Psychedelics and Buddhism

But... What About Sadhus?

In India there are a bunch of "holy men" called sadhus. They do all sorts of crazy things. Some of them walk around naked, sometimes they cover themselves in ash, some are known to stand in one position for long periods of time--even their entire lives! And another thing a lot of them do is smoke pot. All in the name of pursuing enlightenment. Here's a quick description of one sadhu's lifestyle.

Hehe. :D
 
Pathless said:
In India there are a bunch of "holy men" called sadhus. They do all sorts of crazy things. Some of them walk around naked, sometimes they cover themselves in ash, some are known to stand in one position for long periods of time--even their entire lives! And another thing a lot of them do is smoke pot. All in the name of pursuing enlightenment. Here's a quick description of one sadhu's lifestyle.

Hehe. :D

Marijuana has been the principle herb used religiously on the Indian sub-continent. The connections between their view on God and Self and the effects of marijuana are, in my mind, not coincidental. To making a sweeping statement, I've always associated marijuana with samatha meditation (Hindu, Jain etc) and true psychedelics with vipassana (Buddhist).
The subtleties of their effects are lost on the un-initiated. Is their no-one out there with which these ideas echoes true? It's so hard to find someone who's not a spiritual purist or a joy-seeking raver.

Peace :)
 
samabudhi said:
Marijuana has been the principle herb used religiously on the Indian sub-continent. The connections between their view on God and Self and the effects of marijuana are, in my mind, not coincidental. To making a sweeping statement, I've always associated marijuana with samatha meditation (Hindu, Jain etc) and true psychedelics* with vipassana (Buddhist).
The subtleties of their effects are lost on the un-initiated.* Is their no-one out there with which these ideas echoes true? It's so hard to find someone who's not a spiritual purist or a joy-seeking raver.*

Peace :)
*emphasis mine

Samabudhi, some of your statements make you come across, to my mind, as a psilocybin elitist. It may not be your intention, but it sounds like you are marginalizing all other "spiritual" experiences to promote your opinion of what is a "true psychedelic."
As far as these "true psychedelics" being associated with Buddhist meditation, all I can say is :confused:?? What about the Buddhist injunction to not put anything toxic in one's body? Surely a fungus that alters brain/body chemistry and has hallucinogenic qualities falls into the "toxic" category.
I'm not trying to attack you or your post, but I do think that your affection for shrooms may be skewing your perspective. ;)
 
Pathless said:
*emphasis mine

Samabudhi, some of your statements make you come across, to my mind, as a psilocybin elitist. It may not be your intention, but it sounds like you are marginalizing all other "spiritual" experiences to promote your opinion of what is a "true psychedelic."

Kay, maybe "true" isn't the best adjective. Conventional then. My interest, at the moment, is in the connection between psychedelics and Buddhism. I have found little to link dope and Buddhism, and have not had all too many break-throughs with the drug.

As far as these "true psychedelics" being associated with Buddhist meditation, all I can say is :confused:??

Take at look at a back issue of the Buddhist magazine, 'Tricycle' which talks about this very thing.
If you knew, and when I say knew I mean have experienced Buddhist meditation and conventional psychedelics, then you'd probably also see the connection. Psychedelics are powerful mind-altering substances that can completely change your view of the world. I am not alone in the opinion that Buddhist meditation and psychedelics have a lot in common. My personal problem is that there are so view people who have experience of this connection. I am only looking for someone to discuss this with since my position here in South Africa is fairly isolated and open-minded people are few, hence nobody wants to get involved in 'drugs'.

What about the Buddhist injunction to not put anything toxic in one's body? Surely a fungus that alters brain/body chemistry and has hallucinogenic qualities falls into the "toxic" category.
Buddhism is very cleverly linked. You wouldn't find a rule which stands by itself, as if Buddha just put it in there cause it's good for you. He said nothing about exercise for example.

Awareness it the aim of Buddhism.
This precept is to avoid taking substances which alter your awareness negatively. It's my understanding that is was developed in response to peoples use of alcohol and the subsequence lack of awareness, and harmful effects you may cause. Toxicity has little to do with it. But then, I don't consider shrooms toxic. Just a side note is the use of special herbs by Tibetans before dying, during ceremonies. I haven't been able to find out what these do, but I have my suspicions. :D

I'm not trying to attack you or your post, but I do think that your affection for shrooms may be skewing your perspective. ;)

If I ever grew attached to shrooms, then I would stop out of Buddhist principle. They're just a tool.
 
Awareness it the aim of Buddhism.
This precept is to avoid taking substances which alter your awareness negatively.
Cool. Thanks, Samabudhi, for clarifying our perspective on this. I know very little about Buddhism but am wanting to learn. Your interpretation of that precept is very helpful for me. :)
 
Namaste all,

i would like to explain abit about the precept concerning intoxicating substances, if i may.

marijuana, in and of itself (leaving aside the civil law), is not bad or good... we are Buddhists, remember :) these concepts don't really apply... it's simply a plant that has many uses.

the same goes for alcohol. it's not inherently bad and can be used for many things... so it would be incorrect to think that these are prohibited simply because they are "intoxicating".

another reason (other than what has been stated) that we are exhorted to refrain from intoxicants is that whilst we are under their influence, we may violate one of the other precepts. i should point out, however, that this is applicable only in the layperson sense. the Vinya has much more stringent rules regarding this.
 
Pathless said:
Cool. Thanks, Samabudhi, for clarifying our perspective on this. I know very little about Buddhism but am wanting to learn. Your interpretation of that precept is very helpful for me. :)

Good good. Never accept anything just cause someone special like Buddha told you or it comes from ancient texts. This is what the Buddha was against, the ignorant acceptance of the vedas and what the Brahmins had to say about things. Always investigate for yourself, and you'll find the way. This is why they are called precepts rather than rules. Rules are enforced by others. Precepts are followed by the individual. The emphasis on personal responsibility is clear. Also, we're all on the journey alone, together we face the same thing, but ultimately alone. We all have our own religion really. No two people agree fully about everything, so when it comes to a rule or precept, it's important to see why it's there in the first place. I think this is what makes Buddhism so persuasive; it's not taking anything for granted.

Smiling from ear to ear with appreciation. :)
 
samabudhi said:
Is their no-one out there with which these ideas echoes true? It's so hard to find someone who's not a spiritual purist or a joy-seeking raver.
One of the problems is perhaps that you seek to limit the issue of psychedelics with Buddhism. Somehow that seems a little like suggesting that painters only paint landscapes, or else that there is only one useful colour in a rainbow.

The psychedelic experience can be a very powerful tool for exploring both innner and outer space. The idea that this may have usefulness for any specific spiritual discipline is hardly disagreeable.

Yet to attempt to limit the experience to a certain set of precepts and cultural terms of reference, seems to be a form of freeing from one strait-jacket, merely to seek restraint within another.
 
The psychedelic experience can be a very powerful tool for exploring both innner and outer space. The idea that this may have usefulness for any specific spiritual discipline is hardly disagreeable.

So besides Tim Leary and Ram Das, who is investigating the possibilities. Where are the smart people coming up with ground-breaking methods. Everything is so up in the air. Sure psychedelics are useful, but there don't seem to be any set methods for their use or meditations that have come to be accepted within the Buddhist community.

Maybe I'm not making myself clear enough in these posts.
I don't believe the potential of using psychedelics in Buddhist meditation has been fully explored yet. I don't really understand what Brian is saying in the last post, but I assure you that I am not trying to limit anything. For the purpose of investigation however, it is important to put aside, for the time being, other issues and focus on what exactly is going on with psychedelics and Vipassana. This is why I started this thread, to discuss the similarities of THESE TWO experiences.

I don't think that conventional psychedelics should only be used in Vipassana meditation, I am just saying that I recognise more similarities in them. I am not saying that marijuana should only be used in Samatha meditation, I am just saying that I recognise more similarities in them.

I am asking if anyone else shares my opinion from experience. I am interested in the details of the experience. The nitty gritty, not the politics of it all.
In these posts I have avoided going into too much detail about the similarities of these experiences since I think it would be wasted on those who have not had any experience. How profound. It's also quite boring talking about experiences you are not familiar with.

Perhaps my interest is too esoteric and not appropriate for such a general forum. It was worth a shot. :)
 
I have read that its possible Buddha might have used Marijuana seeds or leaves.
Does anyone has any information about this?
 
A good friend of mine who is also fairly well informed regarding Tibetan Buddhism ... once shared something with me anecdotally along these lines. He referred to a clinical study, which I have never investigated or otherwise heard of, in which (presumably Sandoz) LSD was administered to certain accomplished Tibetan monks. The monks were observed (and questioned) to see the results. And you know what difference it made to them?

None
. Nothing happened. ;)

 
taijasi said:
A good friend of mine who is also fairly well informed regarding Tibetan Buddhism ... once shared something with me anecdotally along these lines. He referred to a clinical study, which I have never investigated or otherwise heard of, in which (presumably Sandoz) LSD was administered to certain accomplished Tibetan monks. The monks were observed (and questioned) to see the results. And you know what difference it made to them?

None. Nothing happened. ;)


Namaste,

i would certainly be interested in reading the study results.. can those be obtained?

metta,

~v
 
The story re T. Buddhists may have occurred, but may have been confused with Ram Dass' story. 30 some years ago he wrote of how he witnessed his advaita teacher take LSD & seemingly had no demonstrable effect from it. Take care, Earl
 
I seem to recognise the story from writings centered on Timothy Leary...
 
"Ram Dass cites an anecdotal report about his Indian guru. Allegedly, this guru did not respond to LSD on two occasions, even though he had taken very high oral doses of 900 and 1500 micrograms." Zen and the Brain, chapter 100, p. 419. (cites: Ram Dass. Lecture at the maryland Psychiatric Research Center, pt. 1 Journal of Transpersonal Psychology 1973; 5:75-103)


Interestingly, those who have an awakened consciousness do not hallucinate through these drugs because the hallucinations are caused by the subjective, dreaming, ego (sleeping consciousness)!

Therefore, awaken! :)
 
I took psilocybin mushrooms once, at the time under the impression that they would provide 'an extended weed-high'. Wow...I was wrong. The 'bad trip' that ensued left me terrified as I felt, very inescapably, that I or 'me' did not exist in any definite way for a good five hours. I could even feel myself, as the drugs' grasp began to weaken, jumping 'in' and 'out' of the 'egoless' experience as though I were going between two distinctly seperate worlds.

All around, it was horrifying. I had known nothing about Buddhism or ideas of 'no self' and the such, and had no way of making sense of the realizations I had come to in my state of near catatonia. Was it just insanity? This haunted me unrelentingly. In the months that followed, I was incredibly anxious and depressed, not understanding the experiences I had had. I had an inavoidable realization at the peak of my 'trip' during which I realized that 'I was wrong about everything'. I had, up till then, carried a vast palate of stubborn preconceptions and ideas about religion, life, death, politics, humanity, etc, etc, and I now felt, all too clearly, the shaky foundation on which I had been living my life and understanding myself and others. As a last resort, at the time, I turned to Buddhism for some answers. It eased me at that moment, and even after my traumatic aftershock began to fade months later, my interest and deep curiosity of Eastern thought did not. I kept on reading various texts of Buddhism, and after some time began reading on the topic of Zen, and then Taoism. What was originally used as a life-line ditched its facade of seriousness and became an investigation into a quite wondrous realm of thought and exploration.

Today, I look back totally aware that...well...mushrooms changed my life. I do not share the experience with many people because it is definitely something of a taboo in our culture. It is even more of a taboo to admit that a psychadelic experience had an undeniable effect of spiritual growth upon my life in an innumerable number of ways.

Was it a great idea to take mushrooms?...probably not...but I wouldn't change a thing looking back. Too bad these experiences (hopefully not in those of the terrifiying variety) aren't available without the paranoia that comes from United States sumptuary laws.

I don't think I'll ever do mushrooms again, but I can say that in a certain way, my experience with them never ended. The kind of unspeakable things I realized during those five horrific hours have blossomed years later into an equally unspeakable, but certainly less terrifying, wonder of life, existence, and conciousness.
 
In terms of 'usefulness' of psychadelics with things such as meditation, I would say that they do have some, but that far too little is being said by just that.

I think it was Timothy Leary (but maybe Watts or Huxley) that very wisely suggested that psychadelics may, in a scientific way of putting it, 'unlock' or blaze new neural pathways in the brain that have been left all but dormant after years of relatively conditioned living. In my case, it seems that this may hold some water...but it is, nonetheless, completely theoretical.

The fact is, many people that may fancy themselves very 'awakened' or what have you may have some very nasty experiences on these drugs and sometimes come out with nothing more than a pretty traumatic psychological incident...something that nobody needs to carry around.

On yet another perspective, most of the other folks I took mushrooms with during the incident mentioned in the previous posting enjoyed the experience altogether (minus my freaking them out ). While I was 'tweaking' on the other floor of the apartment, they were tantalized by the hallucinations and strange feelings. When I spoke to them long afterwards, they couldn't relate to me anything in the remotest way spiritual resulting from the experience. That is, as far as they were concerned.

Psychadelics are a very personal type of drug that, in my opinion, have somewhat unpredictable effects depending on the user: the users past experiences, the users general attitude at the time, the users general mindset, religious beliefs, and the situation of family, friends, etc.

Maybe they are useful, maybe not. I do think that Leary's idea might make some sense and, of course, I can't say that my experience doesn't seem to show something similar.

At any rate, I think Alan Watts (who wrote The Joyous Cosmology on the topic of psychadelics and mystical experience) hit the nail on the head when he said, speaking in terms of LSD, in this case:

"My retrospective attitude to LSD is that when one has received the message, one hangs up the phone. I think I have learned from it as much as I can, and, for my own sake, would not be sorry if I could never use it again. But it is not, I believe, generally known that very many of those who had constructive experiences with LSD, or other psychedelics, have turned from drugs to spiritual disciplines—abandoning their water-wings and learning to swim. Without the catalytic experience of the drug they might never have come to this point, and thus my feeling about psychedelic chemicals, as about most other drugs (despite the vague sense of the word), is that they should serve as medicine rather than diet."
 
there is a reason why traditional shaman cultures restrict access to the Herbs of the Gods to beings which have undergone sufficent training :)


metta,

~v
 
Johns Hopkins University just completed a study on the mystical inducing effects of psilocybin (the active ingredient in "psychedelic" or "magic" mushrooms). The results show that psilocybin does in fact genuine mystical experience. A review of this medical study can be found here:

Johns Hopkins Gazette | July 24, 2006

This is a very recent study. It was completed and published only in 2006.
 
Back
Top