Thread: Insight - How can a drug teach?

Drugs can teach you because when you are dealing with chemicals you are dealing with the basic forms of consiousness. You can rearrange them in a lab and creature ur own frankenstein. But it's dangerous and unthreated waters. Nobody really knows what they are doing. I'm not saying you can't learn from laboratory drugs. And some of them can be very useful . But i woulden't expect them to teach you anything. If it is wisdom you want just take the natural drugs. Like mushrooms, ayahuasca, salvia, cannabis. Our body is used to dealing with those chemicals because we have them naturally. Probably because we coevolved with these substances.

These plant teachers work because they are consious. Mushrooms don't have eyes or anything that's why they need a mammal host for them to experience consiousness. But once you eat them you can be sure there's a sentient being inside of you. That's why mushrooms have the ability to play games with ur mind and they have a sense of humor. It's because they are alive! And they are single organism on earth that is most in tune with the earth itself. They feed off of dead matter. When you let fungi grow on trash within weeks the trash is gone and it will be replaces by grass and flowers. They are the ultimate recyclists. But they need mammals to cultivate them. In exchange they will give us wisdom and help us in our evolution.

If you're looking for something specific, you'll never find it. I guess, I really don't know if that's how it works. Fortunately for me, I wasn't looking for anything at all when I stumbled upon it. I was so clueless that I didn't even know I was supposed to be looking for something. But now that we've found each other, I know better than to expose its secrets. =]

What exactly is 'the truth'?

It starts with an S, and ends in 4 or 5 h's.

Dthoughts, I think you should read the post right before you again.

The idea that a living thing retains its consciousness even after it's dead and dried - and that it's the BODY that retains it, not the spirit - is very disturbing to me...

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

The idea that a living thing retains its consciousness even after it's dead and dried - and that it's the BODY that retains it, not the spirit - is very disturbing to me...

You don't eat monkey brains to gain their jungle wisdom?

Oh well...

Yeah, but that's DIFFERENT!

Do-over:

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

The idea that a living thing retains its consciousness even after it's dead and dried - and that it's the BODY that retains it, not the spirit - is very disturbing to me...

In the case of mushrooms, morning glory seeds or peyote, you're not eating the "living thing," but only its fruit. So, you're establishing a psychedelic link with the organism by consuming its sexual effluents.

I work the same way, ladies

I must say though, I do love a nice endive salad washed down with the heartblood of an enemy. Now THAT'S livin'!!!

Originally Posted by Dthoughts

These plant teachers work because they are consious. Mushrooms don't have eyes or anything that's why they need a mammal host for them to experience consiousness. But once you eat them you can be sure there's a sentient being inside of you. That's why mushrooms have the ability to play games with ur mind and they have a sense of humor. It's because they are alive! And they are single organism on earth that is most in tune with the earth itself. They feed off of dead matter. When you let fungi grow on trash within weeks the trash is gone and it will be replaces by grass and flowers. They are the ultimate recyclists. But they need mammals to cultivate them. In exchange they will give us wisdom and help us in our evolution.

Forgive me, but this is completely absurd.

When you swallow mushrooms they don't grow and live inside of you. When you eat it, it kills them. Your stomach acid digests them. There is no "sentient being" inside you, how can people believe this nonsense!?

Originally Posted by nina

how can people believe this nonsense!?

Castaneda.

Originally Posted by nina

Forgive me, but this is completely absurd.

When you swallow mushrooms they don't grow and live inside of you. When you eat it, it kills them. Your stomach acid digests them. There is no "sentient being" inside you, how can people believe this nonsense!?

I don't think it is that absurd at all. People have probably treated mushrooms like this for centuries. And for good reason..

What you are saying is not completely true. When you swallow mushrooms most of it is digested but the active chemical compounds are metabolized in our system to form something structurally similar to serotonin.

Spoiler for Psilocin:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Psilocin is the pharmacologically active agent in the body after ingestion of psilocybin or some species of psychedelic mushrooms.

Psilocybin is rapidly dephosphorylated in the body to psilocin which acts as a 5HT2A, 5HT2C and 5HT1A agonist. Psilocin is structurally similar to serotonin (5-HT),[5] differing only by the hydroxyl group being on the 4-position rather than the 5 and the dimethyl groups on the nitrogen. Its effects are thought to come from its partial agonist activity at 5-HT2A serotonin receptors in the prefrontal cortex.

Psilocin has no significant effect on dopamine receptors (unlike LSD) and only affects the noradrenergic system at very high dosages.[6]

Psilocin's physiological half-life ranges from 2 to 3 hours.

See psilocybin for more details

Psilocybin , psilocin, serotonin and melatonin are all tryptamines.
Serotonin is mostly located in the gut but in our brains it is responsible for synthesizing into melatonin. It actually does this in the pineal gland and it usually happens in ur sleep because it is triggered when ur pineal gland is unexposed to light for long period of time. I've heared that when ur pineal gland is exposed to sunlight it can decalcify the pineal gland and that should result in more clarity and awareness. And more vivid dreams.

These chemicals are partly, if not fully responsible for how our consiousness is structured. And because of that it makes me think that these structurally similar compounds in plants , fungi and animals might give opportunity for them to experience consiousness. Or only when it is mixed with our nervous system and then we are the only ones that are able to experience their consiousness.

Ok, now that's not absurd at all - as long as you regard the last paragraph as metaphorical. I think the Toltecs regard drugs as having their own personality because each gives you a different kind of experience. It's the high that has a personality... it's what the drug brings out in your mind. I'm a little torn here though because I do love the Castaneda stuff and I wonder if not believing in it makes it impossible. Though if it does, then that means it's all in your head anyway. Hmmmm...

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Having tripped or even having achieved a strong cannabis high may well broaden one's perspective. These substances introduce stutters and hiccups into our perceptual processes which can make the processes themselves visible, delivering the basic realization that much of what we take for reality, both personally and collectively as a society and sentient race, is a construction of our own minds. Beyond this initiatory revelation, however--what we might call 'a glimpse of the road'--these substances offer rapidly diminishing returns. Pursuing the sensation of insight they provide is more likely to leave one sitting where the road turns off, or else far out in the weeds, than actually advance one's understanding.

Very well said, and pretty much what I was going to touch on.

Originally Posted by Dthoughts

These plant teachers work because they are consious. Mushrooms don't have eyes or anything that's why they need a mammal host for them to experience consiousness. But once you eat them you can be sure there's a sentient being inside of you. That's why mushrooms have the ability to play games with ur mind and they have a sense of humor. It's because they are alive! And they are single organism on earth that is most in tune with the earth itself. They feed off of dead matter. When you let fungi grow on trash within weeks the trash is gone and it will be replaces by grass and flowers. They are the ultimate recyclists. But they need mammals to cultivate them. In exchange they will give us wisdom and help us in our evolution.

I've got to interject on this, too. As someone who has previously made cases for even blades of grass possibly having 'consciousness', I do think it's another thing entirely to actually place faith in such an idea. To assume and/or state as fact that mushrooms being 'alive' (once) means that they are still 'alive' and conscious inside of you is a very very bold claim. It is not a new one, of course, since many cannibalistic cultures through history have believed in the idea of dead flesh from a human giving said human's physical and mental attributes to its consumer, through an assimilation of that human's 'essence.' Do you believe that as well?

There is a lot that still needs to be done to prove that a simple, fungal organism - such as a mushroom - actually experiences consciousness, as opposed to a purely functional (practically mechanical) existence. If you're going to use the concept in a discussion about the physiology and psychology of the human mind, you'll have a hard time finding much credible reference to back the idea. Not to say it isn't possible in nature. I, myself, see it as a possibility. But, it's a hard pill to swallow, for some.

[Edit:]
Ah, and after reading the last couple of posts, I see now the real issue being with the difference between 'taking on the residual effects' of something, and that something actually being 'conscious', in and of itself.

It's perhaps worth considering how entheogens impact larger conscious constructs in which both they and we may take part. With regard to revelatory experience, it's counterproductive and fairly absurd to take "consciousness" for a synonym of "self" -- the reflexive, largely unexamined parameters of self we project upon our own experience and find reflected in the entities around us. We are generally dealing with at least potentially broader, older, and stranger currents of consciousness. In this context, our failure to see consciousness in the chemical transfers and consequent signalling that occur when we ingest these substances and interact with other people may just reflect obscuring attachment to the chemical transfers and consequent signalling on which we hang our identity.

Rather than consider the prospect that mushrooms are little selves, wonder whether mycelia might not be the glands and we the neurons in a larger mulling.

*Who needs psychoactive substances when we can just read Tausaur's posts and get our minds completely blown?

Originally Posted by Dthoughts

I don't think it is that absurd at all. People have probably treated mushrooms like this for centuries. And for good reason..

What you are saying is not completely true. When you swallow mushrooms most of it is digested but the active chemical compounds are metabolized in our system to form something structurally similar to serotonin.

Psilocybin , psilocin, serotonin and melatonin are all tryptamines.
Serotonin is mostly located in the gut but in our brains it is responsible for synthesizing into melatonin. It actually does this in the pineal gland and it usually happens in ur sleep because it is triggered when ur pineal gland is unexposed to light for long period of time. I've heared that when ur pineal gland is exposed to sunlight it can decalcify the pineal gland and that should result in more clarity and awareness. And more vivid dreams.

These chemicals are partly, if not fully responsible for how our consiousness is structured. And because of that it makes me think that these structurally similar compounds in plants , fungi and animals might give opportunity for them to experience consiousness. Or only when it is mixed with our nervous system and then we are the only ones that are able to experience their consiousness.

You said when people eat mushrooms, there is a sentient being inside you. Please explain that statement. How can fungi be sentient? Just because it contains psilocybin, which gets metabolized to psilocin, which is a neurotransmitter? So you believe any/all neurotransmitters are their own sentient beings? Do you think this of all fungi, or just psilocybin mushrooms? What about the ones that kill people? Or have zero effect on consciousness? Is serotonin a sentient being? I'm truly confused by what you are purporting.

All of the chemicals our body needs for survival, amino acids, fatty acids, protein, carbs, etc. come from things we eat, if not synthesized by the body. Are all these molecules sentient as well?

Originally Posted by Taosaur

It's perhaps worth considering how entheogens impact larger conscious constructs in which both they and we may take part. With regard to revelatory experience, it's counterproductive and fairly absurd to take "consciousness" for a synonym of "self" -- the reflexive, largely unexamined parameters of self we project upon our own experience and find reflected in the entities around us. We are generally dealing with at least potentially broader, older, and stranger currents of consciousness. In this context, our failure to see consciousness in the chemical transfers and consequent signalling that occur when we ingest these substances and interact with other people may just reflect obscuring attachment to the chemical transfers and consequent signalling on which we hang our identity.

Rather than consider the prospect that mushrooms are little selves, wonder whether mycelia might not be the glands and we the neurons in a larger mulling.

Oh, believe me, I'm completely on board with this. In fact, that's the reason that I made it a point to highlight the difference between thinking of consciousness as the full, complex awareness that we humans share, and what I called a merely 'functional (practically mechanical)' existence. What you said is more toward the points that I had used to argue for the theoretical possibility of a low form of 'consciousness' in other vegetation, in passed threads.

And one can't think about the scope and scale of physical things without recognizing the similarities between macro- and microcosms. It's hard to ignore the relativity of our Earth to a single organism, or our solar bodies to atomic particles. The problem, I guess, was with some of the wordage that was used. Implying that ingested mushrooms have a 'personality', that transfers over into the consumer, does warrant a bit of skepticism, if not apparent that the phrase is just being used in metaphor.

"Conscious mushrooms" to me ring of "There's a magic man in the (sky, refrigerator, North Pole etc... )" - an overly simplistic cart-before-the-horse solution appropriate to primitive minds and that, if taken metaphorically do still hold some grain of the truth. But in light of scientific facts these ideas fail to satisfy whereas the ideas Tausaur so eloquently expresses are at the same time very common-sense and deeply profound without violating any area of scientific knowledge.

I have always felt that your environment has a powerful effect on your consciousness - I feel very different sitting in a small cubicle or a dentist's waiting room than I do walking through the woods or riding a bike along a beautiful country road. Common rational/materialist belief tells us consciousness resides "inside the brain" or that at most it extends to the nerve endings throughout the body. But I feel that it really goes farther than that - projects out into your surroundings and "pings" back like a sonar signal, so that the limits of your visual/auditory environment shape your moment-by-moment consciousness. So do any ideas/memories/emotions you're experiencing at the time. And of course any substances you might have ingested that affect the brain or senses in weird ways. Examples of other 'exterior' factors that profoundly affect your consciousness would include suddenly seeing a predatory creature running toward you fangs bared, or seeing a loved person approaching with a big smile. A sucker punch to the back of the skull. A kiss. A text message or phone call, a message board comment...

Consciousness maintains itself by taking in all these factors and interpreting them. Ok, and I've lost my train of thought and don't remember where I was going with this now!

Originally Posted by nina

Forgive me, but this is completely absurd.

When you swallow mushrooms they don't grow and live inside of you. When you eat it, it kills them. Your stomach acid digests them. There is no "sentient being" inside you, how can people believe this nonsense!?

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Castaneda.

It was actually Terrence Mckenna that propagated that idea. (forget that)

Its a bit more complicated than the mushroom itself being a sentient being. It would be more accurate to say that the psychoactive chemical is sentient, although I think what Mckenna was driving at was that the chemical is more of a physical 'radio tuner' like device for a non-physical sentient entity. The chemical transmits a certain archetypal experience that leads to a certain thought pattern that is (at least in part) the essence of that non-physical being.

What challenges the idea of whether those experiences are all "insightful" is in considering the variety of experiences people can have with psychedelics. While it's true that our perception may be radically or subtly altered by a substance in order to show us new truths, they are really only insightful if they lead to a better quality of life; more happiness. The question of being "insightful" is really a question of whether one is glamorizing the pseudo-spiritual state that drugs induce or just obtaining some use from it. After all, even in everyday life we can still claim at times that we have "realized" something, but at the end of the day it is just another truth; or perhaps just another illusion. If we suddenly realize how disgusting or unattractive something may be, there's nothing productive in calling it insightful at all unless it has inspired us to live better lives.

About "altered" states: If we find two people, one who is always happy and the other who is always depressed, are they comparably "altered"? If I have become a happy person do I live in an altered state? We can only really say "altered" if the feelings are very short-lived and artificially produced; those states belong to drugs. The difference between genuine spiritual insight and drug-induced insight is that the former is going to be more meaningful to you and longer lasting. It is because we have grown into that kind of person and discovered something with our own power, not due to something out of our control. We haven't taken an artificial shortcut and fallen into confusion or depression some time afterward. One reason for that happening is that we might be presented with something pleasant, only to have it fall away outside our awareness - we never earnestly had it. And even while this may happen in normal drug-free life, the point is that drugs can never bridge the gap and make us better people; I have yet to hear a story of newly-found everlasting happiness from a drug addict.

Another difference is, that while both worlds are unpredictable, the effects of drugs are taken under specific conditions and depend on physiological circumstances. Perhaps they will knock some clarity into a thought-stream or feeling, but that clarity has not been always been earned and has no genuine foundation from which to last. That is an altered state - a straight line. In real life, we come to powerful revelations slowly and unpredictably, in a more benign and sporadic way, a slower but more certain way: By consciousness shaping the physicality, not the other way around.

On another note, Buddha was not enlightened due to drugs. So overall the point is really emphasizing that we will get more genuine spiritual insight through meditation, from which we are not vulnerable to nasty side-effects or health issues.

EDITED***

Ok, I just was walking my dog and thinking about this, and I don't know why I was so argumentative here. That's not usually my style. I must be in a bad mood tonight, I've done this one several threads now. And I think what set me off on this thread was the tone of the last post... it seems to be "All you dirty filthy hippies get off the drugs and straighten up your lives!".

I want to make it clear that I do see both sides. I've been meditating myself, though only sporadically. And I don't do drugs these days...

Have you ever done any psychedelics? I'm guessing not, Usually people who preach against them haven't. That avatar looks an awful lot like a Pink Floyd album cover...

You make a lot of baseless assumptions and meaningless value judgments.

While it's true that our perception may be radically or subtly altered by a substance in order to show us new truths, they are really only insightful if they lead to a better quality of life; more happiness.

This does not follow. You're making a value judgment. Insight does not equate with happiness. Insight means a new understanding or fresh perspective.

That being said, If taking psychedelics can help a person to realize that the ego is not the true self but only a mask, is that not an insight that leads to greater happiness? I believe it is.

The difference between genuine spiritual insight and drug-induced insight is that the former is going to be more meaningful to you and longer lasting.

More assumptions and value judgments.

One reason for that happening is that we might be presented with something pleasant, only to have it fall away outside our awareness - we never earnestly had it.

Are you talking about false spiritual revelations?

In your next sentence you imply that to do acid or shrooms even once is to automatically be a "drug addict". Huh??


And immediately afterwards you contradict yourself. I'll paste in the two sentences:

It is because we have grown into that kind of person and discovered something with our own power, not due to something out of our control.

Another difference is, that while both worlds are unpredictable, the effects of drugs are taken under specific conditions and depend on physiological circumstances.

... Don't unpredictable and out of our control mean pretty much the same thing?

Perhaps they will knock some clarity into a thought-stream or feeling, but that clarity has not been always been earned and has no genuine foundation from which to last.

It sounds like maybe you don't really understand how psychoactive drugs give insight? What they do is remove a person from ordinary ways of thinking and allow them to see themselves and the world from a radically different perspective for a while. IE the same thing meditation does. This makes a person rethink a lot of what they "know". It's not artificially-induced - they quite rightly earned it by getting themselves into that altered state of awareness. What matter if it was done by taking a drug or divine revelation or meditation?

On another note, Buddha was not enlightened due to drugs. So overall the point is really emphasizing that we will get more genuine spiritual insight through meditation, from which we are not vulnerable to nasty side-effects or health issues.

So, fasting till all your ribs stand out and sitting under a tree for as long as Buddha did has no nasty side-effects or health issues? He worked for many years putting himself through torture after torture in order to achieve a suitably altered perception to allow revelation.

I'm not at all anti-Buddha or pro-drug really - I see the benefits of both, and I also see the dangers in doing drugs. I just wanted to point out a few fallacies in the post above. Sorry for the wall of text.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Have you ever done any psychedelics? I'm guessing not, Usually people who preach against them haven't. That avatar looks an awful lot like a Pink Floyd album cover...

No, but I know about their spiritual relationships. Can I join in or do I have to do drugs first?

This does not follow. You're making a value judgment. Insight does not equate with happiness. Insight means a new understanding or fresh perspective.

But every shift in perspective can be argued to be new and fresh, however what's the point of calling it everything insightful? At the end of the day, it's not really. It's just something different. Insight is what stays with you and teaches you something you can keep and grow from, not just something merely different.

That being said, If taking psychedelics can help a person to realize that the ego is not the true self but only a mask, is that not an insight that leads to greater happiness? I believe it is.

I believe it is too, if one can successfully live a better life from it. But how often does this happen? In most cases people just fall back and may even find themselves in a more confused state, as it has already been mentioned here.

Are you talking about false spiritual revelations?

I'm talking about revelations that are temporary; those that we cannot fully take in and keep, because we did not actually reach them; they were altered states.

In your next sentence you imply that to do acid or shrooms even once is to automatically be a "drug addict". Huh??

I wasn't implying that, no. Are you saying "doing acid or shrooms once" gives you everlasting happiness? If that's the case, perhaps we should all just do drugs once in our lives and leave it at that.

... Don't unpredictable and out of our control mean pretty much the same thing?

Two different contexts. I believe when we take a psychedelic drug we are bound to be surprised and may not know what to expect - once we take the substance that's all we can do. In terms of meditation (one efficient way to find insight) - this is all directed by our own power and intention. Both can be unpredictable, but there is more control alternative to drugs because it is not at the effect of a substance or our current health. Meditation on the other hand is not something we just "take", it's something we have to be willing to do to move forward, and our every choice leaves some imprint.

It sounds like maybe you don't really understand how psychoactive drugs give insight? What they do is remove a person from ordinary ways of thinking and allow them to see themselves and the world from a radically different perspective for a while. IE the same thing meditation does. This makes a person rethink a lot of what they "know". It's not artificially-induced - they quite rightly earned it by getting themselves into that altered state of awareness. What matter if it was done by taking a drug or divine revelation or meditation?

The difference is one is solely due to a chemical reaction, which can be argued to be causal. The other is due to long-term consequences of overcoming spiritual obstacles first hand, shifting one's consciousness for the long-term. There isn't an "altered state" that is long-term.

So, fasting till all your ribs stand out and sitting under a tree for as long as Buddha did has no nasty side-effects or health issues? He worked for many years putting himself through torture after torture in order to achieve a suitably altered perception to allow revelation.

Is that what the Buddha taught?

Have you ever done any psychedelics?

No, but I know about their spiritual relationships.

How? you may THINK you know.

Can I join in or do I have to do drugs first?

You've already joined in. You only need to do drugs if you want anybody to take what you're saying about drugs seriously. Since you have no firsthand knowledge what the experience is like, anything you say about it is mere conjecture.

Is that what the Buddha taught?

Ok, you didn't say anything about what the Buddha taught - here, let me quote you exactly:

On another note, Buddha was not enlightened due to drugs.

So you weren't talking about what the Buddha taught, but what the Buddha did.


Ok, this could go on forever. I'm not going to keep answering you point for point. You clearly have your mind made up, and I know I can't change it. I just wanted to point out a few flaws in your logic in case anybody else didn't see them.

Wow Darkmatters, now you're really nitpicking. I know what I've said and what I am saying; I think you're being a little too superficial.

Buddha may have suffered quite a lot and his body may have been stressed too, but these are not requirements and nor were they taught as ways to achieve happiness. Similarly, you know you can teach something without having to make all the same mistakes; you can prove something without having to do all of the same experiments. Certainly nobody has to be tortured to find peace; arguably this was not the case for Buddha. The point is that meditation is one of the most powerful ways to shift perspective and improve one's well-being, and recreational drugs I believe do give people wrong impressions by comparison.