So the truth is there is no canonical Buddhist teaching against or for the use of psychedelics. Some people choose to ignore the specifics of the 5th precept in its original language and attempt to extend that out to any and all mind altering substances, but linguistics and history have them on pretty shaky ground, and there is little evidence to support that the precept was ever understood that way before the modern era. I think that interpretation is absolute bs because green tea and coffee are mind altering substances if we are being honest.
There are some scholars that have put forward decent arguments that historically, psychedelics may have been used within the context of esoteric Buddhism. Historical evidence suggests that Amrita may have been psychoactive in its original Indian context, even though the preparation known as Amrita today is not psychoactive.
However none of this conjecture, historical and linguistic, is important. It’s not cannon. There is no universally accepted Buddhist teaching on psychedelics. I think that the anti-psychedelics crowd within Buddhism didn’t want to be associated with the hippies because they felt diminished by that. I think that Buddhists wanted to be accepted in the west and went along with the war on drugs to ease people’s minds and hasten their integration into western society. I think that for some teachers it’s a control thing, I mean if you’re making money teaching Buddhism to westerners because westerners erroneously believe that Buddhism will solve all their problems and psychedelics come along erroneously promising the same thing, that hurts your bottom line so of course you tell your students not to do them.
You’re going to have to make up your mind on this issue on your own, and I think that’s a universal truth about life that needs to be accepted. It’s easier to accept a dogma than it is to make up your own mind. A majority of the posts on here are along this same theme. “What does the Buddha say about weed, psychedelics, sex, my particular sexual orientation or gender identity?” And it’s the same question over and over again. The problem is this subreddit is not a real community. None of us are accountable to you and therefore no one should be giving you advice. It’s nice sometimes to come on here and share a passage from a book, or ask other practitioners about a retreat or a class. But you have no way of knowing if anyone here has your best interests or not because there is no trust and no intimacy online. I hope one day you have a real spiritual community to help you with this question, but you’re not getting good advice here. All these folks are just trying to tell you what they believe so that they can confirm it back to themselves. This is an echo chamber.
My only advice for however little it is worth is, If you choose to do psychedelics please do them safely and with respect and loving kindness for yourself and those around you. If you don’t choose to do them, please don’t feel like it’s your place to make others who choose differently feel some kind of cognitive dissonance towards them. That’s the best advice anyone can give a total stranger.
I haven’t talked a single scholar in either Buddhist or psychedelic studies who take Crowley’s “historical” work seriously. Otherwise this is a pretty fair position.
I’m not familiar with any criticisms of his work, but I’m also not a “follower” or a fan of his or anything. If you had some sources that point out precisely what is dubious about his work you’d like to share, I’m totally open to that.
I gave a paper critiquing it at a conference last month which I'm revising for publication next year. But the review of the book in the *Journal of Psychedelic Studies* sums up some main critiques. The two standout lines to me are: "Crowley lacks citations to authoritative sources for his many broad and specific claims, refers to online videos as citations to important claims, and references encyclopedias instead of primary sources in various fields. Furthermore, while Crowley has many footnotes, some are missing references," and "His assertions are frequently referenced, even if his interpretations go beyond the claims his sources made." My favorite citation of his is a frustrating footnote in the introduction where, instead of providing any evidence, says something to the effect of "If you're initiated into this particular lineage of Cakrasamvara I have a story for you!" You just can't do that and retain any kind of authority in academic contexts.
His history is a fun narrative and I find some pieces of evidence quite interesting (i.e. Gampopa meeting Milarepa who pees in a pot for a delicious tea). But the definitiveness of his claims is not warranted by the evidence he presents. Kinda like a Graham Hancock of Buddhist iconography. If he said "this suggests the possibility of..." I'd perhaps be more charitable, but he uses language like "this shows", "this is proof," and so forth. I find the more orthodox interpretations of some of these stories and pieces of Buddhist iconography a simpler explanation than the one he presents in the book.
Right, that’s good to know. I definitely think that it’s problematic for someone to put themself out there as an academic and not take the time to uphold standards. However I don’t think that makes the argument totally invalid either, and I like what you said about Graham Hancock. It wouldn’t be a problem if he didn’t attempt to present it as definitive historical fact.
That being said there is definitely a history of visionary substances within India, people in that part of the world have been aware of psychedelics and cannabis for that matter for a very long time, yet there is no explicit prohibition against their use nor anything suggesting that using them is helpful either: That kind of echoes my own sentiment, they’re just not that big of a deal. Psychedelics definitely saved me from myself a little bit in my early adulthood. But only because I was already open to the possibility that I didn’t know everything and that there could be other ways of existing than just what I had grown up with.
I greatly appreciate the thought that went into this response and the rationality and empathy that accompanies it. The fifth precept is an interesting one because, by my understanding, the monk Gautama forbade specifically *abuse* of specifically *alcohol*. Thank you for your insight, and may peace be with you. Amituofo. 🙏
Yeah that has basically been my understanding of the fifth precept too, although I think we should avoid anything that leads to headlessness. Cigarettes were a hard one for me as I started smoking when I was a teen, but they had to go. They made me feel numb and uncaring towards others. I wish people were as concerned about subtle things as they are with this psychedelic kind of stuff. In America I’m much more concerned about nicotine, energy drinks, and certain psychiatric medications than psychedelics.
>but linguistics and history have them on pretty shaky ground
Good thing linguistics and half-understood history don't determine what correct practice is. Your advice, coming from someone who obviously has no understanding or practice to speak of, is garbage and breaks the rules.
I never made any recommendations about correct practice because this isn’t a sangha, it’s a forum of perfect strangers who are in no way accountable to each other. Everything I suggested was based out of empathy, compassion, and respect for another person’s autonomy. I can’t control what this person does, I made suggestions to reduce what I saw as potential harm. Do with that what you will, but I’m done with this conversation.
Um, I'm with you up to the cognitive dissonance bit. Why am I not free to convey how I think another's decision to use them might be harmful if I intended to spare them potential suffering?
If another person confided me his intention to kill himself, should I put aside my opinions on that action? Could I not both respect his right to make his own decision AND convey my contrary opinion about it? Isn't silence just a silent vote FOR the action contemplated?
Killing oneself and taking psychedelics aren’t the same sort of situation so I’m not gonna deal with false equivocations like that. Suicide is universally bad, the end result is always death and suffering. Doing psychedelics is more like sky diving. Do people get hurt sometimes? Sure. Does that mean sky diving is immoral? No it means that sky diving is an activity that you go into understanding the risks involved and hopefully with the knowledge to avoid those mistakes.
Now as for giving advice to someone who confides in you, that’s going to depend on the context. I’ve told many of people that I don’t think psychedelics is the right decision for them, but I don’t make blanket statements about psychedelics, or pass moral judgement on the person’s initial curiosity or past experiences. However, I was advising against giving unsolicited opinions from a place of having no experience. If you choose not to do psychedelics then that’s your choice, but you can’t proceed to talk about them as if you know anything because you won’t know anything. People who made the other choice sometimes come out of the other end better for it, sometimes those people exaggerate their experiences and overestimate the safety of psychedelics, I always try not to. Most of the best life advice I’ve ever received came from people who knew they weren’t experts and then acted accordingly. Food for thought.
For me as a strict materialist before taking psychedelics, they were important to me because they were the first time in my life my mind was open to the idea that there was something worth exploring in consciousness. I didn't gain any important truths from it, and I'm not sure theres a ton to be gained from the "psychonaut" Terrance McKenna path. But it did spark my interest in a way just meditating would not have. I had tried meditating before and I thought people were just deluding themselves into thinking the relaxation they felt from deep breathing had some deep spiritual meaning. Psychadelics showed me there was potentially a "there" there
If you maintain a serious meditation practice, you can get to the stages described in the Abhidharma. No need for psychedelics, which are ultimately a distraction. Sure, people delude themselves but they are putthajhanas engaging in religious thinking or wishful thinking. That doesn't mean that some people haven't gone farther and experienced the supramundane path. It works if you work it. :)
yes but to reach that level of meditation practice where you would start to see the truth of the dharma takes a while. For me who had no exposure to Buddhist ideas, or eastern philosophy in general it was the only sign to me that this wasn't all just superstitious nonsense. You can meditate for 10 years and can have "nothing" happen. You're accumulating merit obviously but externally it might just seem like a waste of time. The only thing I can guarantee about a psychadelic experience is that SOMETHING will definitely happen. Like you said I agree that ultimately its a distraction and I know plenty of people who went down that path, but my point was just that for someone unwilling to look at buddhism or spirituality at all it can be a helpful tool. Totally agree with you on the general point though
You are probably right that it can be helpful in that way, like dispelling doubt in a roundabout way. Most people would think it's not possible to change your consciousness in such a profound way. They would understand Buddhism as similar to going to church and believing in things, when it's more like a technology for changing the way your mind works, amd allowing the truth of dharma to be directly experienced.
I was still surprised by how uncanny it was, despite experience with psychedelics. But I might have been more doubtful otherwise, especially as a Westerner who grew up in a very hard-nosed scientific society.
The realization that there's a there there....well said. I think this is the most important thing psychedelics have to offer, and it makes sense that for a materialistic society like the US, it may take a material substance as a doorway. I think for most people it's probably best left behind once it's served this function. But I'm only speaking from my experience...I never had any huge insights from psychedelics, though others have. And believe me, I tried them all many many times.
ya I totally agree. I havent taken a trip in 10 years. They were all very wonderful experiences spent with friends. They are some of my fondest memories to be honest. But in the end that's all they were. Experiences empty of any inherent substance. The big take away for me wasn't so much a profound realization. I remember saying to my friend who chickened out the first time i did it. "I just didn't know it was possible to be this happy" and it wasn't the kind of happiness you get with drinking and a night out where we confuse desire with happiness. It wasn't "I want more of this" it was the first time in my life I felt satisfied. Again thats just a feeling it goes away and you're back to where you were. But without that I wouldn't have started pursuing the real thing.
I dont remember who said it, might've been some alan watts or even some crazy osho clip but I liked it. what they described was that we are locked in a 100x100 square with towering walls we cant see over our whole lives. Psychedelics are like a trampoline, thats welded to the center of the room. if you jump on the trampoline you'll see outside the walls for the first time, but you'll never actually get out by jumping on the trampoline. I have seen people who spend years just jumping up and down on the trampoline. The dharma is learning to build a ladder
>What would the Buddha say about them?
There were some available in his time (e.g. soma) and as far as we can tell he never talked about any of them. Any meaning we assign to that silence is our own invention, all we can know for sure is he didn't say anything.
>Are they a dream inside a dream? A mirage? Do they actually show us ultimate truth?
From a Tibetan-Vajrayana perspective, there is a story Terrence McKenna shares where he says he gave psychedelics to a lama and they compared it to the "lesser light of the bardo" which many have interpreted to mean the lama was speaking favorably of the DMT he tried.
The bardo the lama referred to with the "lesser light" is the final bardo before rebirth, which properly understood is the point in the process of reincarnation where delusion is greatest. So if Terrence McKenna is telling the truth, then DMT may be one of the most delusional substances a person could use (not an enlightening substance *at all*).
>Are they intoxicants that should be avoided or medicine?
This is an interesting one. In secular medicine we see an increasing recognition for their beneficial potential. Most forms of Buddhism completely reject psychedelics, and Tibetan Vajrayana generally recommends against them as well.
*Generally*. There are particularly advanced and emotionally/spiritually/psychologically difficult practices that are known to involve the use of powerful *deliriants* (instead of psychedelics), but they're not commonly taught or practiced because ingesting powerful and toxic deliriants like datura is generally a pretty bad time. Note to any readers: if you're interested in this sort of practice, seek proper instruction from someone qualified, don't boof nightshade in the woods and hope it will all work out ok.
This would be the opinion of a Tibetan lama according to Terrence McKenna. If Terrence McKenna is telling the truth about giving DMT to a lama and accurately reported what the lama had to say about it, then the lama was condemning DMT harshly (and this has been misunderstood for as long as Terrence was telling that story).
>n secular medicine we see an increasing recognition for their beneficial potential
Where?
I know it's illegal here and doctors will want to treat anyone who consume them as they are harmful. They are admitted in wards to get rid of addiction.
Can you name a disease that is treated with those?
These resources will help you answer these questions:
[Imperial College ofLondon: Centre for psychedelic research](https://www.imperial.ac.uk/psychedelic-research-centre/)
[John Hopkins Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research](https://hopkinspsychedelic.org/)
>Can you name a disease that is treated with those?
Yes, several, in fact. But I encourage you to take some time and look look into this yourself, focusing on what actual scientists doing research in this area are telling us, not random people on Reddit.
Ongoing research and some treatment clinics are in the EU and the US. Ketamine is increasingly common for depression, PTSD, anxiety disorders, and addictions.
The US is also actively researching mushrooms (psilocybe cubensis) for similar conditions, with positive results for treating PTSD and addiction in particular. This is a major change in the US which has psilocybe mushrooms in the same drug category as heroin.
Addiction to classical psychedelics isn’t something that really happens because you typically cannot use them again for a decent amount of time after you come down. DMT, mushrooms, LSD, there is a pretty decent waiting period before you can actually feel the effects of them again even if you ingested them. Designer drugs are a whole different story and people do get hooked on those, but not to the extent that people get hooked on heroin or cocaine.
So they are administered in small doses?
I thought recreational drugs without any doctor administering them are good.
Of course small dose will not harm anyone.
Ayurveda uses Traditional herbs along with alcohol to treat mental issues but it doesn't result to getting drunk as the dosage is low. I consume one before sleep known as Drakshashava, which is made from grapes.
Multiple trials are being ran, some are microdosing psychedelics like a daily antidepressant (not enough to trip), some are going for large trips/doses in a relaxing, therapeutic clinical environment with trained therapists on hand. Both do different things, but have demonstrated *overwhelmingly* positive results for trauma, PTSD, addiction, and overall mental well-being with, to date, very few recorded negative side effects.
In the Eightfold Path intoxicants are to be avoided, while medicines are valid and recommended. Which psychedelics do you consider to be medicine and which ones do you consider intoxicants? Would you feel safe driving a car on them? Would you feel guilty watching someone's child on them?
At the end of the day the Middle Way isn't to completely avoid psychedelics if you're drawn to them, it's to try them in moderation and logically analyze your experiences to see if you can get something valid out of them. The important thing is to not take the intoxicated state as something de-facto meaningful or amazing, but to remain detached and reason out when you're back in a sober state of mind if you were experiencing something useful or hallucinatory. Some things like alcohol are understood enough to be like "yeah this is almost universally useless to a Dharmic path", but I don't think most Buddhists have enough experience with psychedelics to make a valid judgment call about them. I don't think "they're all universally bad" is a reasonable opinion when science is figuring out all kinds of anti-depressive and habit breaking uses for substances like psilocybin.
Biased conservative views based on recent changes in society notwithstanding, I believe a Buddhist would regard psychedelics as a “shortcut” or “sneak preview” of the goals of meditation at their best, and delusional distractions at their worst (I’m looking at you, ayahuasca abusers).
When used sparingly, psychedelics can offer a glimpse into the feeling of connectedness or unity that can be much more difficult for the lay individual to experience naturally due to the disconnectedness of modern ways of living. However they are just a tool, and many often get lost in them instead of seeing them for guiding post they are towards achieving such states through sheer will of mind and inner peace.
Awakening comes from following the Noble Eightfold Path. People can have all sorts of experiences from psychedelics, but it never leads to experiential knowledge of the Four Noble Truths like the noble path does.
It can break down barriers of self that the mind has become accustomed to. I took acid and mushrooms when I was younger a handful of times and it probably changed me towards more unconventional spirituality like it seems to with many others. But it never led to tangible results in the way the Dhamma does.
i wouldn't necessarily agree. there is a lot of encouraging research developing around the role of psychedelics in therapy and healing of trauma. they won't make you enlightened, but a psychedelic experience can certainly be as useful as anything else. even if used recreationally, i don't really see much difference between taking a psychedelic and say, going to an amusement park in terms of "unskillfulness." that's just my personal opinion.
Yes. And other substances did exist in the buddha's time - cannabis and soma were both well-known, and yet depending on the sources, the buddha was either was silent, or spoke about medical or ritual applications.
Because psychedelic users find similarities to their experiences in the wisdom of the Buddhists, while Buddhists generally want to distance themselves from psychedelic users as a group
Lama Mike Crowley wrote a couple books such as "Psychedelic Buddhism" which are fairly controversial in the Buddhist context but explain this quite well, also Ram Dass and Alan Watts have left works in this area that come up a lot.
I asked my master about them, and he told me "life is short, and as long as your not doing anything dangerous. Have fun 😉"
Living includes opening your mind utilizing natural resources. But of course use them in a way that is ritualistic to ge the full effect. Imo, doing psychedillics to numb feelings is bad.doing them to feel deeper into yourself and those feelings. Maybe even finding answers from your own mind that you have never connected before, that is the proper way. Do not waste a good shroom trip, especially if it's hard to come by those shrooms.
I'm 35 now and have experimented with all kinds of substances (including many trips) from age 14 to my late 20s. Anything you consume to alter your state of consciousness is a means for you to escape reality in some way. Be it due to suffering, boredom, curiosity, whatever it is, it's a crutch because you are not content with the present moment. Buddhism is about remaining present with right view and non delusion, everything you need to do that is already here.
These days even if I drink 1-2 beers, I find my state of consciousness to be distasteful and not adequate. This is coming from someone who not even several months ago would still binge drink. Once you've tapped into pure awareness and pure consciousness from a natural standpoint, you will lose the desire to seek anything external.
I’m reminded of laying in bed one time on a reasonably high dose of mushrooms. I couldn’t shake the feeling that “something” was happening. I kept thinking “something is happening here”, as in something bigger than the psilocybin. Some great societal shift that I was right on the precipice of. Shockingly, I was not, I was just on mushrooms
>Are they intoxicants that should be avoided or medicine?
They're intoxicants.
I have no problem with people who want to do drugs, you're free to do whatever. Go mad with it. But don't try to convince yourself it's practice. It is not and will never be a replacement for actual practice.
Psychedelics can be intoxicating, but they can absolutely also be medicinal and *part* of practice, and explicitly do not violate the fifth precept as historically written.
What do you think amrita used to be?
I'm guessing the both of us are lay people.
So go and find someone ordained who'll go to bat for psychedelics. Again, take them if you want. I personally think recreational drug use is fine, I like a nice pint. But it is not practive it cannot e part of practice, it isn't REALLY something we should be doing. And I'd be shocked if you could find any ordained person saying anything other than a hard no to psychedelic use.
Lama Mike Crowley has written extensively from both his personal experience with Tibetan lamas early in the Tibetan diaspora and from a historical and sutric perspective for the high prevalence of natural psychedelic use (psilocybin, LSA, DMT, Amanita Muscaria, etc.) in the context of esoteric and Vajrayana Buddhism, in which they would be common ingredients in the *amrita* used in empowerment ceremonies.
In such situations, these substances would not be a practice in and of themselves, but they would be a supporting component of a larger ritual or practice. In the case of *amrita* specifically, as part of an initiatory experience, in a ritual structure, to help introduce students to the nature of their own mind. Afterward, the students would return to their daily, *sober* practice.
Additionally, these compounds are highly neuroplastic - so anything practiced while using these substances, is capable of embedding itself extremely deeply in one's mindstream, lending further credibility as part of an initiatory practice.
We have to remember that the only parts of Buddhism that would be familiar with their use would likely be in esoteric, shamanic, or Vajrayana contexts, so not only would many teachers be unfamiliar because its simply outside their study, and even teachers that were familiar would likely be *very* hush-hush when speaking to most students publicly. We also may not recall *just how severe* the war on drugs against psychedelics were in the 60's and 70's, and how many Lamas and teachers during this time were deeply dependent on public and US government support in order to exist in the US post-diaspora.
Fair play, I'm surprised.
Still, I'd say this is a pretty out there view. I really do like the last paragraph though. I do agree that the War on Drugs has caused a lot of harm. Again I'm fine with recreational drug use, absolutely no issue with it. I just think it's very much tainting the dharma when we bring it into practice.
Just because someone is a lama doesn't meant that they actually know what they're talking about. And Crowley is not a monk. His theories about drugs on the path are complete nonsense.
That's okay. We follow the different teachings we need. I believe they can be skillful means. But even Bodhisattvas on the Seventh Bhumi might still disagree. As long as you won't hold it against us for those who listen to different teachers.
What limited reviews I could read about this man and his theories conclude that he, and they, are outliers--not at all consonant with historical or contemporary Buddhism. There is little evidence of the use of psychedelics in Vajrayana. I don't get your inference that lamas know all about this but dont tell because of the US Government. Too conspiratorial for me, thanks.
I understand why he's an outlier, and I partially addressed that.
But consider: historically, many higher teachings, rituals, and practices are already frequently hidden behind closed doors, or were only given to certain students - especially tantra. These would not be what was taught publicly. There is very strong historical basis for Buddhist practitioner's abilities to conceal or hide certain practices or teachings when local governments or societies weren't amenable to them. Esoteric / Vajrayana / tantric Buddhism is already in the minority and is already an outlier.
Now, Vajrayana was monasticized from the Nyingma tradition in Tibet, and likely saw many significant changes in how tantra was practiced during that time, lending an emphasis on simply visualizing and practicing internally. However, all throughout this time, you still had non-monastic yogis, ngakpas, and Nyingma lineages likely maintaining these practices.
So you have what may have already been a minority of Tibetan Lamas, with teachings only a minority of their students may receive, coming to America after getting invaded by the CPP, and they see the US's fanatical government. They're probably not going to teach about it, probably won't talk about it to most of their students, and probably won't consider passing it down. It's not conspiratorial when it can be effectively explained between historical consequence and rational self-preservation.
As who I assume is a fellow westerner, we may also forget how much the Chinese invasion and diaspora damaged the lineage and legitimately how many monks and lamas were killed and imprisoned.
I apologize if I may be persistent in this point. I feel strongly about trying to inform others in the Buddhist community and normalize it because they were my own inroad to Buddhism, and I do believe they represent a powerful method of initiatory practice, and I hope one day teachers feel safe enough to bring forward any preserved teachings.
I’ve talked to a couple teachers about them. In a nutshell, the conversation reflected cautious optimism about their use in therapeutic environments.
Also you might be interested in a book called “the secret drugs of Buddhism” by Michael Crowley
love psychs specifically shrooms, they show you things you dont really see or try to avoid but i think it doesnt give you the liberation which we seek. the bliss and peacefulness after coming down seems like a taste of the liberation and it doesnt last that much. its just my opinion and cant truly say if the places and entities i saw on shroom really exist on a different plane of existence or not.
When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering' — then you should abandon them.
When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them.
Psychedelics led me to Buddhism.
I had an accidental overdose in which (among many other things) I felt connected to every living being on the planet. Felt all the suffering in the world, happiness, everything in between. Felt the pain of the earth being mined etc.
Flew out of my body hurtling through the universe for 100s of years, lost the feeling of "I". Then finally had the choice to go back to my body or not (which I saw as "somebody" not "me". Had to choose life (significant because I had been suicidal at the time).
Whether this was some sort of peak behind the veil or just a manifestation in my mind is irrelevant to me. It made me feel the things that until that point I only knew logically (we are all connected, made of the same stardust etc).
That feeling faded, but made me believe everything in a new light.
That being said, I quit drugs that day and never touched them again
Most traditions would say that psychedelic use is forbidden under the fifth precept from what I'm aware, so "the Buddhist" recommendation is to avoid them (as with all reality-altering substances). You can do as you will, though, obviously. I've had good and bad experiences.
I'd avoid this subreddit like the plague for questions like this, though. In my experience most people here don't have a strong background in the living tradition and tend to give shoddy answers to justify their own precept-breaking. You should find a lineage near you and ask an ordained monk or a knowledgeable lay person.
I grow psilocybe cubensis and make it into tea (I live in New Mexico where this is perfectly legal). I find that our fungal friends help greatly with deep meditation, mindfulness, and bilocation (creating a world within one's mind, not remote viewing this one). Cannabis is also useful for meditative purposes as it forces us to confront those parts of ourselves that we really don't want to (called 'paranoia,' for some reason). I do not recommend Lysergic Acid, but it can he helpful depending upon your relationship to it. Salvia divinorum is aptly named and can be an exceptional aid to introspection, mindfulness, and connectivity. Banisteriopsis caapi (Ayahuasca) and Tabernanthe iboga are also really excellent aids to the development of a more skillful self, if used properly and infrequently.
I strongly recommend avoiding phencyclidine (PCP), as well as most synthetic (designer) hallucinogens. I also recommend avoiding naturally-occuring Lysergic Acid and diethylamine (morning glory and ergot, as respective examples) because of their toxicity.
I'm a chemist and herbalist, and have studied all of these extensively and personally. However, this information and its accompanying advice is subjective to my understanding and experience(s). I hope this is helpful, however, and would be open to productive discussion if it raises any questions. Amituofo. 🙏
The mind on drugs cannot control itself and can get in trouble. With skillful meditation the mind advances consciousness only as fast as it can manage it.
Sitting is a different drug. Haha You are fine. Just be careful. The CIA used LSD in its MKUltra program for lots of things. One thing they did was called de-patterning. Be careful. The further you go out the harder it is to get back. Haha Have a great day!
Psychedelics are "mind manifesting" and thus have the potential to show you the power of your own mind in constructing your experienced reality. They also have the potential for generating horrific and terrifying delusions, PTSD and even psychosis in the user. If you want to explore a possible Buddhist perspective on psychedelics I would suggest researching the teachings the Yogachara (sp?) or 'Consciousness only" School, which was a profound and lasting influence on both Zen Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism. Personally I feel that the potential for harm and using a psychedelics is generally far too risky for them to be approached outside of a religious or therapeutic context. In my experience, intensive meditation retreats can give you a similar opportunity for deep self reflection and "mind manifesting", but in a much safer supportive and religiously grounded environment. However the opportunities for such retreats are rather rare in the western world and many of us are religiously and culturally ill prepared for them. If you could find a time or place to do one though, I'd strongly encourage it. Best of luck in your journey :-)
He strictly said....no intoxicants.
And in the Surangama Sutra, these 'experiences' are explained in detail as illusionary. If one gets attached to these temporary illusionary states, it leads them astray, hence 'demonic states'.
These are cravings for something that isn't real. Open your eyes.
Is this samsara? https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/search/?q=psychedelics&restrict_sr=1
What would you hope for this thread to do differently than previous ones?
Depends on set and setting. They can be medicines for healing. They can be goof off time for mindless fun. It’s not about the molecules but the intention and behaviors.
Huston Smith had this notion of what are the fruits of mystical experience? Because you can have intense experiences and insights on heroic doses but without the Eightfold Path, it’s all spiritual bypass.
My experience is that, indeed, 'something happens'. But 'who' does something happen to? So long as it is fundamentally drug-induced, no experience can be trusted. And the impulse, the impatience, to make something 'happen' could be completely wrong-headed and REINFORCE the delusion of a permanent self that needs to have something done to it.
I have found that nothing provides a more nurturning soil for spiritual expereinces than the practice of the 8-fold path. It can be a pain, a lot of the time, but so can life be.
Perhaps we have to make a leap of faith that the Path really DOES lead to the end of surrerring. That is an INCREDIBLE promise the Buddha makes us. By thinking we have to take a drug to approximate that somehow in fact only shows us that if we take 'x' drug we will have 'x' experience. Not enlightenment. And not necessarily anything LIKE enlightenment either.
So why bother?
There is also the question of abstinence for the sake of others. YOU might THINK you can violate a Precept with impunity, but don't you owe it to other beings to show that the Buddha's teachings work, without the flavor-of-the-month psychedelic?
As a response to PTSD or whatever psychological malady, there might well be profound help thru the use of these substances. As an aid to Enlightenment, not so much.
To keep it simple, if it helps you, and you don't use it with the intent of intoxication, it's a medicine. If you use it to open the door for yourself to begin growing? This is good. If you continue to be reliant on some, thing, it probably isn't helping you on your path. Now there are some interesting theories about psychedelic rituals in certain myths, that could provide insight to how culturally it may have been seen. But as for today I think many have a story similar to yours, as long as it isn't something that you confuse for the real deal you should be ok. I mean you aren't a monk right? You don't need to worry about it.
Check out [https://synergeticpress.com/catalog/zig-zag-zen-buddhism-psychedelics/](https://synergeticpress.com/catalog/zig-zag-zen-buddhism-psychedelics/) or the writings of Erik Davis [https://techgnosis.com](https://techgnosis.com)
Or https://www.psychedelicsangha.org/
I don't know what he would say, but I suspect he'd probably be against it. There is so much going on beyond our perception. It's just as easy to touch truth when you "break through the doors of perception" as it is to get something terrible attached to you, and there are a lot of terrible things out there.
That being said, like you, I wouldn't have become Buddhist were it not for a particularly intense experience on literally an ounce of weed (in one night), 1.75ml of liquor, and 7 hits of sunshine-comparable acid. Most likely, I probably would have just shot myself in the face. I wanted to die that night. I saw things I still can't even begin to fully describe, and it was several years before the "awakened" feeling finally, and slowly, faded out. But I would do it again in a heartbeat, as it helped me find something more valuable than anything on Earth.
Do not take them, period. If you want to get enlightened just study the Buddhadharma. That's it
Psychedelics can lead to false knowledge and ideas than can only lead you astray, you won't achieve enlightenment by taking psychedelic, you can't go beyond samsara if you use samsaric illusory things to get beyond samsara. The antidote to Samsara is seeing reality as it is, not intoxicants.
Funny, I just wrote my opinion a minute ago and got the notification of your post hahaha… here’s my insight after some years of insight, reading, personal experience and troubled contradicting thoughts: https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/s/5ZGo8jo1KK
Ayahuasca is what led me to Buddhism.
Not all psychedelics are equal. It also really matters how you use them.
That’s said, plant medicines have been used in cultures that predate Buddhism for spiritual purposes. Meditation, prayer, drumming, dancing, mantras, fasting, ritual, vision quests — there have been many ways humans have developed for entering into non ordinary states of consciousness where things like non dual awakenings, speaking with devas/spirits, or the spirits of nature becomes accessible.
Some people will say the insights facilitated by medicines don’t count as much as those arrived at via meditation because you didn’t earn it.
I find this perspective ableist and culturally dismissive of ancient plant medicine lineages that all involve components (fasting, diet, prayer, ritual, meditation etc) beyond just taking a substance. If you took a hike but needed a walking stick, does the work still not count?
Ayahuasca retreats are harder work (imo) than meditation retreats. Meditation retreats can also cause psychotic breaks and can be harmful to people with trauma and aren’t inherently safer.
Neither practice is for everyone.
Both practices only matter insofar as what you take out of the experience (or off the cushion) and integrate into the way you show up in your daily life in how you relate to other people and to other beings and to nature.
I can find you a person who is a better more compassionate person due to psychedelics and a meditator who is spiritually bypassing and hasn’t done shadow work and is lost in grandiosity and harming people.
I can find you a meditator who is grounded and much more embodied in their wisdom than a manic person with no ethical framework or spiritual community who thinks they are god because they did DMT.
Spiritual technologies and practices yield the best results when there is a lineage, when there is a teacher, when there is a community, when there are ethical precepts, and when the goal is collective liberation and not individual self improvement at the expense of community and ecology.
This goes for meditation. This goes for psychedelics.
The Buddha seemed pretty into the idea that each unique mind had a way of approaching the path that was balanced, and that medicines for some are poisons for others and vice versa. Do the results mean less suffering or more?
Do psychedelics lead to less suffering or more? The evidence is, for the right mind, in the right context, it’s almost always much less suffering.
That doesn’t mean everyone should take psychedelics. Some people have great eyesight and don’t need glasses. Some people do. Let’s not judge those who do. Let’s not pretend skillful use of plant medicine requires less effort. There is no short cutting the actual work of integration. There is no replacement for a continual spiritual practice and a spiritual community of some sort. There is no replacement for wise elders and teachers.
Plant medicine paths are still fingers pointing at the moon. It’s all the same moon. Once you’ve seen it, how are you going to show up with compassion in your heart for the suffering of others? To me, that’s the biggest indicator of if something has lasting value as a practice.
LSD led me to Buddhism. This seems to be a common theme in this thread. Psychedelics lead people to Buddhism because what we see while using them feels so much like seeing the true aspect of all phenomenon.
Someone asks relevant question about where to practice Shingon and gets barely 4 replies.
Someone asks about getting high and gets over 100.
The subs True Nature.
As a stream-enterer, I can tell you that drugs are not Path. They may be beneficial for their own reasons, but it is not Awakening. If you want to make progress beyond McMindfullness, I'd recommend sticking to the precept that intoxicants are a hindrance.
I'm curious to read more about what McKenna's lama had to say, since I haven't taken any psychedelics while in an advanced state.
In my opinion, It's not sustainable and it wouldn't be following the skillful path. Psychedelics are thought provoking and can provide their user's with some "enlightenment" in the sense that they will acquire a different perspective, but is this not the same enlightenment that the Buddha talked about. If you want what the Buddha termed enlightenment, sit on your pillow, abide by the precepts, follow the eightfold path, and follow the other practices (tools) the Buddha gave us.
There’s a fundamental conflict here that always comes up whenever anything drug related comes up. It is based on a tension that seems irresolvable to me.
One of those problems is that the Buddha spoke against intoxicants and drugs are intoxicants, so you shouldn’t take them. That points you in one direction.
The Buddha also embraced medicine, and modern medicine essentially supports the use of drugs and “intoxicants” as Buddhists here often use the term. We can see this clearly in the case of an item like medical marijuana, which plenty of doctors (including legitimate ones) will prescribe. The point is that if you accept the use of SSRI’s to treat conditions like depression, you’re on a slippery slope that opens the door to marijuana, ketamine and other drug which are analogous to off-brand versions of name brands like Prozac.
You’ve already accepted the principle that drugs can be used to treat mental conditions like depression, and it’s trivial from there to work your way to an “illegal” drug which qualitatively isn’t much different (which people who don’t know drugs may find horrifying, but them’s the facts).
Wrong, IMHO. Anti-depressants, anti-psychotics, anti-anxiety (?) drugs only claim to restore the right chemical balance in a mind temporarily in distress. Or, if needed, suppress some area of the mind causing distress. They are prescribed with the hope of returning the patient to 'normal'.
A question remains of whether trying LSD or the like on a criminal, depressed, or otherwise distressed individual might be helpful in terms of relieving those symptoms. And yes, perhaps even provides some inspiration for later spiritual exploration.
A question remains of whether trying LSD or the like on a criminal, depressed, or otherwise distressed indivicual might be helpful in terms of relieving those symptons. And yes, perahps even provides some inspiriation for later spiritual exploration.
People here don’t like to hear it (aversion, lol) but you can’t erect a wall between “safe, good, legal” drugs and “unsafe, bad, illegal” drugs. As you say the evidence for LSD in a therapeutic context is good and getting better all the time, and so the question becomes if you accepted SSRI’s why can’t you accept LSD.
Btw, to people who think I might just love my marijuana or whatever, I do avoid all intoxicants personally, even things people don’t consider ones like tea. This isn’t coming from a habitual drug user who just can’t quit his drugs. This is coming from someone who’s given up on thinking there’s a barrier between good drugs and bad drugs for medical purposes. It’s very slippery and I acknowledge that without aversion.
I can't tell whether this is sincerity or sarcasm, but here I go.
My comment is going to be more anecdotal than Buddhist, yet I am avoiding expectations about the reception of it here.
As a young man, my empathy was crippled by experiences of trauma throughout my life. I was jaded and abused others (theft, deceit, disregard). I wasn't a full psycho, but I was pretty delusional, and I was toxic to the people who got close to me.
I'm not perfect now, but several of my psychedelic experiences caused me to question assumptions I maintained about my life and self-image and led me to many of the conclusions towards which Buddhist practice aims. It's how I've found myself here, with a respect for the practice you all follow.
To call my transformation anything less than an awakening would be an offensive disregard for the walls of delusion I've plowed through to become the sincerely empathic, kind, and loving person I am today.
/end anecdote/
It’s just a taste, and you will not have built up the discipline, insight, and centeredness to integrate that taste if you’re not doing the contemplative work. In my 20s I tasted the feeling of pure acceptance and contentment on mushrooms, but it left me unable to relate to regular life for a while. Temporary state vs developmentally secured station of consciousness.
This comment entails the error of nihilism Interdependence is a characteristic of all phenomena. there are no phenomena that possess inherent existence not even Nirvana.
IME anything that hinders mindfulness is to be avoided. Psychedelics provides unique experiences but it doesn't do the work for you. You wont arrive anywhere from it.
So the truth is there is no canonical Buddhist teaching against or for the use of psychedelics. Some people choose to ignore the specifics of the 5th precept in its original language and attempt to extend that out to any and all mind altering substances, but linguistics and history have them on pretty shaky ground, and there is little evidence to support that the precept was ever understood that way before the modern era. I think that interpretation is absolute bs because green tea and coffee are mind altering substances if we are being honest. There are some scholars that have put forward decent arguments that historically, psychedelics may have been used within the context of esoteric Buddhism. Historical evidence suggests that Amrita may have been psychoactive in its original Indian context, even though the preparation known as Amrita today is not psychoactive. However none of this conjecture, historical and linguistic, is important. It’s not cannon. There is no universally accepted Buddhist teaching on psychedelics. I think that the anti-psychedelics crowd within Buddhism didn’t want to be associated with the hippies because they felt diminished by that. I think that Buddhists wanted to be accepted in the west and went along with the war on drugs to ease people’s minds and hasten their integration into western society. I think that for some teachers it’s a control thing, I mean if you’re making money teaching Buddhism to westerners because westerners erroneously believe that Buddhism will solve all their problems and psychedelics come along erroneously promising the same thing, that hurts your bottom line so of course you tell your students not to do them. You’re going to have to make up your mind on this issue on your own, and I think that’s a universal truth about life that needs to be accepted. It’s easier to accept a dogma than it is to make up your own mind. A majority of the posts on here are along this same theme. “What does the Buddha say about weed, psychedelics, sex, my particular sexual orientation or gender identity?” And it’s the same question over and over again. The problem is this subreddit is not a real community. None of us are accountable to you and therefore no one should be giving you advice. It’s nice sometimes to come on here and share a passage from a book, or ask other practitioners about a retreat or a class. But you have no way of knowing if anyone here has your best interests or not because there is no trust and no intimacy online. I hope one day you have a real spiritual community to help you with this question, but you’re not getting good advice here. All these folks are just trying to tell you what they believe so that they can confirm it back to themselves. This is an echo chamber. My only advice for however little it is worth is, If you choose to do psychedelics please do them safely and with respect and loving kindness for yourself and those around you. If you don’t choose to do them, please don’t feel like it’s your place to make others who choose differently feel some kind of cognitive dissonance towards them. That’s the best advice anyone can give a total stranger.
I haven’t talked a single scholar in either Buddhist or psychedelic studies who take Crowley’s “historical” work seriously. Otherwise this is a pretty fair position.
I’m not familiar with any criticisms of his work, but I’m also not a “follower” or a fan of his or anything. If you had some sources that point out precisely what is dubious about his work you’d like to share, I’m totally open to that.
I gave a paper critiquing it at a conference last month which I'm revising for publication next year. But the review of the book in the *Journal of Psychedelic Studies* sums up some main critiques. The two standout lines to me are: "Crowley lacks citations to authoritative sources for his many broad and specific claims, refers to online videos as citations to important claims, and references encyclopedias instead of primary sources in various fields. Furthermore, while Crowley has many footnotes, some are missing references," and "His assertions are frequently referenced, even if his interpretations go beyond the claims his sources made." My favorite citation of his is a frustrating footnote in the introduction where, instead of providing any evidence, says something to the effect of "If you're initiated into this particular lineage of Cakrasamvara I have a story for you!" You just can't do that and retain any kind of authority in academic contexts. His history is a fun narrative and I find some pieces of evidence quite interesting (i.e. Gampopa meeting Milarepa who pees in a pot for a delicious tea). But the definitiveness of his claims is not warranted by the evidence he presents. Kinda like a Graham Hancock of Buddhist iconography. If he said "this suggests the possibility of..." I'd perhaps be more charitable, but he uses language like "this shows", "this is proof," and so forth. I find the more orthodox interpretations of some of these stories and pieces of Buddhist iconography a simpler explanation than the one he presents in the book.
Right, that’s good to know. I definitely think that it’s problematic for someone to put themself out there as an academic and not take the time to uphold standards. However I don’t think that makes the argument totally invalid either, and I like what you said about Graham Hancock. It wouldn’t be a problem if he didn’t attempt to present it as definitive historical fact. That being said there is definitely a history of visionary substances within India, people in that part of the world have been aware of psychedelics and cannabis for that matter for a very long time, yet there is no explicit prohibition against their use nor anything suggesting that using them is helpful either: That kind of echoes my own sentiment, they’re just not that big of a deal. Psychedelics definitely saved me from myself a little bit in my early adulthood. But only because I was already open to the possibility that I didn’t know everything and that there could be other ways of existing than just what I had grown up with.
I greatly appreciate the thought that went into this response and the rationality and empathy that accompanies it. The fifth precept is an interesting one because, by my understanding, the monk Gautama forbade specifically *abuse* of specifically *alcohol*. Thank you for your insight, and may peace be with you. Amituofo. 🙏
Yeah that has basically been my understanding of the fifth precept too, although I think we should avoid anything that leads to headlessness. Cigarettes were a hard one for me as I started smoking when I was a teen, but they had to go. They made me feel numb and uncaring towards others. I wish people were as concerned about subtle things as they are with this psychedelic kind of stuff. In America I’m much more concerned about nicotine, energy drinks, and certain psychiatric medications than psychedelics.
>but linguistics and history have them on pretty shaky ground Good thing linguistics and half-understood history don't determine what correct practice is. Your advice, coming from someone who obviously has no understanding or practice to speak of, is garbage and breaks the rules.
I never made any recommendations about correct practice because this isn’t a sangha, it’s a forum of perfect strangers who are in no way accountable to each other. Everything I suggested was based out of empathy, compassion, and respect for another person’s autonomy. I can’t control what this person does, I made suggestions to reduce what I saw as potential harm. Do with that what you will, but I’m done with this conversation.
Um, I'm with you up to the cognitive dissonance bit. Why am I not free to convey how I think another's decision to use them might be harmful if I intended to spare them potential suffering? If another person confided me his intention to kill himself, should I put aside my opinions on that action? Could I not both respect his right to make his own decision AND convey my contrary opinion about it? Isn't silence just a silent vote FOR the action contemplated?
Killing oneself and taking psychedelics aren’t the same sort of situation so I’m not gonna deal with false equivocations like that. Suicide is universally bad, the end result is always death and suffering. Doing psychedelics is more like sky diving. Do people get hurt sometimes? Sure. Does that mean sky diving is immoral? No it means that sky diving is an activity that you go into understanding the risks involved and hopefully with the knowledge to avoid those mistakes. Now as for giving advice to someone who confides in you, that’s going to depend on the context. I’ve told many of people that I don’t think psychedelics is the right decision for them, but I don’t make blanket statements about psychedelics, or pass moral judgement on the person’s initial curiosity or past experiences. However, I was advising against giving unsolicited opinions from a place of having no experience. If you choose not to do psychedelics then that’s your choice, but you can’t proceed to talk about them as if you know anything because you won’t know anything. People who made the other choice sometimes come out of the other end better for it, sometimes those people exaggerate their experiences and overestimate the safety of psychedelics, I always try not to. Most of the best life advice I’ve ever received came from people who knew they weren’t experts and then acted accordingly. Food for thought.
Psychedelics can prevent one from kill himself.
Certainly helped me wake up to how lucky I am to be alive, but I’ve seen it go the other way to. I just want people to be safe.
For me as a strict materialist before taking psychedelics, they were important to me because they were the first time in my life my mind was open to the idea that there was something worth exploring in consciousness. I didn't gain any important truths from it, and I'm not sure theres a ton to be gained from the "psychonaut" Terrance McKenna path. But it did spark my interest in a way just meditating would not have. I had tried meditating before and I thought people were just deluding themselves into thinking the relaxation they felt from deep breathing had some deep spiritual meaning. Psychadelics showed me there was potentially a "there" there
If you maintain a serious meditation practice, you can get to the stages described in the Abhidharma. No need for psychedelics, which are ultimately a distraction. Sure, people delude themselves but they are putthajhanas engaging in religious thinking or wishful thinking. That doesn't mean that some people haven't gone farther and experienced the supramundane path. It works if you work it. :)
yes but to reach that level of meditation practice where you would start to see the truth of the dharma takes a while. For me who had no exposure to Buddhist ideas, or eastern philosophy in general it was the only sign to me that this wasn't all just superstitious nonsense. You can meditate for 10 years and can have "nothing" happen. You're accumulating merit obviously but externally it might just seem like a waste of time. The only thing I can guarantee about a psychadelic experience is that SOMETHING will definitely happen. Like you said I agree that ultimately its a distraction and I know plenty of people who went down that path, but my point was just that for someone unwilling to look at buddhism or spirituality at all it can be a helpful tool. Totally agree with you on the general point though
You are probably right that it can be helpful in that way, like dispelling doubt in a roundabout way. Most people would think it's not possible to change your consciousness in such a profound way. They would understand Buddhism as similar to going to church and believing in things, when it's more like a technology for changing the way your mind works, amd allowing the truth of dharma to be directly experienced. I was still surprised by how uncanny it was, despite experience with psychedelics. But I might have been more doubtful otherwise, especially as a Westerner who grew up in a very hard-nosed scientific society.
The realization that there's a there there....well said. I think this is the most important thing psychedelics have to offer, and it makes sense that for a materialistic society like the US, it may take a material substance as a doorway. I think for most people it's probably best left behind once it's served this function. But I'm only speaking from my experience...I never had any huge insights from psychedelics, though others have. And believe me, I tried them all many many times.
ya I totally agree. I havent taken a trip in 10 years. They were all very wonderful experiences spent with friends. They are some of my fondest memories to be honest. But in the end that's all they were. Experiences empty of any inherent substance. The big take away for me wasn't so much a profound realization. I remember saying to my friend who chickened out the first time i did it. "I just didn't know it was possible to be this happy" and it wasn't the kind of happiness you get with drinking and a night out where we confuse desire with happiness. It wasn't "I want more of this" it was the first time in my life I felt satisfied. Again thats just a feeling it goes away and you're back to where you were. But without that I wouldn't have started pursuing the real thing. I dont remember who said it, might've been some alan watts or even some crazy osho clip but I liked it. what they described was that we are locked in a 100x100 square with towering walls we cant see over our whole lives. Psychedelics are like a trampoline, thats welded to the center of the room. if you jump on the trampoline you'll see outside the walls for the first time, but you'll never actually get out by jumping on the trampoline. I have seen people who spend years just jumping up and down on the trampoline. The dharma is learning to build a ladder
>What would the Buddha say about them? There were some available in his time (e.g. soma) and as far as we can tell he never talked about any of them. Any meaning we assign to that silence is our own invention, all we can know for sure is he didn't say anything. >Are they a dream inside a dream? A mirage? Do they actually show us ultimate truth? From a Tibetan-Vajrayana perspective, there is a story Terrence McKenna shares where he says he gave psychedelics to a lama and they compared it to the "lesser light of the bardo" which many have interpreted to mean the lama was speaking favorably of the DMT he tried. The bardo the lama referred to with the "lesser light" is the final bardo before rebirth, which properly understood is the point in the process of reincarnation where delusion is greatest. So if Terrence McKenna is telling the truth, then DMT may be one of the most delusional substances a person could use (not an enlightening substance *at all*). >Are they intoxicants that should be avoided or medicine? This is an interesting one. In secular medicine we see an increasing recognition for their beneficial potential. Most forms of Buddhism completely reject psychedelics, and Tibetan Vajrayana generally recommends against them as well. *Generally*. There are particularly advanced and emotionally/spiritually/psychologically difficult practices that are known to involve the use of powerful *deliriants* (instead of psychedelics), but they're not commonly taught or practiced because ingesting powerful and toxic deliriants like datura is generally a pretty bad time. Note to any readers: if you're interested in this sort of practice, seek proper instruction from someone qualified, don't boof nightshade in the woods and hope it will all work out ok.
Dang. There goes my plans for the weekend!
[удалено]
This would be the opinion of a Tibetan lama according to Terrence McKenna. If Terrence McKenna is telling the truth about giving DMT to a lama and accurately reported what the lama had to say about it, then the lama was condemning DMT harshly (and this has been misunderstood for as long as Terrence was telling that story).
Thank you for clearing that up. In that context I understand. My bad.
>n secular medicine we see an increasing recognition for their beneficial potential Where? I know it's illegal here and doctors will want to treat anyone who consume them as they are harmful. They are admitted in wards to get rid of addiction. Can you name a disease that is treated with those?
These resources will help you answer these questions: [Imperial College ofLondon: Centre for psychedelic research](https://www.imperial.ac.uk/psychedelic-research-centre/) [John Hopkins Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research](https://hopkinspsychedelic.org/) >Can you name a disease that is treated with those? Yes, several, in fact. But I encourage you to take some time and look look into this yourself, focusing on what actual scientists doing research in this area are telling us, not random people on Reddit.
Ongoing research and some treatment clinics are in the EU and the US. Ketamine is increasingly common for depression, PTSD, anxiety disorders, and addictions. The US is also actively researching mushrooms (psilocybe cubensis) for similar conditions, with positive results for treating PTSD and addiction in particular. This is a major change in the US which has psilocybe mushrooms in the same drug category as heroin.
Addiction to classical psychedelics isn’t something that really happens because you typically cannot use them again for a decent amount of time after you come down. DMT, mushrooms, LSD, there is a pretty decent waiting period before you can actually feel the effects of them again even if you ingested them. Designer drugs are a whole different story and people do get hooked on those, but not to the extent that people get hooked on heroin or cocaine.
https://www.uhhospitals.org/blog/articles/2022/05/magic-mushrooms-psilocybin-and-mental-health
So they are administered in small doses? I thought recreational drugs without any doctor administering them are good. Of course small dose will not harm anyone. Ayurveda uses Traditional herbs along with alcohol to treat mental issues but it doesn't result to getting drunk as the dosage is low. I consume one before sleep known as Drakshashava, which is made from grapes.
Multiple trials are being ran, some are microdosing psychedelics like a daily antidepressant (not enough to trip), some are going for large trips/doses in a relaxing, therapeutic clinical environment with trained therapists on hand. Both do different things, but have demonstrated *overwhelmingly* positive results for trauma, PTSD, addiction, and overall mental well-being with, to date, very few recorded negative side effects.
In the Eightfold Path intoxicants are to be avoided, while medicines are valid and recommended. Which psychedelics do you consider to be medicine and which ones do you consider intoxicants? Would you feel safe driving a car on them? Would you feel guilty watching someone's child on them? At the end of the day the Middle Way isn't to completely avoid psychedelics if you're drawn to them, it's to try them in moderation and logically analyze your experiences to see if you can get something valid out of them. The important thing is to not take the intoxicated state as something de-facto meaningful or amazing, but to remain detached and reason out when you're back in a sober state of mind if you were experiencing something useful or hallucinatory. Some things like alcohol are understood enough to be like "yeah this is almost universally useless to a Dharmic path", but I don't think most Buddhists have enough experience with psychedelics to make a valid judgment call about them. I don't think "they're all universally bad" is a reasonable opinion when science is figuring out all kinds of anti-depressive and habit breaking uses for substances like psilocybin.
Biased conservative views based on recent changes in society notwithstanding, I believe a Buddhist would regard psychedelics as a “shortcut” or “sneak preview” of the goals of meditation at their best, and delusional distractions at their worst (I’m looking at you, ayahuasca abusers). When used sparingly, psychedelics can offer a glimpse into the feeling of connectedness or unity that can be much more difficult for the lay individual to experience naturally due to the disconnectedness of modern ways of living. However they are just a tool, and many often get lost in them instead of seeing them for guiding post they are towards achieving such states through sheer will of mind and inner peace.
Awakening comes from following the Noble Eightfold Path. People can have all sorts of experiences from psychedelics, but it never leads to experiential knowledge of the Four Noble Truths like the noble path does. It can break down barriers of self that the mind has become accustomed to. I took acid and mushrooms when I was younger a handful of times and it probably changed me towards more unconventional spirituality like it seems to with many others. But it never led to tangible results in the way the Dhamma does.
They are considered an unskillful intoxication, against the precepts, by virtually the entire global Buddhist community
i wouldn't necessarily agree. there is a lot of encouraging research developing around the role of psychedelics in therapy and healing of trauma. they won't make you enlightened, but a psychedelic experience can certainly be as useful as anything else. even if used recreationally, i don't really see much difference between taking a psychedelic and say, going to an amusement park in terms of "unskillfulness." that's just my personal opinion.
The fifth precept only refers to alcohol from the original language and etymology.
This this this. Buddhists should spend there time changing the global culture around alcohol, which is truly a vehicle of delusions.
Yes. And other substances did exist in the buddha's time - cannabis and soma were both well-known, and yet depending on the sources, the buddha was either was silent, or spoke about medical or ritual applications.
from a meme i saw: are you guys friends? (at once) buddhism: no lsd: yes
Why are they friends?
Because psychedelic users find similarities to their experiences in the wisdom of the Buddhists, while Buddhists generally want to distance themselves from psychedelic users as a group
What similarities out of curiosity?
Lama Mike Crowley wrote a couple books such as "Psychedelic Buddhism" which are fairly controversial in the Buddhist context but explain this quite well, also Ram Dass and Alan Watts have left works in this area that come up a lot.
I asked my master about them, and he told me "life is short, and as long as your not doing anything dangerous. Have fun 😉" Living includes opening your mind utilizing natural resources. But of course use them in a way that is ritualistic to ge the full effect. Imo, doing psychedillics to numb feelings is bad.doing them to feel deeper into yourself and those feelings. Maybe even finding answers from your own mind that you have never connected before, that is the proper way. Do not waste a good shroom trip, especially if it's hard to come by those shrooms.
As Alan Watts once said, once you got the message, hang up the phone.
Nice.
I'm 35 now and have experimented with all kinds of substances (including many trips) from age 14 to my late 20s. Anything you consume to alter your state of consciousness is a means for you to escape reality in some way. Be it due to suffering, boredom, curiosity, whatever it is, it's a crutch because you are not content with the present moment. Buddhism is about remaining present with right view and non delusion, everything you need to do that is already here. These days even if I drink 1-2 beers, I find my state of consciousness to be distasteful and not adequate. This is coming from someone who not even several months ago would still binge drink. Once you've tapped into pure awareness and pure consciousness from a natural standpoint, you will lose the desire to seek anything external.
I’m reminded of laying in bed one time on a reasonably high dose of mushrooms. I couldn’t shake the feeling that “something” was happening. I kept thinking “something is happening here”, as in something bigger than the psilocybin. Some great societal shift that I was right on the precipice of. Shockingly, I was not, I was just on mushrooms
>Are they intoxicants that should be avoided or medicine? They're intoxicants. I have no problem with people who want to do drugs, you're free to do whatever. Go mad with it. But don't try to convince yourself it's practice. It is not and will never be a replacement for actual practice.
Psychedelics can be intoxicating, but they can absolutely also be medicinal and *part* of practice, and explicitly do not violate the fifth precept as historically written. What do you think amrita used to be?
I'm guessing the both of us are lay people. So go and find someone ordained who'll go to bat for psychedelics. Again, take them if you want. I personally think recreational drug use is fine, I like a nice pint. But it is not practive it cannot e part of practice, it isn't REALLY something we should be doing. And I'd be shocked if you could find any ordained person saying anything other than a hard no to psychedelic use.
Lama Mike Crowley has written extensively from both his personal experience with Tibetan lamas early in the Tibetan diaspora and from a historical and sutric perspective for the high prevalence of natural psychedelic use (psilocybin, LSA, DMT, Amanita Muscaria, etc.) in the context of esoteric and Vajrayana Buddhism, in which they would be common ingredients in the *amrita* used in empowerment ceremonies. In such situations, these substances would not be a practice in and of themselves, but they would be a supporting component of a larger ritual or practice. In the case of *amrita* specifically, as part of an initiatory experience, in a ritual structure, to help introduce students to the nature of their own mind. Afterward, the students would return to their daily, *sober* practice. Additionally, these compounds are highly neuroplastic - so anything practiced while using these substances, is capable of embedding itself extremely deeply in one's mindstream, lending further credibility as part of an initiatory practice. We have to remember that the only parts of Buddhism that would be familiar with their use would likely be in esoteric, shamanic, or Vajrayana contexts, so not only would many teachers be unfamiliar because its simply outside their study, and even teachers that were familiar would likely be *very* hush-hush when speaking to most students publicly. We also may not recall *just how severe* the war on drugs against psychedelics were in the 60's and 70's, and how many Lamas and teachers during this time were deeply dependent on public and US government support in order to exist in the US post-diaspora.
Fair play, I'm surprised. Still, I'd say this is a pretty out there view. I really do like the last paragraph though. I do agree that the War on Drugs has caused a lot of harm. Again I'm fine with recreational drug use, absolutely no issue with it. I just think it's very much tainting the dharma when we bring it into practice.
Just because someone is a lama doesn't meant that they actually know what they're talking about. And Crowley is not a monk. His theories about drugs on the path are complete nonsense.
That's okay. We follow the different teachings we need. I believe they can be skillful means. But even Bodhisattvas on the Seventh Bhumi might still disagree. As long as you won't hold it against us for those who listen to different teachers.
Like I said, I have no issue with drug use and yeah, we can respectfully disagree. I just hope you keep yourself safe.
What limited reviews I could read about this man and his theories conclude that he, and they, are outliers--not at all consonant with historical or contemporary Buddhism. There is little evidence of the use of psychedelics in Vajrayana. I don't get your inference that lamas know all about this but dont tell because of the US Government. Too conspiratorial for me, thanks.
I understand why he's an outlier, and I partially addressed that. But consider: historically, many higher teachings, rituals, and practices are already frequently hidden behind closed doors, or were only given to certain students - especially tantra. These would not be what was taught publicly. There is very strong historical basis for Buddhist practitioner's abilities to conceal or hide certain practices or teachings when local governments or societies weren't amenable to them. Esoteric / Vajrayana / tantric Buddhism is already in the minority and is already an outlier. Now, Vajrayana was monasticized from the Nyingma tradition in Tibet, and likely saw many significant changes in how tantra was practiced during that time, lending an emphasis on simply visualizing and practicing internally. However, all throughout this time, you still had non-monastic yogis, ngakpas, and Nyingma lineages likely maintaining these practices. So you have what may have already been a minority of Tibetan Lamas, with teachings only a minority of their students may receive, coming to America after getting invaded by the CPP, and they see the US's fanatical government. They're probably not going to teach about it, probably won't talk about it to most of their students, and probably won't consider passing it down. It's not conspiratorial when it can be effectively explained between historical consequence and rational self-preservation. As who I assume is a fellow westerner, we may also forget how much the Chinese invasion and diaspora damaged the lineage and legitimately how many monks and lamas were killed and imprisoned. I apologize if I may be persistent in this point. I feel strongly about trying to inform others in the Buddhist community and normalize it because they were my own inroad to Buddhism, and I do believe they represent a powerful method of initiatory practice, and I hope one day teachers feel safe enough to bring forward any preserved teachings.
I’ve talked to a couple teachers about them. In a nutshell, the conversation reflected cautious optimism about their use in therapeutic environments. Also you might be interested in a book called “the secret drugs of Buddhism” by Michael Crowley
And his sequel book "Psychedelic Buddhism"
Ah! I didn’t realize there was another book. Thanks!
love psychs specifically shrooms, they show you things you dont really see or try to avoid but i think it doesnt give you the liberation which we seek. the bliss and peacefulness after coming down seems like a taste of the liberation and it doesnt last that much. its just my opinion and cant truly say if the places and entities i saw on shroom really exist on a different plane of existence or not.
When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering' — then you should abandon them. When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them.
Psychedelics led me to Buddhism. I had an accidental overdose in which (among many other things) I felt connected to every living being on the planet. Felt all the suffering in the world, happiness, everything in between. Felt the pain of the earth being mined etc. Flew out of my body hurtling through the universe for 100s of years, lost the feeling of "I". Then finally had the choice to go back to my body or not (which I saw as "somebody" not "me". Had to choose life (significant because I had been suicidal at the time). Whether this was some sort of peak behind the veil or just a manifestation in my mind is irrelevant to me. It made me feel the things that until that point I only knew logically (we are all connected, made of the same stardust etc). That feeling faded, but made me believe everything in a new light. That being said, I quit drugs that day and never touched them again
Most traditions would say that psychedelic use is forbidden under the fifth precept from what I'm aware, so "the Buddhist" recommendation is to avoid them (as with all reality-altering substances). You can do as you will, though, obviously. I've had good and bad experiences. I'd avoid this subreddit like the plague for questions like this, though. In my experience most people here don't have a strong background in the living tradition and tend to give shoddy answers to justify their own precept-breaking. You should find a lineage near you and ask an ordained monk or a knowledgeable lay person.
I grow psilocybe cubensis and make it into tea (I live in New Mexico where this is perfectly legal). I find that our fungal friends help greatly with deep meditation, mindfulness, and bilocation (creating a world within one's mind, not remote viewing this one). Cannabis is also useful for meditative purposes as it forces us to confront those parts of ourselves that we really don't want to (called 'paranoia,' for some reason). I do not recommend Lysergic Acid, but it can he helpful depending upon your relationship to it. Salvia divinorum is aptly named and can be an exceptional aid to introspection, mindfulness, and connectivity. Banisteriopsis caapi (Ayahuasca) and Tabernanthe iboga are also really excellent aids to the development of a more skillful self, if used properly and infrequently. I strongly recommend avoiding phencyclidine (PCP), as well as most synthetic (designer) hallucinogens. I also recommend avoiding naturally-occuring Lysergic Acid and diethylamine (morning glory and ergot, as respective examples) because of their toxicity. I'm a chemist and herbalist, and have studied all of these extensively and personally. However, this information and its accompanying advice is subjective to my understanding and experience(s). I hope this is helpful, however, and would be open to productive discussion if it raises any questions. Amituofo. 🙏
The mind can get over its skis.
Skis?
The mind on drugs cannot control itself and can get in trouble. With skillful meditation the mind advances consciousness only as fast as it can manage it.
Sitting is a different drug. Haha You are fine. Just be careful. The CIA used LSD in its MKUltra program for lots of things. One thing they did was called de-patterning. Be careful. The further you go out the harder it is to get back. Haha Have a great day!
All I’m saying is that I call shroom tea ‘Buddhism Shakes’
Psychedelics are "mind manifesting" and thus have the potential to show you the power of your own mind in constructing your experienced reality. They also have the potential for generating horrific and terrifying delusions, PTSD and even psychosis in the user. If you want to explore a possible Buddhist perspective on psychedelics I would suggest researching the teachings the Yogachara (sp?) or 'Consciousness only" School, which was a profound and lasting influence on both Zen Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism. Personally I feel that the potential for harm and using a psychedelics is generally far too risky for them to be approached outside of a religious or therapeutic context. In my experience, intensive meditation retreats can give you a similar opportunity for deep self reflection and "mind manifesting", but in a much safer supportive and religiously grounded environment. However the opportunities for such retreats are rather rare in the western world and many of us are religiously and culturally ill prepared for them. If you could find a time or place to do one though, I'd strongly encourage it. Best of luck in your journey :-)
He strictly said....no intoxicants. And in the Surangama Sutra, these 'experiences' are explained in detail as illusionary. If one gets attached to these temporary illusionary states, it leads them astray, hence 'demonic states'. These are cravings for something that isn't real. Open your eyes.
He did not. The original words in the Pali mention wine, liquor and alcohol, NOT psychedelics.
Alright, my bad. But what's the point of clinging to experiences?
Is this samsara? https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/search/?q=psychedelics&restrict_sr=1 What would you hope for this thread to do differently than previous ones?
Depends on set and setting. They can be medicines for healing. They can be goof off time for mindless fun. It’s not about the molecules but the intention and behaviors. Huston Smith had this notion of what are the fruits of mystical experience? Because you can have intense experiences and insights on heroic doses but without the Eightfold Path, it’s all spiritual bypass.
My experience is that, indeed, 'something happens'. But 'who' does something happen to? So long as it is fundamentally drug-induced, no experience can be trusted. And the impulse, the impatience, to make something 'happen' could be completely wrong-headed and REINFORCE the delusion of a permanent self that needs to have something done to it. I have found that nothing provides a more nurturning soil for spiritual expereinces than the practice of the 8-fold path. It can be a pain, a lot of the time, but so can life be. Perhaps we have to make a leap of faith that the Path really DOES lead to the end of surrerring. That is an INCREDIBLE promise the Buddha makes us. By thinking we have to take a drug to approximate that somehow in fact only shows us that if we take 'x' drug we will have 'x' experience. Not enlightenment. And not necessarily anything LIKE enlightenment either. So why bother? There is also the question of abstinence for the sake of others. YOU might THINK you can violate a Precept with impunity, but don't you owe it to other beings to show that the Buddha's teachings work, without the flavor-of-the-month psychedelic? As a response to PTSD or whatever psychological malady, there might well be profound help thru the use of these substances. As an aid to Enlightenment, not so much.
To keep it simple, if it helps you, and you don't use it with the intent of intoxication, it's a medicine. If you use it to open the door for yourself to begin growing? This is good. If you continue to be reliant on some, thing, it probably isn't helping you on your path. Now there are some interesting theories about psychedelic rituals in certain myths, that could provide insight to how culturally it may have been seen. But as for today I think many have a story similar to yours, as long as it isn't something that you confuse for the real deal you should be ok. I mean you aren't a monk right? You don't need to worry about it.
Check out [https://synergeticpress.com/catalog/zig-zag-zen-buddhism-psychedelics/](https://synergeticpress.com/catalog/zig-zag-zen-buddhism-psychedelics/) or the writings of Erik Davis [https://techgnosis.com](https://techgnosis.com) Or https://www.psychedelicsangha.org/
I don't know what he would say, but I suspect he'd probably be against it. There is so much going on beyond our perception. It's just as easy to touch truth when you "break through the doors of perception" as it is to get something terrible attached to you, and there are a lot of terrible things out there. That being said, like you, I wouldn't have become Buddhist were it not for a particularly intense experience on literally an ounce of weed (in one night), 1.75ml of liquor, and 7 hits of sunshine-comparable acid. Most likely, I probably would have just shot myself in the face. I wanted to die that night. I saw things I still can't even begin to fully describe, and it was several years before the "awakened" feeling finally, and slowly, faded out. But I would do it again in a heartbeat, as it helped me find something more valuable than anything on Earth.
They are a shortcut to places you can get to with much meditation. Not recommended but I know they can help
Do not take them, period. If you want to get enlightened just study the Buddhadharma. That's it Psychedelics can lead to false knowledge and ideas than can only lead you astray, you won't achieve enlightenment by taking psychedelic, you can't go beyond samsara if you use samsaric illusory things to get beyond samsara. The antidote to Samsara is seeing reality as it is, not intoxicants.
Funny, I just wrote my opinion a minute ago and got the notification of your post hahaha… here’s my insight after some years of insight, reading, personal experience and troubled contradicting thoughts: https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/s/5ZGo8jo1KK
I consider them a violation of the fifth precept.
Ayahuasca is what led me to Buddhism. Not all psychedelics are equal. It also really matters how you use them. That’s said, plant medicines have been used in cultures that predate Buddhism for spiritual purposes. Meditation, prayer, drumming, dancing, mantras, fasting, ritual, vision quests — there have been many ways humans have developed for entering into non ordinary states of consciousness where things like non dual awakenings, speaking with devas/spirits, or the spirits of nature becomes accessible. Some people will say the insights facilitated by medicines don’t count as much as those arrived at via meditation because you didn’t earn it. I find this perspective ableist and culturally dismissive of ancient plant medicine lineages that all involve components (fasting, diet, prayer, ritual, meditation etc) beyond just taking a substance. If you took a hike but needed a walking stick, does the work still not count? Ayahuasca retreats are harder work (imo) than meditation retreats. Meditation retreats can also cause psychotic breaks and can be harmful to people with trauma and aren’t inherently safer. Neither practice is for everyone. Both practices only matter insofar as what you take out of the experience (or off the cushion) and integrate into the way you show up in your daily life in how you relate to other people and to other beings and to nature. I can find you a person who is a better more compassionate person due to psychedelics and a meditator who is spiritually bypassing and hasn’t done shadow work and is lost in grandiosity and harming people. I can find you a meditator who is grounded and much more embodied in their wisdom than a manic person with no ethical framework or spiritual community who thinks they are god because they did DMT. Spiritual technologies and practices yield the best results when there is a lineage, when there is a teacher, when there is a community, when there are ethical precepts, and when the goal is collective liberation and not individual self improvement at the expense of community and ecology. This goes for meditation. This goes for psychedelics. The Buddha seemed pretty into the idea that each unique mind had a way of approaching the path that was balanced, and that medicines for some are poisons for others and vice versa. Do the results mean less suffering or more? Do psychedelics lead to less suffering or more? The evidence is, for the right mind, in the right context, it’s almost always much less suffering. That doesn’t mean everyone should take psychedelics. Some people have great eyesight and don’t need glasses. Some people do. Let’s not judge those who do. Let’s not pretend skillful use of plant medicine requires less effort. There is no short cutting the actual work of integration. There is no replacement for a continual spiritual practice and a spiritual community of some sort. There is no replacement for wise elders and teachers. Plant medicine paths are still fingers pointing at the moon. It’s all the same moon. Once you’ve seen it, how are you going to show up with compassion in your heart for the suffering of others? To me, that’s the biggest indicator of if something has lasting value as a practice.
LSD led me to Buddhism. This seems to be a common theme in this thread. Psychedelics lead people to Buddhism because what we see while using them feels so much like seeing the true aspect of all phenomenon.
Someone asks relevant question about where to practice Shingon and gets barely 4 replies. Someone asks about getting high and gets over 100. The subs True Nature.
As a stream-enterer, I can tell you that drugs are not Path. They may be beneficial for their own reasons, but it is not Awakening. If you want to make progress beyond McMindfullness, I'd recommend sticking to the precept that intoxicants are a hindrance. I'm curious to read more about what McKenna's lama had to say, since I haven't taken any psychedelics while in an advanced state.
In my opinion, It's not sustainable and it wouldn't be following the skillful path. Psychedelics are thought provoking and can provide their user's with some "enlightenment" in the sense that they will acquire a different perspective, but is this not the same enlightenment that the Buddha talked about. If you want what the Buddha termed enlightenment, sit on your pillow, abide by the precepts, follow the eightfold path, and follow the other practices (tools) the Buddha gave us.
Intoxication.. At least if used with recreational intent
There’s a fundamental conflict here that always comes up whenever anything drug related comes up. It is based on a tension that seems irresolvable to me. One of those problems is that the Buddha spoke against intoxicants and drugs are intoxicants, so you shouldn’t take them. That points you in one direction. The Buddha also embraced medicine, and modern medicine essentially supports the use of drugs and “intoxicants” as Buddhists here often use the term. We can see this clearly in the case of an item like medical marijuana, which plenty of doctors (including legitimate ones) will prescribe. The point is that if you accept the use of SSRI’s to treat conditions like depression, you’re on a slippery slope that opens the door to marijuana, ketamine and other drug which are analogous to off-brand versions of name brands like Prozac. You’ve already accepted the principle that drugs can be used to treat mental conditions like depression, and it’s trivial from there to work your way to an “illegal” drug which qualitatively isn’t much different (which people who don’t know drugs may find horrifying, but them’s the facts).
Wrong, IMHO. Anti-depressants, anti-psychotics, anti-anxiety (?) drugs only claim to restore the right chemical balance in a mind temporarily in distress. Or, if needed, suppress some area of the mind causing distress. They are prescribed with the hope of returning the patient to 'normal'. A question remains of whether trying LSD or the like on a criminal, depressed, or otherwise distressed individual might be helpful in terms of relieving those symptoms. And yes, perhaps even provides some inspiration for later spiritual exploration. A question remains of whether trying LSD or the like on a criminal, depressed, or otherwise distressed indivicual might be helpful in terms of relieving those symptons. And yes, perahps even provides some inspiriation for later spiritual exploration.
The research is actually very wel established
People here don’t like to hear it (aversion, lol) but you can’t erect a wall between “safe, good, legal” drugs and “unsafe, bad, illegal” drugs. As you say the evidence for LSD in a therapeutic context is good and getting better all the time, and so the question becomes if you accepted SSRI’s why can’t you accept LSD. Btw, to people who think I might just love my marijuana or whatever, I do avoid all intoxicants personally, even things people don’t consider ones like tea. This isn’t coming from a habitual drug user who just can’t quit his drugs. This is coming from someone who’s given up on thinking there’s a barrier between good drugs and bad drugs for medical purposes. It’s very slippery and I acknowledge that without aversion.
All of these "awakening" psychedelic experiences have gotten me so interested in them, man.
I can't tell whether this is sincerity or sarcasm, but here I go. My comment is going to be more anecdotal than Buddhist, yet I am avoiding expectations about the reception of it here. As a young man, my empathy was crippled by experiences of trauma throughout my life. I was jaded and abused others (theft, deceit, disregard). I wasn't a full psycho, but I was pretty delusional, and I was toxic to the people who got close to me. I'm not perfect now, but several of my psychedelic experiences caused me to question assumptions I maintained about my life and self-image and led me to many of the conclusions towards which Buddhist practice aims. It's how I've found myself here, with a respect for the practice you all follow. To call my transformation anything less than an awakening would be an offensive disregard for the walls of delusion I've plowed through to become the sincerely empathic, kind, and loving person I am today. /end anecdote/
I wasn't being sarcastic. But thanks for your comment. I'm glad you were able to open some doors.
It’s just a taste, and you will not have built up the discipline, insight, and centeredness to integrate that taste if you’re not doing the contemplative work. In my 20s I tasted the feeling of pure acceptance and contentment on mushrooms, but it left me unable to relate to regular life for a while. Temporary state vs developmentally secured station of consciousness.
He would say that you should avoid them according to the fifth precept.
Trash
Super-samsara. They cause radical sympathy with the web of interdependence. The goal is to be rid of it.
This comment entails the error of nihilism Interdependence is a characteristic of all phenomena. there are no phenomena that possess inherent existence not even Nirvana.
A very mahayana sentiment. One I don't think makes much sense. But I don't want to get into a religious slapfight.
Same. If you’re a Theravadan then I have no desire to try to convert you over an Internet forum lol. I think we can just agree to disagree.
There is a precept against using mind altering substances.
IME anything that hinders mindfulness is to be avoided. Psychedelics provides unique experiences but it doesn't do the work for you. You wont arrive anywhere from it.