is any of your original state. 

Edited by Ibgdrgnxxv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Psychedelics are tools. You can hammer a nail into a wall with your bare hands, but it will take some time. Or you can use a hammer. You can remove the veil of separateness with meditation alone -- it'll take time -- or you can use a psychedelic. Both perhaps.

Edited by WaveInTheOcean

“To have faith is to trust yourself to the water. When you swim you don't grab hold of the water, because if you do you will sink and drown. Instead you relax, and float." - Alan Watts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Nahm i

1 hour ago, Nahm said:

@Tim R

Spot on correct. 

I believe that he is not spot on correct bc psychedelics help you understand Consciousness better than any other method. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SQAAD said:

He also claims that there are no degrees of awareness.

LOL

4 hours ago, SQAAD said:

claims that psychedelics do not get you any closer to your true nature

Re-LOL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Most teachers come from traditions such as Zen, Buddhism, or Advaita -- all of which they never question. These traditions guide students towards pure emptiness. When a student hits this pure emptiness, he assumes that's the end of the road, when really, it's just the end of the road for the methods he was using. But by this point he's so steeped in nondual dogma that he has no desire to even try new methods because he assumes emptiness is all there is.

This is why people can be "enlightened" but still not be conscious of what God or Love is. To realize what God is it is not enough to fall into emptiness, you must raise your consciousness to a high holistic level to grasp the entire dynamic of the imagined dreamed. It's not enough to just extinguish the mind, the mind must become Infinite -- at which point you will have infinite self-understanding.

@Leo Gura are any teachers arond now who you think have grasped god consciousness to any degree? Maybe sadhguru? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.