The Mystic Quest: How Important is Enlightenment and Inner Transformation?

[Jack Daydream]

Mysticism is sometimes viewed poorly within philosophy because it speaks of the 'ineffable'. Certainly, I see philosophy as being a way of trying to articulate ideas and a way of demystification. Nevertheless, the focus on mystical states of transformation, or enlightenment has an important role in life. Awakening or higher states of consciousness may act as the inspiration in life, The psychologist, Abraham Maslow, was particularly interested in peak experiences.

Mysticism is often associated with religion but Buddhist ideas of meditation and enlightenment have become prominent in positive psychology. The emphasis is on wellbeing and higher states of awareness. Within religion, esoteric traditions place significant on inner transformation. The transformation of consciousness is also emphasised within shamanic traditions.

The explanations for consciousness are debated so much within philosophy. However, I see transformation of consciousness as equally important. It may also be connected to the development of insight. So, I am asking about the philosophical significance of the mystic quest and inner transformation, or enlightenment. How important do you see it within your own searching?

First and foremost, if so-called "enlightenment" doesn't allow you to see that there truly exists levels of consciousness and intelligence that extend infinitely above the human level of consciousness, then I suggest that it's not true enlightenment.

Furthermore, if the so-called "enlightenment" that is encapsulated in the old Zen Buddhist axiom...

"...Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water..."

...doesn't compel you to share that water (both literally and figuratively) with all who are thirsty, then, again, I suggest that it's not true enlightenment.

And lastly, if everyone acquired the sort of so-called "enlightenment" that causes them to sit around in their underwear all day like, for example, Sri Ramana Maharshi...



... or utter such things as the following from the chain-smoking guru - Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj...

"...Abandon all self-concern, worry not about your welfare, material or spiritual, abandon every desire, gross or subtle, stop thinking of achievement of any kind..."

...then you too can sit around in your underwear all day and dispense impractical platitudes while the world comes to a complete standstill because no one is thinking about achieving anything.

So then, Mr. Daydream, what kind of "enlightenment" do you have in mind for us?
_______

I am referring to your idea of 'chopping wood' before and after enlightenment. It may be that the basic aspects of mundane living and activities remain constant but the mindset differs. Some may see it as a subjective estimation or discovery of meaning, but it may also be about seeing beyond the mundane as well.

[Belinda]

Jack Daydream wrote:

I am referring to your idea of 'chopping wood' before and after enlightenment. It may be that the basic aspects of mundane living and activities remain constant but the mindset differs. Some may see it as a subjective estimation or discovery of meaning, but it may also be about seeing beyond the mundane as well.

It's good to know what it feels like to be passive. The problem is how often and how much can one afford to be passive without dying of passivity.
It's true that a passive attitude is beneficial when there is no possibility of active improvement.

The 'chopping wood 'advice implies that enlightenment is a once and for all event which once experienced benefits ordinary consciousness, rather like a pinch of salt which once added to the soup pervades the whole potful. However it's important not to add too much salt .

[Will Bouwman]

The philosophy aspects of mysticism is an area which I see as important, but it is so easily dismissed in the context of twentieth first century, especially as materialism and realism are ranked so highly.

What you find important is entirely your prerogative. If it matters to you that others agree with you, one option is to explain it coherently in the hope that you might persuade some people. If it upsets you that some others disagree, the bad news is that you are a crank.

With the idea of the 'ineffable', there is the context of the transcendent. It may be possible to speak of it in words, but words as well as knowledge have limitations. This was recognised by Wittgenstein.

I presume you mean "Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent." Even Wittgenstein came to disagree with that.

So, even though I beat myself up for my lack of knowledge, the void of unknowing may be a starting point for understanding and insight.

That's pretty much the most important lesson of philosophy. Much of Plato's work was dedicated to stories of his hero, Socrates, dismantling the arguments of various people who thought they knew what they were talking about. That attitude was summarised in the story of Socrates' friend Chaerephon visiting the Oracle of Delphi. Upon asking if there was anyone wiser than Socrates, the Oracle replied that no one was wiser than Socrates. When he heard this, Socrates' response was initially bewilderment; how, he wondered, could he be so wise since he knew that he didn't know anything for certain. Well of course wisdom and knowledge are two different things, neither of which is reliant on the other.
In my own area of interest, history and philosophy of science, that wisdom manifests as underdetermination. Like all branches of philosophy, history and philosophy of science uses its own words to contextualise an idea that is widespread. In philosophy generally, any philosopher worth their salt understands that there are different ways of interpreting our experiences. In science, there are always different theories for exactly the same phenomena. Since there may be no way of distinguishing which theory is actually 'true', such theories are underdetermined. The wise thing to do is to treat them as tools and use whichever is best suited to your purpose, and be ready to ditch it if a better theory comes along.

[Jack Daydream]

Jack Daydream wrote:

I am referring to your idea of 'chopping wood' before and after enlightenment. It may be that the basic aspects of mundane living and activities remain constant but the mindset differs. Some may see it as a subjective estimation or discovery of meaning, but it may also be about seeing beyond the mundane as well.

It's good to know what it feels like to be passive. The problem is how often and how much can one afford to be passive without dying of passivity.
It's true that a passive attitude is beneficial when there is no possibility of active improvement.

The 'chopping wood 'advice implies that enlightenment is a once and for all event which once experienced benefits ordinary consciousness, rather like a pinch of salt which once added to the soup pervades the whole potful. However it's important not to add too much salt .

It is likely that I add 'too much salt' because I have not attained enlightenment. I may have reached some altered states but not the ultimate all changing one. There are probably early glimpses which are not quite the ultimate.

Gopi Krishna speaks of 'kundalini' as the energy source rising from the base of the spine, up the back to the 'third eye' chakra in the forehead. He sees it as being spontaneous or gradual. It is also potentially dangerous leading to many forms of imbalance and this may be like the 'too much salt' syndrome'.Of course, some may see kundalini awakening as different from enlightenment. It is also possible that people who claim enlightenment may have different experiences, especially as they may have followed different traditions and practices.

[Jack Daydream]

The philosophy aspects of mysticism is an area which I see as important, but it is so easily dismissed in the context of twentieth first century, especially as materialism and realism are ranked so highly.

What you find important is entirely your prerogative. If it matters to you that others agree with you, one option is to explain it coherently in the hope that you might persuade some people. If it upsets you that some others disagree, the bad news is that you are a crank.

With the idea of the 'ineffable', there is the context of the transcendent. It may be possible to speak of it in words, but words as well as knowledge have limitations. This was recognised by Wittgenstein.

I presume you mean "Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent." Even Wittgenstein came to disagree with that.

So, even though I beat myself up for my lack of knowledge, the void of unknowing may be a starting point for understanding and insight.

That's pretty much the most important lesson of philosophy. Much of Plato's work was dedicated to stories of his hero, Socrates, dismantling the arguments of various people who thought they knew what they were talking about. That attitude was summarised in the story of Socrates' friend Chaerephon visiting the Oracle of Delphi. Upon asking if there was anyone wiser than Socrates, the Oracle replied that no one was wiser than Socrates. When he heard this, Socrates' response was initially bewilderment; how, he wondered, could he be so wise since he knew that he didn't know anything for certain. Well of course wisdom and knowledge are two different things, neither of which is reliant on the other.
In my own area of interest, history and philosophy of science, that wisdom manifests as underdetermination. Like all branches of philosophy, history and philosophy of science uses its own words to contextualise an idea that is widespread. In philosophy generally, any philosopher worth their salt understands that there are different ways of interpreting our experiences. In science, there are always different theories for exactly the same phenomena. Since there may be no way of distinguishing which theory is actually 'true', such theories are underdetermined. The wise thing to do is to treat them as tools and use whichever is best suited to your purpose, and be ready to ditch it if a better theory comes along.

I don't mind at all if others disagree with me or if I am viewed as a 'crank'. I even get seen as a 'crank' by some people I know for being interested in philosophy in the first place. The process of developing ideas is an ongoing one and I am most definitely open to modifying my own ones. That is one of the main reasons why I interact on forums. I have been engaging on two other ones for about 4 years and my ideas have been modified somewhat from reading and writing in that way. In particular, I used to think of disembodied states of consciousness as possible, but now I see that as problematic.

[Will Bouwman]

I don't mind at all if others disagree with me or if I am viewed as a 'crank'. I even get seen as a 'crank' by some people I know for being interested in philosophy in the first place.

Yep, I know a few of those too.

The process of developing ideas is an ongoing one and I am most definitely open to modifying my own ones. That is one of the main reasons why I interact on forums. I have been engaging on two other ones for about 4 years and my ideas have been modified somewhat from reading and writing in that way. In particular, I used to think of disembodied states of consciousness as possible, but now I see that as problematic.

Who knows? Idealism is a perfectly respectable philosophical position and scores very highly for parsimony. As Descartes pointed out, the only thing we know for certain exists is consciousness. The onus is on anyone who insists there is more to reality to prove it.

[Jack Daydream]

I don't mind at all if others disagree with me or if I am viewed as a 'crank'. I even get seen as a 'crank' by some people I know for being interested in philosophy in the first place.

Yep, I know a few of those too.

The process of developing ideas is an ongoing one and I am most definitely open to modifying my own ones. That is one of the main reasons why I interact on forums. I have been engaging on two other ones for about 4 years and my ideas have been modified somewhat from reading and writing in that way. In particular, I used to think of disembodied states of consciousness as possible, but now I see that as problematic.

Who knows? Idealism is a perfectly respectable philosophical position and scores very highly for parsimony. As Descartes pointed out, the only thing we know for certain exists is consciousness. The onus is on anyone who insists there is more to reality to prove it.

The tension between idealism and materialism is one which occurs in Christianity, with the conflict between immortality of the soul and the idea of the resurrection at the end of the world. I did a philosophy module with a lecture including on life after death. One of the tutors suggested that the soul exists disembodied from the time of death until the end of the world. I only became very sceptical of this after reading the Buddhist idea of 'no self'.

Part of me does remain open to the possibility of idealism though. That is based on my two experiences of taking LSD. This was before I began training in psychiatric nursing. I know that taking hallucinogenics is not wise and is even described by some as 'profane mysticism'. However, at that time, it seemed really important for me to do. What it did feel like was that I really did get 'out of body', becoming a spirit. I was walking through a dance floor and felt able to pass through people and felt aware of an entirely different form of existence. It did seem to be compatible with Descartes' dualism.

A common view is that the experiences while under substances is a user-illusion and chemically induced. Yet, there is another way of thinking about it, which Aldous Huxley described in 'The Doors of Perception/Heaven and Hell'. Huxley draws upon the ideas of Bergson, especially the idea of the brain as a filter of consciousness. Here, what is being suggested is that the brain acts in a reductive way, and with hallucinogenics a person opens up to 'mind at large'. It is so hard to know for sure whether there is some truth in this. The equivalent to taking substances is fasting and that is why fasting was often undertaken within spiritual traditions. It comes down to what is the most 'real' reality?

[Belinda]

I don't mind at all if others disagree with me or if I am viewed as a 'crank'. I even get seen as a 'crank' by some people I know for being interested in philosophy in the first place.

Yep, I know a few of those too.

The process of developing ideas is an ongoing one and I am most definitely open to modifying my own ones. That is one of the main reasons why I interact on forums. I have been engaging on two other ones for about 4 years and my ideas have been modified somewhat from reading and writing in that way. In particular, I used to think of disembodied states of consciousness as possible, but now I see that as problematic.

Who knows? Idealism is a perfectly respectable philosophical position and scores very highly for parsimony. As Descartes pointed out, the only thing we know for certain exists is consciousness. The onus is on anyone who insists there is more to reality to prove it.

The tension between idealism and materialism is one which occurs in Christianity, with the conflict between immortality of the soul and the idea of the resurrection at the end of the world. I did a philosophy module with a lecture including on life after death. One of the tutors suggested that the soul exists disembodied from the time of death until the end of the world. I only became very sceptical of this after reading the Buddhist idea of 'no self'.

Part of me does remain open to the possibility of idealism though. That is based on my two experiences of taking LSD. This was before I began training in psychiatric nursing. I know that taking hallucinogenics is not wise and is even described by some as 'profane mysticism'. However, at that time, it seemed really important for me to do. What it did feel like was that I really did get 'out of body', becoming a spirit. I was walking through a dance floor and felt able to pass through people and felt aware of an entirely different form of existence. It did seem to be compatible with Descartes' dualism.

A common view is that the experiences while under substances is a user-illusion and chemically induced. Yet, there is another way of thinking about it, which Aldous Huxley described in 'The Doors of Perception/Heaven and Hell'. Huxley draws upon the ideas of Bergson, especially the idea of the brain as a filter of consciousness. Here, what is being suggested is that the brain acts in a reductive way, and with hallucinogenics a person opens up to 'mind at large'. It is so hard to know for sure whether there is some truth in this. The equivalent to taking substances is fasting and that is why fasting was often undertaken within spiritual traditions. It comes down to what is the most 'real' reality?

The idea of brain as filter of consciousness appeals to me. Filter of consciousness brain fits with uncertainty about what are you seeing---- the position, or the velocity , of a subatomic particle (Heisenberg). It's the observer/experimenter that decides.

Filter of consciousness brain also fits with the EPR experiment (quantum entanglement) that space does not exist but is created by the brainmind. Your valuable account of walking through the floor is a great illustration of being conscious of spacelessness. Some very reputable scientist experimented on himself with a mind altering substance ----chloroform was it?

That hallucinogenics open the brainmind to 'mind at large' is a reasonable hypothesis that convinces me well enough . But I'm unconvinced that low blood sugar has the same effect or mechanism as magic mushrooms or their synthetic equivalents .

[Jack Daydream]

Yep, I know a few of those too.

Who knows? Idealism is a perfectly respectable philosophical position and scores very highly for parsimony. As Descartes pointed out, the only thing we know for certain exists is consciousness. The onus is on anyone who insists there is more to reality to prove it.

The tension between idealism and materialism is one which occurs in Christianity, with the conflict between immortality of the soul and the idea of the resurrection at the end of the world. I did a philosophy module with a lecture including on life after death. One of the tutors suggested that the soul exists disembodied from the time of death until the end of the world. I only became very sceptical of this after reading the Buddhist idea of 'no self'.

Part of me does remain open to the possibility of idealism though. That is based on my two experiences of taking LSD. This was before I began training in psychiatric nursing. I know that taking hallucinogenics is not wise and is even described by some as 'profane mysticism'. However, at that time, it seemed really important for me to do. What it did feel like was that I really did get 'out of body', becoming a spirit. I was walking through a dance floor and felt able to pass through people and felt aware of an entirely different form of existence. It did seem to be compatible with Descartes' dualism.

A common view is that the experiences while under substances is a user-illusion and chemically induced. Yet, there is another way of thinking about it, which Aldous Huxley described in 'The Doors of Perception/Heaven and Hell'. Huxley draws upon the ideas of Bergson, especially the idea of the brain as a filter of consciousness. Here, what is being suggested is that the brain acts in a reductive way, and with hallucinogenics a person opens up to 'mind at large'. It is so hard to know for sure whether there is some truth in this. The equivalent to taking substances is fasting and that is why fasting was often undertaken within spiritual traditions. It comes down to what is the most 'real' reality?

The idea of brain as filter of consciousness appeals to me. Filter of consciousness brain fits with uncertainty about what are you seeing---- the position, or the velocity , of a subatomic particle (Heisenberg). It's the observer/experimenter that decides.

Filter of consciousness brain also fits with the EPR experiment (quantum entanglement) that space does not exist but is created by the brainmind. Your valuable account of walking through the floor is a great illustration of being conscious of spacelessness. Some very reputable scientist experimented on himself with a mind altering substance ----chloroform was it?

That hallucinogenics open the brainmind to 'mind at large' is a reasonable hypothesis that convinces me well enough . But I'm unconvinced that low blood sugar has the same effect or mechanism as magic mushrooms or their synthetic equivalents .

A few scientists experimented with hallucinogenics, including Huxley, Albert Hoffman, Stanislov Grof and Timothy Leary. A lot of the experiments go back to the 1960s. When I was seeking it, getting hold of it was extremely difficult and I ended up going to a warehouse rave by myself. The whole subcultures involved with accessing substances are risky,

Apart from feeling able to walk through others bodies, I had a strange experience looking in a mirror. I could see all my surroundings, such as radiators but I was missing entirely, as if I had lost my body. I could also hear my own thoughts and I did see this as a useful insight into how people experience psychosis.

Low blood sugar may have similar effects to drugs and I know that if I lack sleep and food I am inclined to have some visual imagery when I close my eyes. Some people are more sensitive than others.

Both ideas of quantum science and Eastern metaphysics are compatible with the idea of mind at large. The concept of Nirvana has an interesting ambiguity because it is similar to heaven but also as being about 'snuffing out', as the merging into mind at large. Timothy Leary used 'The Tibetan Book of the Dead' as a guide for working through hallucinogenic trips. Often, people get to the point where they can work with their drug experiences.

I don't plan to take LSD again as it was too dramatic. The reason why I took it twice rather than once was that I felt as though I had got back into my body a little incorrectly and wished to stabilise this. The sensation of getting out and back in body seemed to be at a gateway at the back of my neck.

[Belinda]

After the occlusion of a blood vessel that drained one of my retinas I had visual imagery when i closed my eyes and waited for the imagery to happen. It was rather fun and I was sorry when it went away. However the clot in my retina was incurable and affected one eye's central visual field. I attributed the passive imagery to my brain's adapting to loss of visual field. Unfortunately I only received patterns such as concentric circles , or floral lace, but I understand some people see wee people.

The brain does 'try' to adapt to novel incoming information, it would seem . I imagine the brain similarly 'tries' to adapt to psychoactive substances , low blood sugar, and the many hormones it is bombarded with. Also the brain reacts to neurotransmitters which are internally produced cyclically(circadian rhythms) and alter the ambient state of consciousness between waking awareness, dreaming sleep, dreamless sleep, and hallucinations. I view these changes between cranial neurotransmitters not as arranged on a 2D spectrum but as arrayed in three dimensions. I would really like to know which neurotransmitter is dominant during meditation consciousness. Whichever neurotransmitter it is that is present on those occasions I imagine the transmitter is beneficial to the system.

After all, in a civilised society the only reason that people with psychoses are medicated is that without medication they would die of suicide or be deeply unhappy.
Do you consider the reason for bad reactions to LSD was not the consciousness change itself but impurities or allergy or overdose?

Jack Daydream wrote:

Both ideas of quantum science and Eastern metaphysics are compatible with the idea of mind at large. The concept of Nirvana has an interesting ambiguity because it is similar to heaven but also as being about 'snuffing out', as the merging into mind at large.

Merging into 'the mind at large' or "Atman is Brahman", strongly indicates mind at large' straddles life and death but that ego-self must disappear before Brahman may be experienced.

[Jack Daydream]

After the occlusion of a blood vessel that drained one of my retinas I had visual imagery when i closed my eyes and waited for the imagery to happen. It was rather fun and I was sorry when it went away. However the clot in my retina was incurable and affected one eye's central visual field. I attributed the passive imagery to my brain's adapting to loss of visual field. Unfortunately I only received patterns such as concentric circles , or floral lace, but I understand some people see wee people.

The brain does 'try' to adapt to novel incoming information, it would seem . I imagine the brain similarly 'tries' to adapt to psychoactive substances , low blood sugar, and the many hormones it is bombarded with. Also the brain reacts to neurotransmitters which are internally produced cyclically(circadian rhythms) and alter the ambient state of consciousness between waking awareness, dreaming sleep, dreamless sleep, and hallucinations. I view these changes between cranial neurotransmitters not as arranged on a 2D spectrum but as arrayed in three dimensions. I would really like to know which neurotransmitter is dominant during meditation consciousness. Whichever neurotransmitter it is that is present on those occasions I imagine the transmitter is beneficial to the system.

After all, in a civilised society the only reason that people with psychoses are medicated is that without medication they would die of suicide or be deeply unhappy.
Do you consider the reason for bad reactions to LSD was not the consciousness change itself but impurities or allergy or overdose?

Jack Daydream wrote:

Both ideas of quantum science and Eastern metaphysics are compatible with the idea of mind at large. The concept of Nirvana has an interesting ambiguity because it is similar to heaven but also as being about 'snuffing out', as the merging into mind at large.

Merging into 'the mind at large' or "Atman is Brahman", strongly indicates mind at large' straddles life and death but that ego-self must disappear before Brahman may be experienced.

It is interesting to read about your experience of visual imagery, although not wonderful to hear that you have damaged central vision in an eye. I have some problems of the retina, with a query of a diagnosis of Coat's disease. This was found routinely by an optician but after a little deterioration in my right eye about 3 years ago I noticed a lot of visual imagery and it was fun. It also happens if I am in a dark room, such as seeing brick patterns on the wall when there are no bricks. It was only this year at my eye clinic appointment that a doctor acknowledged the phenomena. It is supposed to be connected to the phosphenes in the retina, and the retina is part of the brain.

One writer who is particularly interested in unusual perceptual experiences is Oliver Sacks. It does seem that the brain has compensatory mechanisms. It is interesting to think about the relationship between eye experiences, other perceptual experiences, including synthasaesia, and meditation. It is likely that there is some overlap in the workings of neurotransmitters. The differences between different brain activity is probably important, such as differences between alpha, beta, there,and delta states, which is involved in REM and dreamless states.

Apart from being related to meditation practices it does raise questions about the nature of death, especially in relation to NDE states. Some literature seems to see it as being part of a larger process of continuing development, or it could be a short process. Of course, it may be a mistake to frame it in time exactly, because it is about going outside of space and time and into possible dimensions which may be conceived as 'spirit'. Alternatively, it could be seen as symbolic of continuity, but it certainly seems important for viewing the bridge between life and death.

With bad reactions to LSD, it is hard to know how much is physical and how much is psychological. I have known people, including friends, who have had terrible reactions to LSD or cannabis. One aspect which I think may be significant is when people are using such substances in a recreational way. They are partying for a good time and not prepared for depth of such experiences. Even though I had to enter into such groups to gain access to such substances I was not just looking for 'fun' and had read Huxley and other writers. But, everyone is so different and experimentation is very risky. Apart from physical reactions there is the whole issue of drug-induced psychosis.

[seeds]

Part of me does remain open to the possibility of idealism though. That is based on my two experiences of taking LSD. This was before I began training in psychiatric nursing. I know that taking hallucinogenics is not wise and is even described by some as 'profane mysticism'.

A few scientists experimented with hallucinogenics, including Huxley, Albert Hoffman, Stanislov Grof and Timothy Leary. A lot of the experiments go back to the 1960s. When I was seeking it, getting hold of it was extremely difficult and I ended up going to a warehouse rave by myself. The whole subcultures involved with accessing substances are risky,...

...I don't plan to take LSD again as it was too dramatic. The reason why I took it twice rather than once was that I felt as though I had got back into my body a little incorrectly and wished to stabilise this.

Based on my own experiences with LSD (which were numerous back in the late 60s early 70s), I can imagine a whole host of bad ways for one to have their first experience with LSD, and the chaotic atmosphere of a rave party would definitely be one of those bad ways.

In which case, it's no wonder you shied away from it after that.

Now it's not that I didn't have some strange trips from time to time, but after the amazing circumstances of my very first trip, I found it to be something akin to what the astronauts describe as being the "Overview Effect."

I talked about that in the thread I linked you to in a prior post...

In later years, I eventually came to realize that the change I experienced after tripping on LSD is probably something similar to what the NASA astronauts call the "Overview Effect" as they look back at the earth from outer space (especially from the moon).

The following is from the website "INVERSE," from an article where - "...six NASA astronauts describe the moment in space when "everything changed"...":

Overview Effect
In doing so, all of them went through a change, not only in how they saw the planet but in their relationship to it. Some refer to that change as the “ Overview Effect,” a term coined in 1987 by celebrated space writer Frank White to describe the mental shift astronauts experience when they consider the Earth as part of a larger whole.

The point is that rather than being a form of, as you said - "profane mysticism," sometimes (as in my case, for example) hallucinogens can lead to "profound mysticism."

And that's because, under the right circumstances, they (hallucinogens) can instantly jar you out of the standard (attenuated) level of consciousness that humans are born with in order to make the illusion of objective reality seem natural and believable to us, and, in turn, as per Huxley's insight, open "The Doors of Perception" into realms that have been purposely hidden from us for the sake of, again, making this truly bizarre context of reality that we call a universe seem natural and logical to us.
_______

[Jack Daydream]

Part of me does remain open to the possibility of idealism though. That is based on my two experiences of taking LSD. This was before I began training in psychiatric nursing. I know that taking hallucinogenics is not wise and is even described by some as 'profane mysticism'.

A few scientists experimented with hallucinogenics, including Huxley, Albert Hoffman, Stanislov Grof and Timothy Leary. A lot of the experiments go back to the 1960s. When I was seeking it, getting hold of it was extremely difficult and I ended up going to a warehouse rave by myself. The whole subcultures involved with accessing substances are risky,...

...I don't plan to take LSD again as it was too dramatic. The reason why I took it twice rather than once was that I felt as though I had got back into my body a little incorrectly and wished to stabilise this.

Based on my own experiences with LSD (which were numerous back in the late 60s early 70s), I can imagine a whole host of bad ways for one to have their first experience with LSD, and the chaotic atmosphere of a rave party would definitely be one of those bad ways.

In which case, it's no wonder you shied away from it after that.

Now it's not that I didn't have some strange trips from time to time, but after the amazing circumstances of my very first trip, I found it to be something akin to what the astronauts describe as being the "Overview Effect."

I talked about that in the thread I linked you to in a prior post...

In later years, I eventually came to realize that the change I experienced after tripping on LSD is probably something similar to what the NASA astronauts call the "Overview Effect" as they look back at the earth from outer space (especially from the moon).

The following is from the website "INVERSE," from an article where - "...six NASA astronauts describe the moment in space when "everything changed"...":

Overview Effect
In doing so, all of them went through a change, not only in how they saw the planet but in their relationship to it. Some refer to that change as the “ Overview Effect,” a term coined in 1987 by celebrated space writer Frank White to describe the mental shift astronauts experience when they consider the Earth as part of a larger whole.

The point is that rather than being a form of, as you said - "profane mysticism," sometimes (as in my case, for example) hallucinogens can lead to "profound mysticism."

And that's because, under the right circumstances, they (hallucinogens) can instantly jar you out of the standard (attenuated) level of consciousness that humans are born with in order to make the illusion of objective reality seem natural and believable to us, and, in turn, as per Huxley's insight, open "The Doors of Perception" into realms that have been purposely hidden from us for the sake of, again, making this truly bizarre context of reality that we call a universe seem natural and logical to us.
_______

I wonder how of the experience of LSD is related to cultural context. In particular, the 1960s/70s were about consciousness expansion on an individual and collective way. There were role model gurus, such as The Beatles. My own experiences were in 1996 and influenced more by such later music, including Oasis and The Prodigy. Part of the reason why I mention music is because so much of the cultural context is about music as well as the possible inclusion of spiritual transformation. There is the movement of psychedelia at the junction of this.

Part of the reason why I would not have gone further with taking LSD wasn't just an experience of being in a warehouse rave, but because I was starting a training course. The course was intense and with many assessments to pass.

If I had different life circumstances at that time I may pursued that pathway. Even though I did not feel that I reached a profound mystical state, my 2 trips felt like a major experience which affected me profoundly. That was for raising questions of a philosophical nature which I have continued to pursue. I was interested in spirituality and philosophy in the first place but it was the point at which I really thought about the nature of consciousness, as well as issues of what is 'real'.

LSD may trigger moments of mystical awareness for some but not all. But, having a supportive environment may be essential, which is the point you were making about a rave being a bad situation.

It leads me to think how in some cultures there is a supportive environment, such as in the form of 'vision quests' as opposed to being within subversive subcultures which is the way it may have ended up as a anything but a form of potential transformation. It ended up with a subculture where people were taking all kinds of potentially toxic chemicals, including legal chemical 'highs', which have now been banned. One current trend is getting intoxicated on helium balloons, which seems like the opposite to the quest for transformation and more about a way of mind-numbing. It keeps the mystical hidden and even in most forms of religion it often remains low profile amidst ritualism and dogma.

[Belinda]

Jack Daydream wrote:

One current trend is getting intoxicated on helium balloons, which seems like the opposite to the quest for transformation and more about a way of mind-numbing. It keeps the mystical hidden and even in most forms of religion it often remains low profile amidst ritualism and dogma.

I wonder if there are scientific words for the different states of awareness caused by substances. I have heard of uppers and downers with relation to levels of brain activity , and referring to amphetamines as "uppers". I suppose barbiturates and alcohol are "downers".

Psychedelic substances are not directly related to levels of brain activity but more to forms of brain activity. Is that correct? N
Neither psychedelics nor activity -regulators ( such as barbiturates and amphetamines) are directly related to mood as we see from instances when all these substances cause anxiety and unhappiness. Does anyone know if there is an artificial happiness substance that does not merely affect activity or perception?

Happiness is a sidetrack though ,as the conversation is about perception and how important alternative perception may be. There is no need for benefit to feel happy.
I believe perception can and does transcend time , space , and force because there is plenty of evidence from those who have taken psychedelic substances. I am however sceptical about my own wishful thinking about how dead is death. Of course I want to meet loved ones again! What, precisely is Atman? Atman is not self because self is a human construct.

There is plenty in the Bible and elsewhere about the Kingdom of God and other such mysterious sayings, however I myself find that Atman is Brahman is more intelligible than any mystical words in The Bible.

[promethean75]

I never needed philosophy, religion, or mysticism to reach enlightenment. I got all the enlightenment i needed in the state's institutions and prisons. And while i do imagine sitting indian style and humming between deep breaths can be edifying somehow, I'm not sure I'd be able to attain the same great wisdom by doing so.