• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Drug use in spiritual life?

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Whatever "enlightenment" is supposed to be or do.
or how it is detected, I do not know.

Offered it free and right now, I wont take it.

Although I'd be the last person alive to suggest I myself was enlightened, I have a very strong suspicion that many unenlightened people idealize it. That is, they make much more of it than it is. Which is not to say it's worthless. Nor to say I'm an authority on it.

That's also not to say I think such a thing doesn't exist. When I was 18 or 19, I decided to make one of my life's goals to discover whether or not such a thing was real. I have long since satisfied myself that it is most likely real, but without myself becoming enlightened. There are too many independent lines of evidence that come together to support the notion it's real for me not to take notice. Just as there are too many independent lines of evidence that come together to support the notion of evolution for me not to take notice.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
There are many fraudsters and pseudoscholars however, claiming to be enlightened.

The East especially is full of such. Tukaram is reported to have said: There are many hypocritical saints with long matted hair and their bodies besmeared with ashes. Tukaram says: "Let their dead conscience be burnt; it is no sin to thrash them!"
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Although I'd be the last person alive to suggest I myself was enlightened, I have a very strong suspicion that many people idealize it. That is, they make much more of it than it is. Which is not to say it's worthless. Nor to say I'm an authority on it.

I've sometimes idealized Don Quixote de la Mancha "to dream the impossible dream". My goal has not changed but my perspective has. To me, now, it's much more important to focus on the little day-to-day things. In the words of the song which I'm highlighting in my signature. "Have your eye on the sky, but still see the ants. For the small things are the foundation of all that will last".
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
I've sometimes idealized Don Quixote de la Mancha "to dream the impossible dream". My goal has not changed but my perspective has. To me, now, it's much more important to focus on the little day-to-day things. In the words of the song which I'm highlighting in my signature. "Have your eye on the sky, but still see the ants. For the small things are the foundation of all that will last".

When I speak of "idealizing" enlightenment, I speak of all sorts of things I've heard about it. Things ranging from enlightened people feel no pain to enlightened people know everything. Stuff like that.
 

Earthling

David Henson
You quoted from Vines! :) Obviously you saw him as an authority.

An authority? Hmmm. You mean to say that I'm supposed to believe everything Vine says? Hardly. This isn't college, it's life. I presented some text that explained the Greek word pharmakia. Do you contest it? It doesn't matter to me who said it.

Apparently, you just grab anything without researching it, so long as it supports what you already believe.

Apparently you don't know what you are talking about.

It doesn't matter what the source is. Thanks for pointing that out to everyone here.

You are most certainly welcome.

You don't even remember who it was you just quoted from. :)

Yes I do. Pay attention. :)

It's not all rubbish. Just the error is.

No. Everything. The accurate and the error alike. Just because you subscribe to the one you have faith in doesn't mean it's preserved. It means nothing. Same applies to me.

You are in error. It's good to correct error, to get rid of the dross and keep the pure metal.

Please do. I'm up to my *** in atheist propaganda and opinion. Baseless contradictory positions.

What you are claiming is truth, is the dross that needs to be skimmed off by those searching for truth. Why are you opposed to this?

I'm not. I just have yet to see anything remotely resembling a reasonable rebuttal.

When reason fails, make it personal. Noted.

I'm not getting any reason from you. It is personal. You seem to be doubting what I said about the primitive use of drugs to gain access to the spiritual world as if that is a preposterous idea.


Don't take this personally, but that position seems kind of stupid to me.

You quoted from the OT trying to make a point. Did you forget that?

No, I was pointing out to you, trying to use the term OT, that it was based upon a Latin mistranslation. There is no such thing as an OT or NT.

When they believed it, matters very much to how they understood the world and spoke about it through that lens, and how we should understand what they believed in light of that. Someone who believed the earth was the center of solar system makes claims about nature 3000 years ago, in no way, shape, or form, can be compared as equal to someone who has the use of modern tools of research at their disposal. It makes a night and day difference in the weight of the arguments. You don't see this?

Are you suggesting that the theological concept of Thomas Aquanis and it's influence on the Church was an accurate interpretation of a few scriptures in the Bible that promoted a heliocentric universe? You better not . . . 'cause you would loose that debate pretty quickly. Let it go.

And you think premodern made none??? :) My point is, while it is not perfect today, it is light years better than when we had little to now actual knowledge of things like this. You cannot compare the quality difference between the two. Or do you do this somehow, magically? You think ancient man had access to magical science knowledge?

No.

For instance, Mark 5:1-20. Here we see ancient man supposing that mental illness is caused by evil spirits. There are plenty of other examples of this in scripture, proving these are cultural artifacts, not scientific knowledge.

What are cultural artifacts? Give us an accurate definition of the Biblical terms translated evil and spirits. What, exactly, if anything, do you know about it?

I agree it was written for people back then, which is exactly why we need to let how we understand the world today inform how we read it today. Are you doing that, in denying evolution? I do not believe you are, despite your protestations.

Boy, you're stepping onto some thin ice. You make all of these sort of uninformed suspicions that you can't support and don't even bother to try. You just assume that you are an enlightened dude from the age of reason. I wouldn't be so foolish to exhibit that sort of overconfidence without the total commitment that sets you so easily into a position not unlike a fish at the bottom of a barrel.

That says absolutely nothing about things like meditation practice opens you to the devil.

Who the hell said anything like that?! [Edited for content] Please, people, you need to start reading what I post before you waste my time.
 
Last edited:

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
I have a question about useage of drugs in spiritual communities,
Personally i have never used any form of drugs and personally would never use drugs (i dont jude those who do)

Why do some people seem to think some form of drugs are needed to experience the highest form of bliss in spiritual or religious practice when all that is needed is serious practice of meditation or prayer to gain the same bliss?

Is it because meditation takes longer time to realize and longer time to let go of human attachments?


I find it interesting that you put the question this way. One could just as easily ask "Why do some people seem to think some form of meditation or prayer is needed to gain the highest form of bliss, when all that is needed is to ingest some sort of a drug?"

If you've never ingested a mind altering substance to see what spiritual doors it might open, how can you judge one method to be superior over the other?
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
I find it interesting that you put the question this way. One could just as easily ask "Why do some people seem to think some form of meditation or prayer is needed to gain the highest form of bliss, when all that is needed is to ingest some sort of a drug?"

If you've never ingested a mind altering substance to see what spiritual doors it might open, how can you judge one method to be superior over the other?

As i wrote, i do not judge those who use Drug method, but since i have experienced full bliss from meditation i understand one does not need any substance to gain the bliss.
when i say i have exerienced full bliss does not mean i have reach enlightenment, i have only experienced how it can be if i do reach enlightenment.
 
Last edited:

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
I have a question about useage of drugs in spiritual communities,
Personally i have never used any form of drugs and personally would never use drugs (i dont jude those who do)

Why do some people seem to think some form of drugs are needed to experience the highest form of bliss in spiritual or religious practice when all that is needed is serious practice of meditation or prayer to gain the same bliss?

Is it because meditation takes longer time to realize and longer time to let go of human attachments?

But clearly, some of my skeptic friends are on drugs when they post at RF. Or is that un-clearly? I love when skeptics say, "I don't need JESUS!" just before they logoff to toke. Unreal, people!
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
As i wrote, i do not judge those who use Drug method, but since i have experienced full bliss from meditation i understand one does not need any substance to gain the bliss.
hen i say i have exerienced full bliss does not mean i have reach enlightenment, i have only experienced how it can be if i do reach enlightenment.

I've yet to hear anyone who has used mind altering substances to reach a state of bliss claim that it's the only means of achieving that bliss or who claim that it's impossible to attain such bliss via meditation.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
hen i say i have exerienced full bliss does not mean i have reach enlightenment...

That's a good point that mystical experiences -- such as an experience of "full bliss" -- are distinct from enlightenment and do not necessarily or inevitably lead to enlightenment.
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
That's a good point that mystical experiences -- such as an experience of "full bliss" -- are distinct from enlightenment and do not necessarily or inevitably lead to enlightenment.

To have a experiance in bliss and actually reaching the enlightenment is different in the way that the experience will have an end to it, while being fully enlighten does not end, when one reach that point nobody who are not yet enlighten can explain how it feels or what it actually is.
But the bliss(for me) felt like totall silence and only joyful experience, but no feelings, judgments or other human emotions. it was mosty not possible to explain. But it felt better then life :)
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Andrew Weil once advanced the hypothesis that the effect or impact drugs might have on such things as enlightenment might be linked to the cultural setting in which their use took place. It's been decades since I read Weil, so I'm only going by memory here, but I seem to recall he was of the opinion that -- for instance -- the mere recreational use of a drug like peyote would have a different impact than its use in the context of a Native American ceremony. In other words, the ceremony or culture surrounding the drug's use can help to determine its impact.

So, if Weil is right, it's not entirely the drug itself that is key, but also the context in which it is taken. That might not make sense at first, but consider an analogy.

Having sex with someone releases oxytocin, which is a chemical that can create an emotional bond between sex partners. But it does not inevitably create such a bond. That is, you can have plenty of sex with someone and -- while you are likely to emotionally bond with them due to oxytocin -- it is not inevitable that you will bond with them. Much more than oxytocin is involved in bonding.

Perhaps in the same way, much more than a psychoactive drug is involved in enlightenment. I think that seems very likely. And I also think Weil might be right in that the cultural circumstances surrounding a drug's use could play a role in what impact the drug is likely to have on someone.
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
S
Andrew Weil once advanced the hypothesis that the effect or impact drugs might have on such things as enlightenment might be linked to the cultural setting in which their use took place. It's been decades since I read Weil, so I'm only going by memory here, but I seem to recall he was of the opinion that -- for instance -- the mere recreational use of a drug like peyote would have a different impact than its use in the context of a Native American ceremony. In other words, the ceremony or culture surrounding the drug's use can help to determine its impact.

Since i have no experience my self with spiritual drugs i can only say that a person who i know tried ayahuasca said it was similar to experience an other dimention or other realm with different life forms that was not humans. He describe it as not a enlightenment experience but a view in to other dimentions. But i can be wrong here.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
But clearly, some of my skeptic friends are on drugs when they post at RF. Or is that un-clearly? I love when skeptics say, "I don't need JESUS!" just before they logoff to toke. Unreal, people!

Are you suggesting that people use marijuana because they don't have Jesus in their lives?
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
That reduces spirituality to the brain and further to various chemicals present in the brain.
I don't see it that way at all. A reductionist would see that all spiritual experience is "in the brain", as its cause or source. I on the other hand see a material correlate to every experience. That certain chemicals in the brain have a certain effect as part of a certain experience, does not mean the experience can be reduced to the chemical! That's like saying love is just your endorphins.

I see these Enlightenment experiences, of which I have experienced this, to be what happens during death, or some "near death experience". The Amygdala shunts and there is the experience of bliss and oneness. That does not mean that what is experienced is not real. But our experiences during it do have a material correlate, since we are in this body after all. Only those who are quick to disprove the primitive mythologies about God as invalid scientifically, call these experiences "not real" because there is a reaction in the brain. They conveniently forgot that means their experience of love would be "not real" either. Try telling that to their spouse, and see how far that gets them.

My personal experience with such drugs and otherwise is that there is a world of difference between the drug state and putting love into action.
That is exactly the same thing about any state brought about by things like meditation, exercise, yoga, tai chi, chi gong, Transformation is about integration, not about states. States open us to something "higher" than what we normally experience. But in every case, it takes someone's willingness to put it into action that matters. Having state experiences is easy. Being Enlightened however takes full surrender. It takes an act of the will, not meditation, or drugs, or dancing, or chanting. Those are just tools, all of them.

At a minimum, that demonstrates that drugs are not a shortcut to anything except experiences which are not continuous.
Agreed. I once read a story in some book where the young monk proudly said to his master, "I practice mediation all day, every day!" To which the master replied, "That's wonderful. Soon you will be able to meditate and not need to practice doing it." That's the same thing. Transformation is not a state experience. But state experiences can help lead to transformation. Practice becomes actual experience.

Besides the wise words of Meher Baba on drugs quoted above, the story of Ram Dass and his guru is instructive.

At the end of an hour it was obvious nothing had happened. His reactions had been a total put-on. And then he asked, “Have you got anything stronger?” I didn’t. Then he said, “These medicines were used in Kullu Valley long ago. But yogis have lost that knowledge. They were used with fasting. Nobody knows now. To take them with no effect, your mind must be firmly fixed on God. Others would be afraid to take. Many saints would not take this.” And he left it at that.
As a note to this interesting story, just merely taking some drug like that, or even just smoking pot for instance, if it is not done with the intention to use it to reach beyond into higher states of conscious awareness, it's just a distraction, an entertainment of sorts. But when combined with some form of spiritual practice, it can act as an "assist", sort of like jumpstarting the engine. It doesn't engage the clutch and the transmission by itself. That has to be the act of the driver in the seat. If used in the proper context, with proper intent, then it can aid and assist, not "produce it".
 

Segev Moran

Well-Known Member
I have a question about useage of drugs in spiritual communities,
Personally i have never used any form of drugs
Well done! although probably not true :)
and personally would never use drugs
I wouldn't make such a statement :) we use drugs on a daily basis, i think that 99.99% of the population use sorts of drugs, but i guess when you say drugs you mean the non conservative drugs.
(i dont jude those who do)
Good. you shouldn't, especially if you never used them!
Why do some people seem to think some form of drugs are needed to experience the highest form of bliss in spiritual or religious practice when all that is needed is serious practice of meditation or prayer to gain the same bliss?
The short answer is because it is much much easier!
Is it because meditation takes longer time to realize and longer time to let go of human attachments?
No.
Its because its instant and easy.
Drugs, unfortunately, make a person think he feels amazing.
There is a whole study dedicated to the relation between drugs and spiritual experiences.
Drugs were used in many ancient religious ceremonies and still are today.
There is a biological and mental reason for this.
Drugs usually change the way your brain operates.
At times depending on the type of drug and the dose you use, they can "numb" the logical part of the brain allowing the more creative and imaginative parts to be the dominant one. this is part of the reason many artists can perform amazingly while using drugs.

As drugs cause you to become more "creative and imaginative" (which, btw, comes at a cost [yes! even weed!] as your brain slowly learns that the more logical part is more stressed when you are "sober" [the effect of-course is different to people, some think it is harmless]) it is much easier to "accept" spiritual ideas and literally feel more enlightened, more "one with the surroundings", more "spiritual".


This is a movie that discusses one of the studies that were made using LSD drug. (DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME!!! ;))
 
Last edited by a moderator:

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
When I speak of "idealizing" enlightenment, I speak of all sorts of things I've heard about it. Things ranging from enlightened people feel no pain to enlightened people know everything. Stuff like that.
I could draw an analogy to a time when the brain was not developed enough to comprehend logic. Then a few had it and started talking about how wonderful logic truly is. People with logic see all sorts of connections between things that seemed like magic before. They can understand how something could be true or false just by using their minds. "Stuff like that" :D
 
Top