I Asked Peter Ralston About Psychedelics, Here Is His Response...

[Whitney Edwards]

4 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

The spiritual process is a process of unwinding your attachments to your human self, and it's not easy to map out in any reductionistic fashion, but it probably correlates with certain behaviors. You can meditate with the intention of reducing stress and nothing else, and you'll probably be very unlikely to become enlightened. You can take psychedelics with the intention of having fun with friends, and you'll probably be very unlikely to become enlightened. So things like intention, mindset, knowledge and drive probably matter. You can also meditate or take psychedelics and feel like it's not working and that it's outside of your control. So things like genes, personality and trauma probably also matter. Why some people have a harder time becoming enlightened than others is a good research question.

Your entire paragraph towards one thing - contemplations with intentions. Like an experiment sampler with different variables. It's good though. Something similar to what I do 

 

[Water by the River]

14 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Enlightenment can't come about as the result of a process. It is direct. There's nothing you can do that will bring it out, except becoming conscious now. You can focus on a question, aka contemplate. But this is meant to focus the mind, no method can possibly produce consciousness.

 

Yes.

Someone once said (don't know who):

“Enlightenment is an accident. But we can make ourselves more accident prone.” 

That is for example the essence of going from One Taste Yoga of Mahamudra (making the mindstream confirm (or compatible) to the True State of things, like infinite, empty or non-personal, non-conceptual, nondual, boundless, timeless) to Yoga of Nonmeditation of Mahamudra (where one stops doing anything, since "anyone" doing something is an arising in the mindstream covering Impersonal Empty Infinite Consciousness. And the insight of what one really is, and what reality is, is Enlightenment. Can't be forced, happens by itself when the conditions are exactly right. Yes, its tricky. But has a structure to it.

But stopping doing anything BEFORE the mindstream conforms to a structure/state where Enlightenment can happen, one can do "nothing" for a long time and the accident/Enlighenment wont happen. Basically going fully Tony Parson.

Water by the River

[Water by the River]

4 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

physical or psychological suffering are ultimately the same, they are a sensation destined to want to avoid a certain situation, or to pursue a certain situation. It is a biological survival mechanism. The fact of being a person who is living a dual experience means that you are functioning in a limited state of consciousness, and one of its limits is suffering. When we talk about awakening we talk about breaking those limits, and therefore breaking suffering, but it is only possible to do this in a punctual and temporary way since you are still a human living a dual experience. this implies suffering and wanting to escape from it is to deny your will to live this dual experience. Obviously, if you are open to your true nature, you will easily endure suffering, but it will continue to exist as long as you are alive. The thing about the monk who is burned alive does not mean enlightenment, it means detachment and renunciation. Watch the fight between Evander Holyfield and Riddick Bowe. do you think they are enlightened? I would say no, and they endure something seemingly impossible

I think we can agree on that I wish you (and everyone else) freedom from suffering, and the bliss of the True Nature each being has at its core.

And the fact that I do know  that you underestimate your potential in being free from suffering and enjoying the bliss of what You really are is probably not one of the more challenging “lets agree to disagree”-topics.

In that sense: All the best and Bon Voyage!

Water by the River

 

[Breakingthewall]

7 minutes ago, Water by the River said:

I think we can agree on that I wish you (and everyone else) freedom from suffering, and the bliss of the True Nature each being has at its core.

And the fact that I do know  that you underestimate your potential in being free from suffering and enjoying the bliss of what You really are is probably not one of the more challenging “lets agree to disagree”-topics.

In that sense: All the best and Bon Voyage!

Water by the River

 

Thank you, but the issue is not to desire something as an end to suffering, but to understand what suffering is. I think I understand it quite well. in fact, I have actively pursued suffering on a serious enough level throughout my life, that I have always perceived that suffering is beautiful, it means being alive.

[VeganAwake]

The thing about psychedelics & enlightenment is they really don't need to be taken over and over again for years. They are great for disrupting the habitual patterns of monkey mind or chronic overthinking within the first couple times of taking them.

The real issue it seems is the illusory character (ME) hears about something amazing called enlightenment and creates a pseudo belief of what enlightenment should or shouldn't be like, & then becomes addicted to chasing that external materialistic fantasy.

In other words this illusory (ME) character simply can't fathom its own unreality and or shake off these feelings of incompleteness. It can only continue seeking and jumping through endless spiritual hoops in an attempt to satisfy this unquenchable desire to feel whole and complete. 

There is a physical body, but the character (ME) between or behind the eyes that seems to be driving this body is completely illusory.

And that recognition can seem to happen whether or not psychedelics have been taken a little bit or a lot or not at all!

Enlightenment is not an addition for the dream character (ME) to use. It's the end of the needy dream character all together or rather the recognition that it was never real from the start.

♥ 

 

[toasty7718]

Martin W. Ball says that our ego is a set of energetic constructs, and seeking out an energetic solution is an effective way to address the problems posed by the ego. He prefers to use the word entheogen over psychedelic. An entheogen is a substance that generates the experience of god within. Fundamentally, they alter our ability to perceive and experience energy.

Powerful entheogenic experiences aren't "enlightened" or "awakened" states in of themselves, rather, they're best understood as energetic expansions. Different religions, customs, rituals, and techniques have been used throughout human history to reach these heightened states of consciousness. While they may be useful in some respects, they can also be rendered obsolete when the proper understanding of the bio-energetics of the human body are taken into account. Entheogens cut past the middle-man and are vastly more effective for moving energy because they go cut directly to the source: the energetic constructs of your body.

"Enlightenment," as he puts it, is the relaxing of your ego and the opening up of your energy, along with taking full responsibility for yourself and your ego. Entheogens are a very effective way of going about this, but this practice also extends into your day to day life. Integration of the experience with everyday life becomes possible when you are liberated from the prison of the ego and you've awoken to the energetic truth of reality.

Just my two cents.

[Inliytened1]

7 hours ago, Vibes said:

@Razard86 Yes!!

I've seen how I'm not the body, the body is inside me. The body dead is a thought, but I didn't go further than this.

From being Mind, could I simply by my will alter the 'world' and morph the forms into other forms and start a new story?

What you have to realize is the you is not there.  It's an illusion.   There isn't an entity behind the eyes.   Then you will realize Self.   But Self is not something that can be explained here.  

[Leo Gura]

We've discussed Ralston's position on psychedelics here many times.

He's wrong.

Psychedelics produce direct consciousness. This is obvious to anyone with serious experience with psychedelics.

And it must be wrong, because any human spiritual attainment is mediated by brain chemistry. Just because you don't take a psychedelic does not mean chemicals are not at work. You just take those chemicals for granted. You are on chemicals right now. That's the only way you could read these words. So all we're doing is replacing one set of chemicals with another set.

Psychedelics can take you way beyond enlightenment if you use them properly.

If Ralston's logic was valid, then nothing could ever take you to enlightenment, not even his words or methods, because they would all be "indirect". However he must admit that his words and methods are useful, otherwise why would he invest so much time and money into them? The notion that nothing can help you to reach God-Realization is simply flat out false. Some things clearly help and other things do the opposite. If this wasn't the case then spiritual teachings and techniques could not exist. And Ralston clearly teaches spiritual techniques despite whatever denials he may have. He clearly believes that his techniques are effective otherwise he would not be teaching them. So there's a silly double-standard in his logic. Using his logic I could say, You can't ever reach enlightenment sober because your brain chemistry always makes anything you achieve indirect.

Edited August 4, 2023 by Leo Gura

[OBEler]

@Leo Gura his logic is so crumbling and even materialistc. You said one time that you and Peter Ralston are both the only one on this Planet who reached absolut awakening. Are you still holding this opinion?

Maybe Ralston is just protecting his work, secretly knowing that psychedelics are very good tools which compete with his own tools he is teaching and therefore is threatened by them. Or he is talking from absolute perspective.

[GLORY]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Psychedelics produce direct consciousness
any human spiritual attainment is mediated by brain chemistry
You are on chemicals right now 
So all we're doing is replacing one set of chemicals with another set

But Leo,
Both, Psychodelics and Natural Brain Chemicals, are made out of Consciousness 
Why do Psychodelics produce more direct Consciousness than Natural Brain Chemicals 
Or is this all a Story in a Dream that Psychodelics produce Consciousness 

[Leo Gura]

9 minutes ago, OBEler said:

@Leo Gura his logic is so crumbling and even materialistc. You said one time that you and Peter Ralston are both the only one on this Planet who reached absolut awakening. Are you still holding this opinion?

I have gone back and forth a lot in my views of Ralston. In certain ways he's an utter genius. But in other ways perhaps I put his work on too high of a pedestal. For a long time I had a deep positive bias towards his work. But sometimes I wonder if I give him too much credit. I've been torn on that.

I have discovered aspects of spirituality which are completely beyond his teachings. But there is still a lot of value in his teachings.

8 minutes ago, GLORY said:

Why do Psychodelics produce more direct Consciousness than Natural Brain Chemicals

That's a very good question. I don't have any answer. I just know for a fact that they do. At least for most people. For some people they don't work. Maybe Ralston is one of those few.

Edited August 4, 2023 by Leo Gura

[OBEler]

@Leo Gura @Leo Gura Would be great to make an Interview with him again, discussing about this topic. Even better if he tries 5 meo malt by himselfe 

[Leo Gura]

42 minutes ago, OBEler said:

discussing about this topic.

Unfortunately Peter is not the type to do much discussing. He's pretty set in his ideas.

Edited August 4, 2023 by Leo Gura

[ValiantSalvatore]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

We've discussed Ralston's position on psychedelics here many times.

He's wrong.

Psychedelics produce direct consciousness. This is obvious to anyone with serious experience with psychedelics.

And it must be wrong, because any human spiritual attainment is mediated by brain chemistry. Just because you don't take a psychedelic does not mean chemicals are not at work. You just take those chemicals for granted. You are on chemicals right now. That's the only way you could read these words. So all we're doing is replacing one set of chemicals with another set.

Psychedelics can take you way beyond enlightenment if you use them properly.

If Ralston's logic was valid, then nothing could ever take you to enlightenment, not even his words or methods, because they would all be "indirect". However he must admit that his words and methods are useful, otherwise why would he invest so much time and money into them? The notion that nothing can help you to reach God-Realization is simply flat out false. Some things clearly help and other things do the opposite. If this wasn't the case then spiritual teachings and techniques could not exist. And Ralston clearly teaches spiritual techniques despite whatever denials he may have. He clearly believes that his techniques are effective otherwise he would not be teaching them. So there's a silly double-standard in his logic. Using his logic I could say, You can't ever reach enlightenment sober because your brain chemistry always makes anything you achieve indirect.

I dunno watching some recent Shinzen video his scientific mind seemed to have changed at the idea of consciouness, especially with A.I & all the shamanic practices that he did. He is one of the few people who's very honest to speak with these experiences about and non-judgemental and what works works mentality, but I can't verify it. Dunno at times why he get's such a bad rep here. 

He basically validated one experience for me on psychdelics and I did psychdelics attending his retreats online of course. It's close to an anti-integral perspective I dunno, it is what it is. He also at least did cannabis and LSD and clearly says these things gave conscious experience. I dunno how tf this opinion even formed. 

Edited August 4, 2023 by ValiantSalvatore

[Jowblob]

18 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

 

That's a very good question. I don't have any answer. I just know for a fact that they do. At least for most people. For some people they don't work. Maybe Ralston is one of those few.

 

@Leo Gura

I would replace some with most, i think it has to do with their ego development. God only gives what they can handle, just look at mdma/exctacy most are partying away on it having no idea what it does. So in their dream its just some fun drug. Just as you've said a long time ago that you liked ayahuasca because its so forgiving for beginners. Or it might have to do  that youre the only 1 conscious in your dream, thats why all 4 people in rl i asked about lsd just talked gibberish. And internet might serve as a tapping in to infinity of yourself thats why its easier to find same like people.

 

I was listening to a witness/experirncer of mahavatar haidakhan babaji. He said he was sitting on a balcony with him alone, then suddenly he did some movement with his hands and baba placed a little girl on his lap out of nowhere. This might be a clue that only 1 can be conscious in your own dream just as i have seen in the void god only placing himself in a private dream and others come from him

[Leo Gura]

19 minutes ago, ValiantSalvatore said:

I dunno watching some recent Shinzen video his scientific mind seemed to have changed at the idea of consciouness, especially with A.I & all the shamanic practices that he did.

How did his ideas change?

19 minutes ago, ValiantSalvatore said:

Dunno at times why he get's such a bad rep here.

He's a sweet guy. It's just that his techniques will not yield a high understanding of God.

[ValiantSalvatore]

21 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

How did his ideas change?

It seems to me they somehave have changed and he also never truly talks about his opinions there is a lot of holding back, I watched an interview where they talk about A.I & non-duality and teaching an A.I consciouness and so forth. I don't have time to get into this and also to explain, it's simply an impression I have about him, I also don't really comprehend what the difference is between non-duality and god-consciouness is especially after reading Wilber used the term also briefly, I felt Shinzens true experience has been hold back due to him having an enormous amount of experience of meditation & traditions and psychdelics etc. I dunno how much psyches he did, yet they apparently did a lot in the 60's. 

I also don't know his exact position it was really just an impression of oh shit there is something way beyond what I experience in that sense, that was my impression of Shinzen also, due to rise of A.I.

21 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

He's a sweet guy. It's just that his techniques will not yield a high understanding of God.

How come? For me they worked in the same direction psychdelics have it's the difference is psychdelics are the directer path to me and less involved with effort. They both facilitate the process of each other regardless of what I experience. Meditation deepends psychdelic trips and vice-versa.

Are there even any tools besides psychdelics that work for you personally to something you call God? For me almost everything works which is a huge issue to focus on one thing. Which I did often it's simply intensity of practice similar to a breakthrough trip. 

Edited August 4, 2023 by ValiantSalvatore

[Leo Gura]

21 minutes ago, ValiantSalvatore said:

How come? For me they worked in the same direction psychdelics have it's the difference is psychdelics are the directer path to me and less involved with effort. They both facilitate the process of each other regardless of what I experience. Meditation deepends psychdelic trips and vice-versa.

I studied Shinzen's work a lot and personally asked him a ton of questions. In the end I came to the conclusion that his understanding of Consciousness is not as deep as what I have experienced, and that is because it cannot be done with meditation. But it took me many years to realize that because Buddhists know how to play a great spiritual game.

It takes so much consciousness and independence-of-mind to see through Buddhism. Which is why I warn about it. I am vocal about it because no one else is and it's so easy to overlook.

Edited August 4, 2023 by Leo Gura

[ValiantSalvatore]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

I studied Shinzen's work a lot and personally asked him a ton of questions. In the end I came to the conclusion that his understanding of Consciousness is not as deep as what I have experienced, and that is because it cannot be done with meditation. But it took me many years to realize that.

That is dope. I presumed this after having had out out of this world type experiences and with the rise of A.I I just saw in his eyes fk we are to stupid in a sense, that convinced me that you might have gone deeper, that was my intuition generally speaking. 

I doubt any student took his techniques also to the n'th degree, anyway I have to go this is spot on. 

[ValiantSalvatore]

5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It takes so much consciousness and independence-of-mind to see through Buddhism. Which is why I warn about it. I am vocal about it because no one else is and it's so easy to overlook.

There is still immense value if you "trust/believe" in what Wilber writes and just the general stages of enlightenment when I consider death. I dunno what you experience, yet I don't want to do it all over again etc.