Experiential Differences RE: DMT w/THC vs. Without

[blig-blug]

I'm using this as a personal appeal to authority

The quote in question. From the second of the Middle Discourses:

This is how they apply the mind irrationally: ‘Did I exist in the past? Did I not exist in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? After being what, what did I become in the past? Will I exist in the future? Will I not exist in the future? What will I be in the future? How will I be in the future? After being what, what will I become in the future?’ Or they are undecided about the present thus: ‘Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? This sentient being—where did it come from? And where will it go?’

When they apply the mind irrationally in this way, one of the following six views arises in them and is taken as a genuine fact. The view: ‘My self survives.’ The view: ‘My self does not survive.’ The view: ‘I perceive the self with the self.’ The view: ‘I perceive what is not-self with the self.’ The view: ‘I perceive the self with what is not-self.’ Or they have such a view: ‘This self of mine is he, the one who speaks, the one who knows, who experiences the results of good and bad deeds in all the different realms. This self is permanent, everlasting, eternal, and imperishable, and will last forever and ever.’ This is called a misconception, the thicket of views, the desert of views, the twist of views, the dodge of views, the fetter of views. An unlearned ordinary person who is fettered by views is not freed from rebirth, old age, and death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress. They’re not freed from suffering, I say.

I'm posting it because it's relevant to the conversation, of course anyone may disagree!

 

[Jamie01]

Ego death is not the same as ego irrelevance in my opinion. Both can happen on different psychedelics. Ketamine for instance is good at eliciting ego irrelevance where the transition is seamless . Cannabis is good at causing gruelling experiences of ego death where people cling and fight. LSD is another.

 

[CosmicRiver]

Later, to further complicate matters, comes along the term "ego death" and it becomes usually related to apparently similar terms such as the Buddhist term anatta (literally no-atta). However anatta doesn't refer to the absence of an ego, soul, self, or spirit, but to the absence of a permanent ego, self, or spirit. In fact one of the questions Buddha explicitly refused to answer and warned not to attempt to answer is whether there is a self or not.

Yes, it indeed becomes meaningless when it becomes a philosophical problem, but the absence of an indipendent self is central to the teaching. Probably on forums, and in talking in general, it's easy to slip into philosophical discussion, but understanding this teaching and living life through it is something different. And if psychedelic experiences can sometimes make it possible to understand it by experience, not intellectually, it's very useful imo. Then, when we try to describe it or give an answer to that question, which is impossible, we are adhering to one of the false views of that discourse, because we are conceptualizing something that is beyond concepts.

 

[blig-blug]

Yes, it indeed becomes meaningless when it becomes a philosophical problem, but the absence of an indipendent self is central to the teaching.

I would say "permanent self", but again we're likely referring to the same thing.

And if psychedelic experiences can make it possible to understand it by experience, not intellectually, it's very useful imo.

Yes, I agree with that. That's why it's important that we are clear on what each of us means, what is being labelled by the words we use. I believe the core of these experiences is very similar for everyone.

One of the strong points of the teachings of the Buddha (IMHO) is that, instead of asking to be believed, he invited everyone to try and check by themselves, in their own experience, their truth. And explicitly warned about views (as pertaining to something not having been personally realized) and faith. Hence, even from a purely Buddhist perspective is not only possible but good to talk and reflect about the experiences themselves, instead of about labels.

 

[Voidmatrix]

One of the strong points of the teachings of the Buddha (IMHO) is that, instead of asking to be believed, he invited everyone to try and check by themselves, in their own experience, their truth. And explicitly warned about views (as pertaining to something not having been personally realized) and faith. Hence, even from a purely Buddhist perspective is not only possible but good to talk and reflect about the experiences themselves, instead of about labels.

I sometimes wonder if he was trying to prank people.

I also sometimes wonder if he was a "skeptic" they tend to be brutally honest with themselves.

But despite how he suggested that people see if it works for them, people wanting to be fed an answer ran with it, now we have Buddhism that im not sure buddha would've agreed with.

One love

 

[blig-blug]

But despite how he suggested that people see if it works for them, people wanting to be fed an answer ran with it, now we have Buddhism that im not sure buddha would've agreed with.

"Many such cases"... it seems that it has happened with every single spiritual teacher in history. And even with philosophers.

 

[Voidmatrix]

"Many such cases"... it seems that it has happened with every single spiritual teacher in history. And even with philosophers.

This was something I noticed in my twenties. As a result, I didn't want to write or share anything, even when people were like, "you should write a book." 1, what do I know? 2. That goes against what id like to help people do... think more independently.

One love

 

[northape]

"Many such cases"... it seems that it has happened with every single spiritual teacher in history. And even with philosophers.

That's one of the reasons I like Sri Ramana's teachings. We're just one generation removed; he died in 1950. There are no rewrites of his teachings in India. The only filter is Tamil-to-English translators, and many of them lived near Arunachala for decades, immersed in the spirit of the place and teachings. One of my favorite translators is David Godman. It tells a lot about fate or karma, in my opinion. By the way, Sri Ramana never wrote anything of his own accord. All his teachings were a response to his devotees.

When it comes to the West, you can already see the well-known pattern and how they try to fit Sri Ramana and his message into a box and use it for themselves. Sadly, that's the fate of any teachings. Just go back to the original words. They hold a lot of power (shakti) because they came directly from the Divine. All the Best.

 

[Voidmatrix]

However anatta doesn't refer to the absence of an ego, soul, self, or spirit, but to the absence of a permanent ego, self, or spirit.

Isn't there also an interpretation that is even more specific stipulating and unchanging permannet ego, self, spirit?

I feel like some of this for the Buddha was in response to yogic philosophy, where you are an unchanging soul that has always existed.

One love

 

[blig-blug]

Isn't there also an interpretation that is even more specific stipulating and unchanging permannet ego, self, spirit?

As I understand it, from a (Theravada) Buddhist perspective there's no difference between being permanent and being unchanging, so you are right.

I feel like some of this for the Buddha was in response to yogic philosophy, where you are an unchanging soul that has always existed.

Yes. Also reading the suttas it's evident that in those days there were many competing schools, it can be inferred from context that there were schools that claimed the exact opposite (nothing exists).

This is more clear in the schools closer to early Buddhism. As it became more socially prestigious during the centuries, many branches (including Theravada ones) became very influenced by Brahmanic doctrine.

 

[Voidmatrix]

As I understand it, from a (Theravada) Buddhist perspective there's no difference between being permanent and being unchanging, so you are right.


Yes. Also reading the suttas it's evident that in those days there were many competing schools, it can be inferred from context that there were schools that claimed the exact opposite (nothing exists).

This is more clear in the schools closer to early Buddhism. As it became more socially prestigious during the centuries, many branches (including Theravada ones) became very influenced by Brahmanic doctrine.

He definitely brought elements of Hinduism into his philosophy (there's talk of the God's for example).

And there's also something to be said for an everlasting everchanging essence that is self.

Which, back to the question he refused to answer, makes even more sense. For if you're everlasting you're still changing so theres still no use answering the question is there a self.

One love

 

[northape]

Which, back to the question he refused to answer, makes even more sense. For if you're everlasting you're still changing so theres still no use answering the question is there a self.

I thought he answered with Silence

Buddhist philosophy is very complex: after the Pali Canon comes Mahayana and then the Tantras. It's overwhelming, actually. Any real teacher would tell you that without practice, all this philosophy will just lead to more confusion. There are lots of geshes (PhDs in Buddhist philosophy) graduating each year, but I see no Buddhas among them (perhaps due to my own lack of ability). Vedanta is just as complex, with many schools and nuances. I'm mostly familiar with Sri Ramana's representation, but he just used the cultural tools that were available. He could easily talk to Muslims, Buddhists, and Christians. When you speak from the authority of true knowledge, all traditions fall behind your understanding.

For simple humans like us, it's better to choose one path and follow it to the end. This will create a more balanced view. And once again, without real practice, it's just mental masturbation. Sometimes it's fun, though

 

[blig-blug]

I thought he answered with Silence

No, look at the quote above and other passages: he's not even replying to a question posed by someone else but explicitly pointing out that those questions should be avoided. Likewise in similar passages.

And once again, without real practice, it's just mental masturbation. Sometimes it's fun, though

Agreed to both! It's often fun I would say

 

[northape]

No, look at the quote above and other passages: he's not even replying to a question posed by someone else but explicitly pointing out that those questions should be avoided. Likewise in similar passages.

It just shows that I'm already confused

 

[CosmicRiver]

Isn't there also an interpretation that is even more specific stipulating and unchanging permannet ego, self, spirit?

I feel like some of this for the Buddha was in response to yogic philosophy, where you are an unchanging soul that has always existed.

One love

Anicca (impermanence) and anatta (nonself) are two "marks of existence" at the base of the Buddhist teaching and they're common to all schools. Nonself is related to impermamence and to "dependent co-arising". Impermanence means that nothing is fixed and unchanging, while dependent co-arising means that everything manifests and unmanifests according to the presence or abscence of conditions and there is nothing that exists "by itself".

Then with the Yogachara school of Mahayana there was a "mapping" of the human consciousness, which is described as composed by 8 consciousnesses. The last two are not present in Theravada texts. There are the six sense conciousnesses (the five senses + the "mind" sense, the one that perceives thoughts); the 7h consciousness, manas (the one that gives rise to the sense of self by grasping at the eight consciousness; this one is the closest to our "ego") and the 8th consciousness, alayavijnana ("storehouse consciousness"), that bears karmic seeds resulting from the impressions of other consciousnesses and from previous lives, in fact this is the only consciousness that survives between lives.

When alayavijnana is purified/transformed and freed from the grasping of manas, there is awakening / liberation. It becomes the "Great Mirror Wisdom" consciousness because reality is perceived as it is, free from defilements. In Chan/Zen Buddhism the Great Mirror Wisdom consciousness is identified with the Buddha-Nature that is present in all beings. This concept is also akin to the "Luminous Mind" of Buddhist Tantra.
Some people see this as a comeback of the self in a different form, but the counterargument to this is that Great Mirror Wisom and Buddha-Nature are just words to describe what is beyond concepts, so it is not a comeback of the self. Some texts use "negative" descriptions of nonself, especially in a culture where almost everyone believed in the existence of a soul, to avoid eternalism. Some texts use "positive" descriptions of nonself to avoid nihilism.
All the teachings are provisional.

 

[northape]

All the teachings are provisional.

Thanks for presenting it all step by step. It's much closer to how I see it.
The biggest benefit of this thread for me is that I'm pretty sure what my tradition is now.
Have fun, everyone. I'll go sit in a corner

 

[Voidmatrix]

And once again, without real practice, it's just mental masturbation. Sometimes it's fun, though

Is this dialogue not a type of practice on its own pathway of its own right? It seems sensational to deny the potential for our own growth and understanding in these matters that move us toward a goal just because we're not "devout." Being that devout has criticisms as well.

Again, we're here, we might as well live it AND transcend it.

How can we ever deny our existence?

Yeah, Descartes did it. He created a paradox. Denying ones existence affirms it.

One love

 

[northape]

This thread led me to Silence

 

[Voidmatrix]

Anicca (impermanence) and anatta (nonself) are two "marks of existence" at the base of the Buddhist teaching and they're common to all schools. Nonself is related to impermamence and to "dependent co-arising". Impermanence means that nothing is fixed and unchanging, while dependent co-arising means that everything manifests and unmanifests according to the presence or abscence of conditions and there is nothing that exists "by itself".

Then with the Yogachara school of Mahayana there was a "mapping" of the human consciousness, which is described as composed by 8 consciousnesses. The last two are not present in Theravada texts. There are the six sense conciousnesses (the five senses + the "mind" sense, the one that perceives thoughts); the 7h consciousness, manas (the one that gives rise to the sense of self by grasping at the eight consciousness; this one is the closest to our "ego") and the 8th consciousness, alayavijnana ("storehouse consciousness"), that bears karmic seeds resulting from the impressions of other consciousnesses and from previous lives, in fact this is the only consciousness that survives between lives.

When alayavijnana is purified/transformed and freed from the grasping of manas, there is awakening / liberation. It becomes the "Great Mirror Wisdom" consciousness because reality is perceived as it is, free from defilements. In Chan/Zen Buddhism the Great Mirror Wisdom consciousness is identified with the Buddha-Nature that is present in all beings. This concept is also akin to the "Luminous Mind" of Buddhist Tantra.
Some people see this as a comeback of the self in a different form, but the counterargument to this is that Great Mirror Wisom and Buddha-Nature are just words to describe what is beyond concepts, so it is not a comeback of the self. Some texts use "negative" descriptions of nonself, especially in a culture where almost everyone believed in the existence of a soul, to avoid eternalism. Some texts use "positive" descriptions of nonself to avoid nihilism.
All the teachings are provisional.

Thank you for all of this.

One thing we can take away and that I try to highlight without saying it outright because that's not productive, however all of this will kinda always be debatable. Contextual. Provisional...

One love

 

[ShadedSelf]

This is something Ive been thinking about, this sort of "wisdom over-reliance", its something that seems to happen a lot here, as I see it anyways.
Kinda feels like it misses to point a little bit.