Drunk blackouts VS mystical experience

[RMQualtrough]

9 hours ago, Endangered-EGO said:

@RMQualtrough I'm gonna stop you there. Why do you think ego-death is called death.

No amount of alcohol that's not literally going to kill you feels like death. 

 

Ego-death the kind I remember best, feels like everything dies. Everybody and everything eternally is dead.

But you're more "with it". Your self mind is not blinking in and out of consciousness as it is when blackout. Or tbh not just drink but really ill, maybe after a severe accident as well. I've experienced MANY states of self-mind consciousness, I've been anaesthetized, delirious with encephalitis, knocked unconscious by a fall down escalators and then drifting in and out while paramedics rescued me...

Etc etc etc...

Psychedelic ego death is very sober and coherent. If the mind is disintegrated I don't know that it would be coherent. I imagine it would be less coherent and closer to being seriously injured in a car crash or blackout etc.

[Jakuchu]

11 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Why hang up anything at all? Do you apply this logic to self-help or business or marriage or science? Do you get married for a few days and hang up the phone? Do you do 1 year of science and hang up the phone? Do you read 1 book and hang up the phone?

It's a dumb attitude. Nothing worthwhile in life should be approached that way. Maybe it applies to smoking meth, but certainly not psychedelics. Psychedelics are an important field to study and research. To tell people to not explore it deeply is like telling NASA: "Welp, you've been to the moon, so time to call it quits on space exploration."

Well, we are not hanging up the whole field of spirituality, just one way of approaching it. It's not a lasting way of going about Enlightenment. For deep quick insights it is unbeatable, but those states don't last. It's like a rocket that no matter how far it goes into space it always comes back to earth. In the long run it kinda feels dissatisfying because those high states and ones current sober state are too far apart. So, the question is how do we close that gap. That's where you start looking for methods which give you "permanent" results. If psychedelics worked in terms of "permanent" Enlightenment then why the need to take more of them? It would be like being in heaven but wanting to take a substance so it becomes more heavenly, but that would mean that you are not in heaven to begin with 

As Sadhguru said: "the question is how to get there and stay there". To me the staying part is what defines Enlightenment

Edited August 27, 2021 by Jakuchu

[Inliytened1]

18 hours ago, Girzo said:

Chögyam Trungpa, as heavy of an alcoholic as one can get

Yeah...and as another mentioned Alan Watts.  You can be a mystic and still have addictions.   It comes down to whether the mystic desires to overcome their addiction or not.   Because they are totally self aware and have the ability to.  To me the most pristine and blissful state is the sober state...just resting in Being one can bliss out far greater than the euphoria you can experience on alcohol- without the come down or damaging effects alcohol will ultimately have on the body.    So it's a no-brainer.   It surprises me that someone as wise as Alan Watts would still allow himself to be a slave to a drug.   But perhaps there was a hole somewhere within him that he used alcohol to fill and did not have the desire to overcome his addiction.  I don't know..but enlightenment itself can liberate one from the need to do this - so again, surprising to see guys like this not overcome their addiction.  But then, once you have transcended death you may just not care about survival anymore.  He may have just lived out his days precisely as he wanted to.

[RMQualtrough]

2 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

Yeah...and as another mentioned Alan Watts.  You can be a mystic and still have addictions.   It comes down to whether the mystic desires to overcome their addiction or not.   Because they are totally self aware and have the ability to.  To me the most pristine and blissful state is the sober state...just resting in Being one can bliss out far greater than the euphoria you can experience on alcohol- without the come down or damaging effects alcohol will ultimately have on the body.    So it's a no-brainer.   It surprises me that someone as wise as Alan Watts would still allow himself to be a slave to a drug.   But perhaps there was a hole somewhere within him that he used alcohol to fill and did not have the desire to overcome his addiction.  I don't know..but enlightenment itself can liberate one from the need to do this - so again, surprising to see guys like this not overcome their addiction.  But then, once you have transcended death you may just not care about survival anymore.  He may have just lived out his days precisely as he wanted to.

We observe the lives of these minds right? And it would appear these minds tend to enjoy pleasure and happiness, and have an aversion to pain and depression.

They may also enjoy substances... I wouldn't say my mind enjoys alcohol, but my mind is anxious and it helps it in social situations. My mind likes to defend the "person" who isn't even really there (because a "person" is simply content of experience that morphs continuously, knock knock nobody's home). It's irrational fears, like people afraid of tiny spiders. You can logically know something and yet.......

[Danioover9000]

@impulse9

13 hours ago, impulse9 said:

It's a complete misunderstanding of that quote.  Many people through history have tried to reach ultimate understanding through psychedelics, you really think you're the first one? Nobody has done it yet because it's not the way. Siddhis are not the way, they are a distraction. If you understand this simple notion, then that quote completely shifts meaning. it's higher order logic than the false dichotomy of treating it as you would some kind of intellectual task. There's nothing intellectual about it whatsoever.

   There are definitely many interpretations to that quote. A simpler one for me that is general is when you know and intuit that you are in a sinking ship, it's time to bail out. If you double down on staying on tbe sinking ship, you will perish with the rest that stay on it, under the sunk cost fallacy. I think this interpretation is more useful as it reminds us that sometimes doubling down on something when it's a mistake, sometimes makes it worse, like doubling down on conspiracy theories because A) you have a following, B) you are providing value, like speaking about it on a video in a public forum, C) you are getting payed as well.