Sadhguru disapproves of psychedelics

[Lento]

12 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

I wrote that we can create destinations. I did not say there is an inherent destination. 

Right, but I guess the freedom of choice does not make a destination any less egoic. And I'm not demonising the ego here. I'm just trying to create awareness of it. As far as I know, everything about psychedelics says destination. Just the fact that we can call it "a tool for increasing consciousness/inducing enlightenment" proves that by definition, because a tool is an egoic construct.

Anyway, I agree. There may exist some ways to make use of psychedelics in a healthy helpful healing manner. BUT, the truth is not what you "experience" on psychedelics. If anything, promoting psychedelics is itself a step away from the truth. "Do +50 trips to experience God" as if we're not already experiencing it. It's like creating a statue for God to worship. The same mistake (or rather problem) that religion is dealing with. In pointing at God, people lose sight of God, and they end up deluding themselves and chasing false gods. We certainly don't need that. People already worship meditation and the Buddha statue and all the means to liberation instead of being liberated.

Edited February 28, 2020 by Lento

[Forestluv]

56 minutes ago, Lento said:

Right, but I guess the freedom of choice does not make a destination any less egoic. And I'm not demonising the ego here. I'm just trying to create awareness of it. As far as I know, everything about psychedelics says destination. Just the fact that we can call it "a tool for increasing consciousness/inducing enlightenment" proves that by definition, because a tool is an egoic construct.

Anyway, I agree. There may exist some ways to make use of psychedelics in a healthy helpful healing manner. BUT, the truth is not what you realise on psychedelics. If anything, promoting psychedelics is itself a step away from the truth. "Do +50 trips to experience God" as if we're not already experiencing it. It's like creating a statue for God to worship. The same mistake (or rather problem) that religion is dealing with. In pointing at God, people lose sight of God, and they end up deluding themselves and chasing false gods. We certainly don't need that. People already worship meditation and the Buddha statue and all the means to liberation instead of being liberated.

That's fine and I'm not arguing against it. Yet it is a contracted human construct. Why does your "sober" mind get to create the narrative? Why does your "sober" mind carry more relevance?

Your "sober" mind is creating constructs of: freedom of choice, destinations, egos, awareness, psychedelics, tools, truth, god, false gods, what we need and don't need, meditation, liberation etc. 

It's extremely difficult for a human mind to transcend the constructs it itself is creating. Of course the human mind may contextualize trips - those can be helpful insights and have practical value. This is why direct experience is so important. All the reports and contextualizations of psychedelic trips are just that - contextualizations of a human mind. I would not have been able to imagine the direct experience of psychedelics. What I've read about other people's experience of psychedelics is less that 0.0000000001% of my understanding of psychedelics. 99.9999999999% of my understanding is direct experience of extensive psychedelics experience. Yet someone without psychedelic experience will need to rely on other people's accounts of psychedelics. This is so minuscule compared to the direct experience that it can't even be compared. 

It would be like me asking you to describe "hafligen". The trick is that everything you've read about hafligen is not hafligen. Now describe it to me. You wouldn't be able to. . . 

56 minutes ago, Lento said:

BUT, the truth is not what you realise on psychedelics. If anything, promoting psychedelics is itself a step away from the truth. 

The mind trying to control the internal narrative. . . 

[Lento]

2 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

Your "sober" mind is creating constructs of: freedom of choice, destinations, egos, awareness, psychedelics, tools, truth, god, false gods, what we need and don't need, meditation, liberation etc.

Now, you're probably projecting. The constructs I use are pointers. I don't attach any truth to them.

Likewise, I could use the same objection to debunk everything you may say. It's a dead-end discussion to call everything a mind construct, because it is a necessity for language. For example, you are creating the construct that there is a mind which can be sober or not, and that my "sober" mind is creating constructs while yours is/isn't. You can already see how pointless would that objection be.

2 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

Yet it is a contracted human construct. Why does your "sober" mind get to create the narrative? Why does your "sober" mind carry more relevance?

I'll tell you why; because you are talking to me in my sober state 'right now' in your sober state too.

There would be no discussion if either of us was high on drugs, because there the narrative would be irrelevant, and there would be a disconnection. Here (I mean the sober state), the narrative matters a lot because we both have desires that we project out onto the world. We are discussing here to align our desires together, to connect, to find a common ground, and not to shit on each other's views. That's why the sober narrative has more relevance, because we share it. It's not a fantasy world that each one inhabits alone.

If you don't want to live in this contracted and shared human world, you can try to continue inhabiting your imaginary open world, I don't have any problems with that.

2 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

It would be like me asking you to describe "hafligen". The trick is that everything you've read about hafligen is not hafligen. Now describe it to me. You wouldn't be able to. . .

I wouldn't even be responding to your request in the first place. I'd just say that your mind is creating a construct of "hafligen", which is the equivalent of saying that you're hallucinating irrelevant stuff.

Edited February 27, 2020 by Lento

[Lento]

2 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

It's extremely difficult for a human mind to transcend the constructs it itself is creating. Of course the human mind may contextualize trips - those can be helpful insights and have practical value. This is why direct experience is so important. All the reports and contextualizations of psychedelic trips are just that - contextualizations of a human mind. I would not have been able to imagine the direct experience of psychedelics. What I've read about other people's experience of psychedelics is less that 0.0000000001% of my understanding of psychedelics. 99.9999999999% of my understanding is direct experience of extensive psychedelics experience. Yet someone without psychedelic experience will need to rely on other people's accounts of psychedelics. This is so minuscule compared to the direct experience that it can't even be compared.

Oh boy! This is a can of worms for delusion. I left a whole post for this reply because I need to break it down..

2 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

It's extremely difficult for a human mind to transcend the constructs it itself is creating.

It sure is. Better double-check.

2 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

Of course the human mind may contextualize trips - those can be helpful insights and have practical value. This is why direct experience is so important.

This point does not hold water. It's like claiming that wisdom is useless unless you derive it directly for yourself. The practical value of an insight derived from psychedelics may possibly be more effective for someone who hasn't even used them. It may simply be even more effective for them than those who derived it directly.

We can actually avoid the traps that others have spotted without having to fall into each one of them individually and in person. The direct experience mindset leaves a little room for learning through others because there's not enough time to directly experience everything. We don't need a direct experience of everything in the world for us to learn some practical value.

2 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

I would not have been able to imagine the direct experience of psychedelics.

Yet, psychedelics reveal that you could have been. Talk about hypocrisy. If everything is imaginary, then why do you not believe that it's possible?

2 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

What I've read about other people's experience of psychedelics is less that 0.0000000001% of my understanding of psychedelics. 99.9999999999% of my understanding is direct experience of extensive psychedelics experience. Yet someone without psychedelic experience will need to rely on other people's accounts of psychedelics. This is so minuscule compared to the direct experience that it can't even be compared. 

I truly believe that you are not exaggerating with the numbers. However, that does make psychedelics anymore reliable or truthful. Different frequency insights don't necessarily apply to our ordinary range of frequencies.

Edited February 27, 2020 by Lento

[Derek White]

I made a post about this. You should really use the search function before posting a new thread. He does agree they can lead to enlightenment. 
 

On 2020-02-16 at 3:32 PM, Derek White said:

@4201 Sadhguru is a bit of a hypocrite and not being transparent on this topic. Probably due to social reasons. There is a video of him drinking cobra venom...

In one article he says, “Consumption of mercury is very much a part of yogic practice”, and “In the South, we have temples where the idol is made of nine deadly poisons. They are called navapashanas. A cocktail of poisons together become very healing and medicinal in nature. It is a very deep science of how to convert visha into amrita – of making a cocktail of poisons, which would instantly kill you, but instead it nourishes you. People consume the water that runs off these idols and it is very healing. But slowly the deity wears out. Generally their lifespan could be anywhere between hundred and fifty to two hundred years depending upon the size. Slowly they lose their shape and form because every day as water falls on it, it wears out and people are drinking it up, taking the Divine in.”

This is the article: https://isha.sadhguru.org/ca/en/sadhguru/mystic/rasa-vaidya

It is very common to see yogis in India smoke marijuana or any other drug. Drugs are used in many Indian traditions. There was a video where Sadhguru was talking about how he can give people a drink that could enlighten them or kill them (upon dying they would be enlightened), but I can’t find it now. Regardless, the use “Amrit” or “Amrita” for spirituality is well known in India which Sadhguru agrees. So if we can use mercury,  nine-poisons, lingams, and occult practice, why can’t we use other chemicals?

Here are some other articles by him: https://isha.sadhguru.org/ca/en/wisdom/article/ayahuasca-parasitic-purging (On ayahuasca)

https://isha.sadhguru.org/ca/en/wisdom/article/drugs-and-the-spiritual-path-possibility-or-pitfall (In this one he clearly says it is a possibility to use drugs to awaken)

”So drugs are the lowest possibility, but still a possibility.” - Sadhguru

In short, he is mostly talking about recreational drug use. He is very tight lipped about using them for awakening.

 

[Kensho]

4 hours ago, Lento said:

BUT, the truth is not what you realise on psychedelics. If anything, promoting psychedelics is itself a step away from the truth. 

Oh really? And how do you know that? How are you so sure about this?  

Most people when taking psychedelic report that what they experienced felt more true than this reality (including me). Of course you can say that it's a common delusion the chemicals produce. Ok. If you are so sure, do it some times and then come and tell us that everybody is wrong. 

About what is Truth or not, the eastern tradition talks about Maya. Also Plato pointed this out brilliantly with the allegory of the cave. 

Things may be very different that you imagine. That is why you are in here, and is saw you wrote that you want to experience psychedlics. Good. Till then, it would be beneficial for you if you were less assertive in your logical explanations and your reasoning about things you are ignorant about.  

[Forestluv]

@Lento I’m not saying you are wrong. From a certain perspective, you are correct. I’m saying you are missing something. If this doesn’t resinate with you, free to internally debate or dismiss it if you like. 

Take away everything you have read, heard, and thought about psychedelics. How much do you know? . . . Zero. . . Everything you are reading and thinking about psychedelics aint it - but that's all you've got because you don't have any direct experience. You can create as many stories you want about psychedelics and it will get you zero steps closer to direct experience understanding. You are contracted without the direct experience, yet you are not aware of this contraction because you lack the direct experience. 

5 hours ago, Lento said:

I'll tell you why; because you are talking to me in my sober state 'right now' in your sober state too.

I'm not talking about our conversation. I'm talking about the internal narrative in your mind. This has nothing to do with me or anyone else. It has to do with wanting to control the inner dialog in one’s own mind. To me, it appears there are levels of surrender you are not aware of.

With zero trips and zero direct experience, opinions about the existential limitations of psychedelics don’t carry a lot of weight. 

Again, you are free to dismiss all this as my delusion. From a perspective it is. 

 

[Forestluv]

6 hours ago, bejapuskas said:

@Serotoninluv  What do you think of the New Agey critique of psychedelics „fucking up your energies“?

Ime, psychedelics alters energetic systems. At the human level, I think we should be careful not to overtax the mind and body. There is only so much the mind and body can handle (yet it can handle a lot).  I've had trips that altered my energetics such that I needed to take a break for months to acclimate. 

[mandyjw]

If a teacher who used psychedelics to awaken then helps guide a student to awaken without the use psychedelics, did the student awaken with the use of psychedelics, or without them? 

Edited February 28, 2020 by mandyjw

[Raptorsin7]

@mandyjw With them. Everything is part of the causal chain. The psychedelics preceded the student's awakening. 

1. Psychidelics

2. Pyschidelics+Teacher

3. Student + Teacher+ Psychidelics

[Lento]

@Serotoninluv

Until I see you moving mountains with your sheer will and imagination, you're just a human being with quite an imagination.

Perhaps you like to privilege direct experience over intuition because you have direct experience and lack the intuition. But let's talk about results (destination).. What's the difference between you and me in practice? Do you move mountains after breakfast and I don't? What would the direct experience tell me that I don't already know? You'd say that it's the "hafligen", but again, I don't need to experience this "hafligen" because I have the truth which includes it. This is like saying that I have to experience the numerical infinity in order to prove it. Well, I don't, because I can intuit it. This "hafligen" experience is just one number out of infinity. It's like discovering the number π and getting stuck on it, amazed at how it never ends, and confuse it for the actual infinity of numbers which can be realised in every single moment without drugs, and it can also be symbolised from a direct experience of psychedelics. So, this problem does not go away with direct experience. The mind can symbolise, worship, or cling to anything including direct experience. In reality, direct experience does not mean shit (except for the mind, of course).

In this case, it would me more appropriate to recommend psychedelics for a highly rational person. In this case, psychedelics aren't necessary for pre-rational and post-rational people who can intuit things and connect the dots easily. If someone believes that psychedelics offer a lot, then chances are they are highly rational. For example; direct experience of psychedelics (x) is necessary for (y) to occur.

And then of course we have the argument that if you've gone on a trip, then you've probably missed something else that I, who haven't gone with you, haven't missed. In this case, I will have more relevance to here and now than you do. My sober narrative will be more connected to the present moment than your psychedelic narrative. In this case, Sadhguru's narrative has way more relevance than Leo's for example.

Edited February 28, 2020 by Lento

[Lento]

5 hours ago, mandyjw said:

If a teacher who used psychedelics to awaken then helps guide a student to awaken without the use psychedelics, did the student awaken with the use of psychedelics, or without them? 

From a pre-rational/post-rational perspective, this is a nonsensical question. However, a rational mind would gladly take a shot and answer.

[karkaore]

@Lento Psychs or not, it's about what goes for You. I didn't see anyone insisting that the use of them is somehow better than any other techniques or that it will "achieve" anything. Feeling is the key word here. However, I feel that You have a dogma towards psychs. If You aren't willing to try them, that's completely fine. But keep in mind that without direct experience You do not have any say regarding the substances. All it is is just concepts.

[tsuki]

I was under the impression that Sadhguru does not disapprove of psychedelics in themselves, but rather of addiction (reliance on external substances). He is marketing his own method this way, which is supposedly free of such reliance.

Edited February 28, 2020 by tsuki

[Lento]

25 minutes ago, karkaore said:

@Lento I feel that You have a dogma towards psychs. If You aren't willing to try them

I have opinions, yes. But I am willing to try them whenever possible just for the sake of exploration. I just don't expect them to add much for me than I already have, and that's based on my observations of others. I don't see anyone doing magic with them, I only see people hallucinating magic. People seem to be exaggerating insights that I'm already aware of in my baseline level of awareness. Psychedelics seem to make them more dramatic.

25 minutes ago, karkaore said:

@Lento keep in mind that without direct experience You do not have any say regarding the substances. All it is is just concepts.

I'm sorry, but this is bullshit. Psychedelics supposedly remove the distinction between concept and direct experience. Why do you get to create the distinction wherever you want? Why can't I remove it too? For me, I am free to draw or remove the distinction wherever I want. This does not seem to be the case for the psychedelic guys. I am wary of the obsession with 'direct experience' that is accompanied with the use of psychedelics.

Pushing your awareness to places where it's not ready for yet is going to cause problems. It's very apparent to me how people are misinterpreting their experiences. Higher awareness requires higher levels of maturity for proper understanding. Psychedelics won't suddenly make you a more elevated person, although they may fool you into believing so. Without enough maturity, people confuse the map for the territory, and the finger for the moon.

Edited February 28, 2020 by Lento

[Forestluv]

@Lento To me, you have little understanding of psychedelics. You seem to have created a structure and want to maintain that structure. That's fine, yet it tends to produce a dynamic of debate in which "I'm right" and "You're wrong". This doesn't allow openness, space and curiosity for exploration and expansion. 

If you would like to deepen your understanding of psychedelics, I think a great way is to try them. Yet not everyone is curious about deepening their understanding in this area - and that's fine. To each their own.

These are just observations based on my experience and current level of understanding. If this doesn't resonate with you and is unhelpful, feel free to dismiss it.  

[Lento]

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

@Lento To me, you have little understanding of psychedelics. You seem to have created a structure and want to maintain that structure. That's fine, yet it tends to produce a dynamic of debate in which "I'm right" and "You're wrong". This doesn't allow openness, space and curiosity for exploration and expansion.

You are wrong about me. It's not your job to evaluate my understanding, openness, or willingness to expand. Please focus on the discussion or let it go. The discussion is not about me. It's about my opinions on psychedelics. If you have anything else to say besides "direct experience", then be my guest. If you don't, then you're just repeating yourself. You probably know that direct experience is not the only way for understanding reality.

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

@Lento 

These are just observations based on my experience and current level of understanding. If this doesn't resonate with you and is unhelpful, feel free to dismiss it.  

These are just assumptions projected onto me. I will gladly dismiss them.

[karkaore]

@Lento We are not enemies here, dude. Every path is the right path.

However, you are wrong saying that direct experience isn't the only way of understanding reality. Your concept of "understanding" is wrong. You do not know how strong the mind is. It's literally God. ?

[Arzack]

Say Sadhguru said psychedelics are good. Most of his adience would just start using recreational drugs. So even if he knew that only few psychedelics used in a specific way (high/breakthrough doses or no party) give you nirvana, it would still be more compassionate for him to give the exact answer he gave there.

[Forestluv]

2 hours ago, Lento said:

It's about my opinions on psychedelics.

My apologies. I should re-phrase: . . . To me, the opinions written about psychedelics under the word "lento" are based on little understanding.

A lot of people on the forum are into personal development, so sometimes I use personal contexts. My intention was not to stimulate an inter-personal conflict. Everything written can be phrased impersonally. Yet it can get a bit awkward at times. 

35 minutes ago, Arzack said:

Say Sadhguru said psychedelics are good. Most of his audience would just start using recreational drugs. So even if he knew that only few psychedelics used in a specific way (high/breakthrough doses or no party) give you nirvana, it would still be more compassionate for him to give the exact answer he gave there.

If someone doesn't know, isn't it best just to say that? Sadhguru carries a lot of authority with many people. His words carry a lot of weight. To me, the most responsible thing for such a person is to acknowledge they don't know and perhaps lead them to someone that might know more. If someone asked me about using acupuncture for a health condition, I wouldn't start throwing out stuff about acupuncture like I knew what I was talking about - I know very little and have never tried it. I would suggest that contact those that actually have understanding of acupuncture.  

It's amazing to me how high a spiritual being can go, yet still be unable to realize, acknowledge and express "I don't know".