Peter Ralston on Psychedelics in more detail

loub
By loub in Psychedelics,
In his recent newsletter Peter Ralston was asked about psychedelics. Question (roughly):  how come you promote states like clarity, openness and presence as necessary prerequisites for fruitful contemplation yet dismiss psychedelics as useless when it comes to consciousness work stating they are just states and not direct consciousness. Can psychedelic states not also be used to enhance contemplation, not to do it for you but help do it for yourself? I am interested in what this forum thinks about his answer. Keep in mind though that he is deeply awake and also did have his fair share of psychedelic experiences. Ralston: I disagree with your argument. I hear the logic, but the truth in this case is different from the logic. The first thing we should notice is that the drugs are not of your own making, they are chemically induced. Whereas creating a state of focus and presence is an activity you generate. This is significant. There are many states you can generate that are not at all helpful to pursuing consciousness, even ones that seem like they are. You could have a state of anger or distraction, which probably don't help much. You could also have a state of feeling one with the universe, and that doesn't help either, but you could easily think it does. So, it is with psychedelic states. You might think they help or produce some beneficial state because you experience something awesome or unusual. But that doesn't help at all. Like I have said, you can become directly conscious while being angry or on drugs, but I'm also saying the anger or drugs have nothing to do with it. People fool themselves into thinking drugs can help. A mistaken notion. I lived in the late 60's in Berkeley, California in an era of a great deal of drug taking. It was probably the beginning of the whole psychedelic attempt to become more conscious. We even called them "consciousness raising drugs." I did more than my share for a while. So, I tell you from a personal experience of both drugs and consciousness, the drugs don't help. That isn't their purpose, and I think those using them to attain enlightenment are mistaken or lazy, wanting something else to do it for them or help them. This is nonsense because "direct" means only YOU can do it, nothing else. As for states that help in contemplation, they do so simply because they support your intent and efforts to contemplate. Drugs don't. And you are the one generating the states. Drugs aren't generated by you. States helpful in contemplation aren't random they are simply what creates the activity of contemplation. Without focus and openness you really can't contemplate. They are simply part of that effort. The contemplation itself is an activity, it is not enlightenment. It is simply more likely for you to become directly conscious if you intend to do so, and you give it your all. Drugs just provide a different experience by altering the chemicals in your brain. Neither chemicals or brain activity has anything to do with enlightenment. You can do them if you want, I am simply asserting there is a flaw in your logic—it doesn't work that way. You seem to be trying to convince yourself by getting me to go along with your beliefs. Sorry to disappoint, but I won't. Even if I had no counter logic to offer, I'd still say no. Simply because I know the truth directly. Peter
  • 162 replies