Not like Timothy Leary, if that's what you're thinking. — praxis

Leary was a rascal, but Ram Dass is a different matter.

But, what was distinctive and culturally significant about the psychedelic movement (or is that 'moment'), was the idea of 'awakening to reality' (notwithstanding that many will say it was the opposite of what actually was going on). But you wouldn't hear that kind of talk in a 'religious' setting. That is why I think the movement (and indeed Mahayana and Tantric Buddhism generally), were much more gnostic in their attitude; and why they're only marginally connected with 'religion' in the usual or mainstream sense. But unfortunately, the mainstream dialogue around this question is so inextricably bound up with ideas about religion that this becomes yet another source of misunderstanding. Whereas, the whole idea behind The Matrix was essentially gnostic, right down to the characters names. (It's just that it was so darn ham-fisted.)

I hope you aren't a pharmacist. — Akanthinos

Your wish is granted. :-)

What about chaos? I always felt that the desire to alter ones mind and hallucinate meant dissolving the percieved order/chain of progression of events/"reason"/boundaries in the universe...

Just some random rambling.

I don't know. I might be professing my own ignorance about Buddhist thought; but, it seems to me that it is all about perfect control through sheer awareness. Drugs and the resulting induced psychotic states seem like an anathema to this goal of Buddhist philosophy.

To put it in scientific or pragmatic terms, Buddhists and psychedelic mystics both share at least one particular goal, which is to deactivate the neural 'default mode network'. Among other things, this network appears to be primarily responsible for our sense of self, including our personal narratives and conditioned responses. Also, when this network is subdued, the divide between the conscious and sub-conscious becomes somewhat blurred. The overall effect is "depatterning" or entropic and leaves the mind very susceptible to suggestion. This is the basic reason that unguided psychedelic trips are ill-advised, and why the same is true for Buddhist meditation practices. Although it would require a great deal of effort in the latter case to equal the power of psychedelics. It's practically effortless to eat some mushrooms, for instance.

It seems kind of counterintuitive but this depatterning can help to treat many psychological disorders because many of these disorders are essentially caused by too much order. In both anxiety disorders and depression, sufferers are locked into 'patterns' of rumination and conditioned responses. Breaking up these patterns, and taking careful advantage of the suggestibility of these states, seems to be an effective treatment.

I might be professing my own ignorance about Buddhist thought; but, it seems to me that it is all about perfect control through sheer awareness. — Posty McPostface

I've had the thought that organized religion or organized society in general, is at least somewhat at odds with 'depatterning'. Nixon said that Timothy Leary was the most dangerous man in America. He wasn't, but unfortunately for him, he was treated as such for the rest of his life.

Drugs and the resulting induced psychotic states seem like an anathema to this goal of Buddhist philosophy. — Posty McPostface

That's a good thing to believe and I wouldn't want to say anything to encourage illicit drug use. (I should add that at the time that I had such experiences the agents were still legal - looong time ago.) My comments were made in the context of the discussion of the symbolism of The Matrix and the connection between 'altered states' and hallucinogens.

The overall effect is "depatterning" or entropic and leaves the mind very susceptible to suggestion. — praxis

Generally agree, but it's rather a deflationary way of putting it. The way I understood it at the time, was that the meaning of the such experiences was in seeing through cultural conditioning - hence 'the Red Pill' analogy. As I understood it back then, most people ('straights') were acting out a program that they had been conditioned into. Being 'cool' was about seeing through that; to be 'hip' was to have inside knowledge, to see 'how it really is' as distinct from how you were told it was. So it was more a matter of seeing through the power of suggestion.

And don't forget, at least SOME of the hippies really did go on to 'put a dent in the Universe', as one of the most famous was to put it:

I think taking both pills is the same as taking no pill's you have just preserved the 'evil' that is contained in the notion of taking.

M

Praxis

" Although it would require a great deal of effort in the latter case to equal the power of psychedelics. It's practically effortless to eat some mushrooms, for instance."

YES! A cow can graze, only a disciplined mind can meditate.

"It seems kind of counterintuitive but this depatterning can help to treat many psychological disorders because many of these disorders are essentially caused by too much order. In both anxiety disorders and depression, sufferers are locked into 'patterns' of rumination and conditioned responses. Breaking up these patterns, and taking careful advantage of the suggestibility of these states, seems to be an effective treatment."

That is a very profound and insightful comment. Have you considered expanding it into a paper? Very little progress has been made in treating these mind states and you have hit on something essential to a more meaningful understanding of the notion of therapy.

M

"You seem to promote the virtues of both pills in the same breath. That a Masterwork matrix will someday be developed, representing the blue pill. And the dissolution of self, represented by the red pill."

What I am suggesting is that formal Philosophical solution to the dilema of the pills, lies outside of the simplistic notion of the self serving consumption of either pill. The pills represent two states, I am suggesting that Philosophy points to the existence of a third higher order state, that has yet to be formally described, within the context of a synthesis of established Philosophical principles.

M

I am suggesting that Philosophy points to the existence of a third higher order state, that has yet to be formally described, — Marcus de Brun

And which, we are continually assured, only His Excellency Professor de Brun has any comprehension of, whilst us hoi polloi writhe about in various stages of delusion.

W

I've had the thought that organized religion or organized society in general, is at least somewhat at odds with 'depatterning'. Nixon said that Timothy Leary was the most dangerous man in America. He wasn't, but unfortunately for him, he was treated as such for the rest of his life. — praxis

I feel as though, "organized" is being used here ambiguously or pejoratively. I wonder what does Buddhism think about the chaos, disorder, and irrationality present in the world, and how to remedy it? Through more order?

Thank you Wayfarer

I am flattered by the compliment. However: compliments, platitudes (or otherwise) do tend to expose a supremacy of personal ego above, thought that is validated by logic. This does seem to be a bit of tempting a cul de sac, and on occasion a pathology that ultimately deposes an initially 'sound' Philosophy.

The question is one of pills the 'delusion pill' or the 'misery pill', my point is that we may not really have a choice between pills but we may have a third option which is to take both or neither (essentially the same thing), and when we do so, we might move beyond the 'hoi polloi and various stages of delusion'.

The important thing here is not to dispel the 'devil' of the the choice, but rather as Zizek asserts, to make the devil work for us.

M

In the movie the Matrix, a character faces a choice between continuing to be miserable in the domain of the real, or giving up reality for wealth and power in a dreamworld. — frank

This makes me think of a solipsistic god who is forever alone. To have such a big mind and no one to bounce ideas off might be unexciting, even perhaps limiting to that god. That’s the metaphor I think of when I read this, a god who is alone and limited to himself in reality, while in a dream he can (seemingly)affect others and enjoy a (seemingly) shared reality with ‘others’ like himself. To a solipsistic god, “ignorance” might just be bliss. Also, it might not.

That is a very profound and insightful comment. Have you considered expanding it into a paper? Very little progress has been made in treating these mind states and you have hit on something essential to a more meaningful understanding of the notion of therapy. — Marcus de Brun

I mentioned earlier in the discussion that I just finished reading a book that explores the topic. The subject is fascinating and I highly recommend: How to Change Your Mind

I feel as though, "organized" is being used here ambiguously or pejoratively. I wonder what does Buddhism think about the chaos, disorder, and irrationality present in the world, and how to remedy it? Through more order? — Posty McPostface

@wayfarer could address this better.

Too much order, or rather a hyperactive default mode network (See), can lead to host of psychological issues and causes a lot of suffering in the world. Ultimately the Buddhist position claims that the remedy is to abandon or transcend it all, but more practically that there's a 'middle way', not too much order or too much chaos.

It really shows the limitations and truth of the representational theory of mind. — Posty McPostface

I think we are coming from quite different assumptions: I am no fan of representational theories of mind. In any case It's not clear whether you want to say that the limitations or the truth of the representational theory of mind (is there only one?) is shown.

(I should add that at the time that I had such experiences the agents were still legal - looong time ago.) — Wayfarer

What year were you taking hallucinogens? They were illegal in Australia (and most of the rest of the world from the information I can find) shortly after they were made illegal in the US in 1967. I'm not sure of the exact date, but they were certainly well and truly illegal when I first began taking LSD in 1970 at the age of 17.

Late sixties. I had the idea that it was not declared illegal in AU until the early seventies, but I could be mistaken.

Did you guys see anything particularly interesting while down the rabbit hole? @Wayfarer @Janus @AnyoneElse

I wonder what does Buddhism think about the chaos, disorder, and irrationality present in the world, and how to remedy it? Through more order? — Posty McPostface

Buddhism obviously doesn’t condone intoxicant use, which is against the precepts. But recall that Buddhism began as one of the ‘forest-dwelling’ religions. The symbolic meaning of ‘the forest’ is renunciation of social mores and structures. It doesn’t mean relapsing into atavism, as Buddhism obviously places huge emphasis on demeanour and behaviour - the Vinaya [monastic] Code comprises more than two hundred and fifty rules, and monastic Buddhism is [as you say] highly disciplined. But renunciation means not conforming to ‘the ways of the world’ - the demands of profession, caste, family, and social structure. Buddhists are sometimes described as ‘going against the current’.

I recall one of Freud’s essays ‘Civilization and its Discontents’ - the Buddha dealt with such discontents by stepping out of the civil order, into an order of a different kind [although one which I think Freud himself had no inkling of, being wedded to scientific materialism]. So the parallel with The Matrix, is that from the perspective of the Buddha, the domain which us ‘worldlings’ [‘puthujjana’] belong to, is an illusory world, from his perspective [which is incidentally a perspective we hardly have an inkling of ourselves.] That is why the traditional iconography of the ‘bhavachakra’ [the Wheel of Life] depicts the Buddha [and bodhisattvas] as altogether outside the ‘six realms’, floating ‘outside the circle’ [although some also depict him within each of the six realms as well, in miniature, signifiying ‘transcendent yet immanent’ - something I learned on DharmaWheel].

anything particularly interesting... — praxis

The meaningful legacy for me was the commitment to the spiritual path.

So you don't remember what year you first took hallucinogens? I could never forget my first experience, including when it occurred and how old I was. If for you it was, say, 1968, you would have been fifteen, no? That would be very young to start messing with a still-developing mind! Even 17 was probably a little too young, I would say. I couldn't find clear information as to when Australia declared those drugs illegal, but apparently it was "very soon" after the US did so in 1967 (or 1966 according to another source). I would guess that they were illegal by 1968 at the latest.

Way too much to attempt to describe here!

As you might be able to glean from my comments, I am loathe to say anything on a public forum which could be construed as advice or encouragement to consume banned substances. But in my case, at least for some of the time, they weren’t illegal, and I haven’t done that again since around that time.

We are all adults here. All I'm asking is how old you were when you first took them. Since you have several times on these forums declared that you were born in 1953 (as was I) we already know that in the "late sixties, you could have been no older that 16. Answering the question would in no way be construed as encouragement for anyone else to indulge in hallucinogens. It might even provide a cautionary tale. :wink:

Must have been late 60's or possibly 1970-72, I have the idea that that last time was around 1975-6. After that, I decided that 'the only way out is through'.

I've been working towards a transcendent experience, with increasing diligence of late, with meditation and other natural means (not that substances in something like mushrooms are unnatural). I wouldn't go out of my way to try psychedelics, but if the opportunity presented itself... I'd probably try it.

But in my case, at least for some of the time, they weren’t illegal, — Wayfarer

From the information I have about the legal status of psychotropics in Australia, I can only conclude that you must have started in late '67 or early '68 at the latest, if they were indeed still legal, then. Given that you would have been 14, 15 or at the most 16 at the time; I think the more likely explanation is that you started later than that, and are mistaken about the legality of the drugs you were taking at that time.

Anyway, it's not a problem. I have no problem admitting that I have taken, and perhaps even will in the future take, "illegal substances". I don't believe governments have any business telling us what drugs we may and may not consume; when the legal drugs alcohol and nicotine, arguably cause by far the greatest social harms.

I took hallucinogens intensively (about once or twice a week) 1970-1971 and into early 1972. Suddenly I just stopped; I knew it was enough. I took them a few isolated times over the years until I experimented with them again (not very intensively, though; only about once every couple months) from 2002 through 2005. A few times since then, MDMA only.

If you are going to experience hallucinogens then you should be very physically and emotionally healthy, abstain from alcohol and other stimulants, do it in the presence of a 'minder' who is not themselves partaking, be very confident of the sources of what you are taking, choose the right setting with people you are very familiar and comfortable with, and so on. In other words the experience should be treated with great respect, diligent preparation, physical and mental/emotional, and even a sense of reverence.

The importance of "set and setting," a competent guide, intention, etc., is all covered in Pollan's book, in rather extensive detail. There seems to be a lot of variables to carefully consider, not the least of which whatever may be lurking in the subconscious that may come to the surface.

Another important piece of advice is to be open and receptive to whatever happens. If a door presents itself, go through it. If something terrifying appears, go towards it.

Well, it was pretty early for me. OK, maybe it wasn't still legal but it was around the late sixties - early 70's. As I said from the outset it was about breaking through to a different perspective. (Actually one of the better books I read on it, around the late eighties, was Storming Heaven by Jay Stevens.)

I think a natural alternative to break out or through your sense of conditioned normality is through 'the ordeal'. Intensive meditation retreats are ordeals through which break-out experiences occur. I did one 10-day Vipassana retreat in 2007. That was an ordeal. It's amazing that so many people are willing to turn up and undergo it. Nobody says that it's an ordeal, but it is. I think that is behind the idea of 'askesis', which is training for those kinds of experiences (not 'harsh asceticism'.)

I have to constantly work not to fall back into middle-aged, middle-class torpor. Coming to think of it, much harder than I'm currently working. :sad:

I couldn't handle the experience. In some ways it was an inverted experience for me. Namely, that stability and sanity became more important for me. I became more drawn towards order and conformity...