Peter Ralston NEW statement about psychedelics

[vladorion]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Peter Ralston is part of your dream. So is self-inquiry and contemplation. Watch your biases.

It's absurd that some of you guys with the anti-psychedelic position don't realize that your "natural" awakening is mediated by serotonin. No serotonin, no awakening. So really you are talking about serotonin awakening vs lets say DMT awakening. And you are foolishly claiming that serotinin awakening is real but DMT awakening is not.

There is no such thing as awakening without chemicals. Get that. And get that there is nothing special about your current set of chemicals.

How do you know this? 

But even if that were true, this logic is like saying, why do activities that increase dopamine if I can just snort some cocaine and have a much higher level of dopamine than any of those activities will ever produce. Why have a romantic relationship if I can just take mdma and feel way more love than I would in a relationship. Just because an experience is mediated by a certain chemical doesn't mean it's good enough to take that chemical and have the experience.

This is also not taking into the account that if one is having a spontaneous awakening, it means they're ready; neurotransmitters are a byproduct of that readiness, not a cause.

[RendHeaven]

A lil late to the party, but psychedelics have shifted baseline consciousness more than anything in my entire finite human life.

Have been a hardcore meditator + breathwork advocate. Shit doesn't even come close to psychedelics, again, in terms of baseline.

My experience seems not to be universal though. I may be going about it differently or have a different disposition.

[Gesundheit2]

On 18/05/2022 at 8:50 PM, zurew said:

So in the case of awakening, practically speaking, would you be able to distinguish between a hallucinated and not hallucinated awakening?

Yes.

[zurew]

Just now, Gesundheit2 said:

Yes.

How?

[UnbornTao]

21 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Peter Ralston is part of your dream. So is self-inquiry and contemplation. Watch your biases.

It's absurd that some of you guys with the anti-psychedelic position don't realize that your "natural" awakening is mediated by serotonin. No serotonin, no awakening. So really you are talking about serotonin awakening vs lets say DMT awakening. And you are foolishly claiming that serotinin awakening is real but DMT awakening is not.

There is no such thing as awakening without chemicals. Get that. And get that there is nothing special about your current set of chemicals.

Isn't that a bit like thinking that drinking coffee within a dream will wake you up?

[UnbornTao]

@Gesundheit2 @zurew 

Hallucinated awakening is better called hallucination, in my view.

To be clear, Peter's point is that regardless of state (angry, happy, bored, anxious, high), awakening can occur because what happens within your experiential field is irrelevant. Enlightenment isn't perceived.

He's not invalidating the possibility of awakening while high but saying that it is absolute. Whatever you do within a dream is something relative that won't wake you up. 

The way I see it, a state of openness is required -- that's what practices like contemplation and psychedelics help generate. However, states come and go, they don't cause direct experience because consciousness is you. All that is required, in the end, is grasping your nature.l

Consciousness becomes conscious of itself. Direct sh*t.

On 5/19/2022 at 7:35 PM, zurew said:

 

Edited May 21, 2022 by UnbornTao

[Gesundheit2]

2 hours ago, zurew said:

How?

By testing both of them against reality.

[zurew]

40 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

And sure, I guess being in an open state helps, but it doesn't produce it.

You don't know that. Maybe its totally random , but maybe not. If it would be totally random ,then why most spiritual teachers doing decades of spiritual work before they get enlightened? Also why some people say they get instantly enlightened after they are doing psychedelics?

Just because Peter Ralston says something , that doesn't mean you have to take it for granted or as truth.

Saying that relative stuff doesn't have anything to do with enlightenment would imply that there is no reason to do any yoga, contemplation , psychedelics or meditation or other spiritual practices.

Or if you want to say, that even though they don't produce enlightenment, they can make it more probable, then we go back to the same debate, which method is the best or what methods are the most effective.

 

 

Edited May 19, 2022 by zurew

[Thought Art]

19 hours ago, vladorion said:

How do you know this? 

But even if that were true, this logic is like saying, why do activities that increase dopamine if I can just snort some cocaine and have a much higher level of dopamine than any of those activities will ever produce. Why have a romantic relationship if I can just take mdma and feel way more love than I would in a relationship. Just because an experience is mediated by a certain chemical doesn't mean it's good enough to take that chemical and have the experience.

This is also not taking into the account that if one is having a spontaneous awakening, it means they're ready; neurotransmitters are a byproduct of that readiness, not a cause.

Potential straw man 

[UnbornTao]

3 hours ago, zurew said:

Saying that relative stuff doesn't have anything to do with enlightenment would imply that there is no reason to do any yoga, contemplation , psychedelics or meditation or other spiritual practices.

Ramana Maharshi is an example. Without prior knowledge or practice, he had a profound and lasting enlightenment. It happens spontaneously (now).

I shared my interpretation of what that teacher meant.

Also, I'm mostly speculating. Some teachers aren't, though.

Edited May 20, 2022 by UnbornTao

[zurew]

5 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Ramana Maharshi is an example. It always happens spontaneously.

I don't think its totally spontaneous. Even what seems spontaneous doesn't necessarily spontaneous.

Also why these masters teach meditation yoga contemplation etc, if they think / know that it is spontaneous? It doesn't really make sense why would Peter teach about contemplation and enlightenment, if he really thinks that it won't help at all.

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

Isn't that a bit like thinking that drinking coffee within a dream will wake you up?

Drinking coffee within a dream can wake you up.

This is the case with all spiritual techniques. All spiritual techniques are done within the dream, not outside of it.

Any criticism you make of psychedelics will automatically apply to any other spiritual technique. Which is why the criticisms are dumb.

[Yali]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Drinking coffee within a dream can wake you up.

It's non-sense to assume dream coffee would affect my biology in the same way as real-life coffee. One is a mental image, the other isn't. @Leo Gura

Edited May 20, 2022 by Yali

[GreenWoods]

@UnbornTao spontaneous awakenings usually happen only to people who are extremely spiritually talented.

56 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Ramana Maharshi is an example. Without prior knowledge or practice, he had a profound and lasting enlightenment. It happens spontaneously (now).

He was as talented as maybe 1 in a billion.

 

For most people it is pretty much genetically impossible to achieve advanced levels of enlightenment through meditation alone.

[Shambhu]

Quote

For most people it is pretty much genetically impossible to achieve advanced levels of enlightenment through meditation alone

@GreenWoodsIm curious how you reached that conclusion.  It is neither supported by spiritual science or neuroscience.  It sounds like you are just repeating the bias of those who have been unsuccessful at it.

[GreenWoods]

19 minutes ago, Shambhu said:

@GreenWoodsIm curious how you reached that conclusion.  It is neither supported by spiritual science or neuroscience.  It sounds like you are just repeating the bias of those who have been unsuccessful at it.

I think 99% of people wouldn't reach the level of Ramana Maharshi if they did normal meditation for 100 000 hours.

So why is that? Of course there is complexity to it, like past lives, luck, karma, doing the technique the right way...

But saying it's genetics kind of encapsulates the main reason in a simple way.

[GreenWoods]

The levels of enlightenment that people have reached are vastly different.

And here I'm just talking about baseline consciousness.

Just a quick assessment on the fly based on my intuition and speculation:

• The difference (baseline consciousness) between the average person and Mooji is smaller than the difference between Mooji and Sadhguru
• And that difference is again smaller than the difference between Sadhguru and Ramana Maharshi
• And that difference is again smaller than the difference between Ramana Maharshi and Buddha 
• And that difference is again smaller than the difference between Buddha and Babaji (here I'm the least sure. Maybe Buddha had Babaji's level too)

Most full time monks probably haven't reached the level of Mooji, so how is the average person supposed to reach advanced levels of enlightenment through normal meditation?

Edited May 20, 2022 by GreenWoods

[Razard86]

19 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

A lil late to the party, but psychedelics have shifted baseline consciousness more than anything in my entire finite human life.

Have been a hardcore meditator + breathwork advocate. Shit doesn't even come close to psychedelics, again, in terms of baseline.

My experience seems not to be universal though. I may be going about it differently or have a different disposition.

You aren't wrong, One use of Psychedelics opened my third eye and triggered a kundalini awakening (Or it could have been the car accident I had a day later....who knows) but all psychedelic use can slightly change and alter baseline consciousness especially if you can integrate what you experienced afterwards.

[Carl-Richard]

I think trying weed at 17 shifted my baseline consciousness.

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

Ramana Maharshi is an example. Without prior knowledge or practice, he had a profound and lasting enlightenment. It happens spontaneously (now).

This is factually false. You guys are creating myths of these people.

Ramana spent entire days, weeks, and months in intense meditation before his enlightenment, and afterward.

But anyhow, you are dreaming up Ramana so it's a moot point.

You cannot even get your own dreams straight.