Nibbana under the effect of ayahuasca

[Ceisiwr]

The Pali Canon was written down after 500 years of oral transmission and is one of 18 schools. We don't know for sure if anything was ever mentioned about them that didn't make the final edit. There is I believe a brief mention of the 'Soma ritual' in the Pali canon without much details.

However it wouldn't surprise me if nothing was mentioned since he would have seen that it's a double edged sword. Many would have likely been harmed through irresponsible use or being unable to cope with the experience thus bringing disrepute to the teachings and causing more harm. So silence on the issue without any direct reference seems the best way, while making precepts against obvious harmful intoxicants like alcohol which are a totally different category and which cloud mindfulness, but letting one use their own judgement regarding these substances.

I didn't just have the Pāli Canon in mind. All early Buddhist schools, from what we know, taught against using drugs. Sure, you could say the Buddha did teach it but it was forgotten or suppressed by the Sangha at large. You could argue that, but with such a line of thought you could argue that the Buddha taught anything. Someone could argue that the Buddha thought that stealing was in fact ok. We just don't know about it because of the oral tradition, but it seems reasonable to them that the Buddha would teach that stealing is ok and so it's ok to steal and still call oneself a Buddhist. Someone could argue that, but it's not a particularly good argument. Said person is merely trying to justify their own personal view by casting doubt on what was learnt and passed on via the Sangha.

They are a hidden and not widely accepted radical augmenting tool to meditation and religious practice and they have always been that way and should remain so.
Who knows the origin of them but they are connected to the deathless dimension in some way or how I believe.

Feel entirely free to ignore or dismiss what I just wrote, and I am not recommending them my views are based on experience but speculative none the less.

In all honesty it's up to you if you use drugs or not, just don't say it's in line with what the Buddha taught. At that point you are doing what so many people fall into doing. That is to say making your own personal spirituality out of the Dhamma, rather than actually following the Dhamma. Align your views with the teachings, rather than align the teachings with your views if you want to practice Buddhism.

[Cause_and_Effect]

~

I disagree that it is necessarily against what the Buddha taught. It's not supported or mentioned in the canon, but I would says its not covered as a blanket statement about intoxicants like alcohol since it doesn't usually lead to reduced mindfulness and is non-addictive.

Otherwise one could say jhana is against what the Buddha taught because it could lead to conceit and is an altered mind state.

The criteria for skilful use is if it reduces unskillful mental qualities.
One uses ones discernment and evaluates experience and reports to reach a conclusion. There is no need for simply blind faith devotion to texts particularly if using the method for evaluating the legitimacy of a teaching if it is aligned with the dhamma.

I understand that some people would be against it and assume,without any experience, that it cannot be part of the path and has to be unskillful. I will not argue with those people but my own experience and understanding comes to a different conclusion
And it has no bearing on my general attitudes towards other obvious intoxicants or else some kind of attitude of trying fit other things into the dhamma to suit my preferences.

I simply have the view, supported by many, that it produces a type of expanded mental state where the mind becomes more visible and workable and insights can occur. However I am not trying to persuade anyone to use them but I do reject any attempt to claim that it is simply wrong because it's not talked about in the Pali Canon. I can't see any way such powerful tools could have been mentioned in the canon without harm coming to some people who were not prepared for them even if they could be a beeline to temporary a emptiness- release for others.

This is true for other practices like repulsiveness meditation which the canon reports can lead to suicide if not paired with anapanasati but for a powerful substance that can have these effects I see no convincing argument against the insights produced other than "All drugs the same and wrong" "it can't be genuine because it's not from gradual meditation" or "not in Canon", none of which are enough for me to doubt the experiences themselves and the positive impact they have had.

[mjaviem]

I have never used psychedelics for meditative purposes, but as with everything else, they can be used skillfully or methodologically.

Medicine is called drug for a reason, that it alters states of consciousness. The moral dimension of using it has to do with purpose (medicinal or recreational) and net effect (net positive or net negative).

Another aspect has to do with the nature of grasping. The unconditioned that people seek symbolizes an underlying abundance that is contrasted with the scarcity of the conditioned. The unique or extraordinary experiences that can be induced through using substances manifest that underlying abundance, hence if used skillfully, they can increase faith. Also to use them skillfully would be to be aware of the ephemeral nature of those experiences due to its dependence on the substance.

Dismissing the efficacy of using drugs based on the impermanent nature of the produced experiences is not a strong argument in the sense that seeking permanence is integral to the nature of grasping. Instead, evaluating the effects on the overall well-being after the subsiding of the induced experiences seems to be a better measure of their efficacy. If the drug is being used to escape from the pains of ordinary experiences, then one is better without it. If it is being used to highlight the lack of ultimate nature in everyday experience, then it can help in lessening attachments.

Using drugs for meditative purposes is wrong practice. It generates addiction, not release. The net effect is negative. They generate depression and anxiety. Skillful meditators are those who refrain from using drugs. The moral dimension is to not use drugs, to not be heedless. There's a whole precept against it.

What is required is faith about the Noble Eightfold Path. No experience of fulfillment induced by drugs can increase faith.

They don't highlight any nature or lack of it. They don't show uncertainty of reality. They only confuse and sow doubts.

[Ceisiwr]

I disagree that it is necessarily against what the Buddha taught. It's not supported or mentioned in the canon, but I would says its not covered as a blanket statement about intoxicants like alcohol since it doesn't usually lead to reduced mindfulness and is non-addictive.

Addiction is only part of why the Buddha taught against using drugs, which would include soma and hallucinogenics. You can't be mindfully practicing sense restraint whilst on acid. If you were, you wouldn't be taking acid in the first place.

Otherwise one could say jhana is against what the Buddha taught because it could lead to conceit and is an altered mind state.

Jhāna is a state where you are secluded from sense desires. It only comes about in part through virtue and sense-restraint. Of having a balanced mind. Of not giving rise to wanting to experience this or that. Of letting go. Using drugs is the opposite of that. You are chasing an experience, rather than letting go. Jhāna can of course be grasped wrongly, but Jhāna isn't comparable to drug use. You can't compare a state that is based on letting go with a state that is immersed in delighting in the senses. Apples and oranges.

The criteria for skilful use is if it reduces unskillful mental qualities.
One uses ones discernment and evaluates experience and reports to reach a conclusion. There is no need for simply blind faith devotion to texts particularly if using the method for evaluating the legitimacy of a teaching if it is aligned with the dhamma.

Using hallucinogenics doesn't decrease greed and delusion. You can't get into Jhāna whilst using drugs, and without Jhāna you can't awaken at all.

I understand that some people would be against it and assume,without any experience, that it cannot be part of the path and has to be unskillful. I will not argue with those people but my own experience and understanding comes to a different conclusion
And it has no bearing on my general attitudes towards other obvious intoxicants or else some kind of attitude of trying fit other things into the dhamma to suit my preferences.

Of course, that is your personal opinion.

I simply have the view, supported by many, that it produces a type of expanded mental state where the mind becomes more visible and workable and insights can occur. However I am not trying to persuade anyone to use them but I do reject any attempt to claim that it is simply wrong because it's not talked about in the Pali Canon. I can't see any way such powerful tools could have been mentioned in the canon without harm coming to some people who were not prepared for them even if they could be a beeline to temporary a emptiness- release for others.

This is true for other practices like repulsiveness meditation which the canon reports can lead to suicide if not paired with anapanasati but for a powerful substance that can have these effects I see no convincing argument against the insights produced other than "All drugs the same and wrong" "it can't be genuine because it's not from gradual meditation" or "not in Canon", none of which are enough for me to doubt the experiences themselves and the positive impact they have had.

You said you can't see how a beneficial yet potentially dangerous practice such as drug use could have been incorporated into the texts and tradition, yet you acknowledge that a beneficial yet potentially dangerous practice is found in the texts and tradition. As I said, the Buddha would have known about the practice of using substances to alter one's mind for spiritual purposes. All the evidence we have is that he rejected that practice. If you want to argue that he could have taught it because it makes sense to you, you can. However anyone can argue for anything being taught by the Buddha with that logic can't they.

[Cause_and_Effect]

Using drugs for meditative purposes is wrong practice. It generates addiction, not release. The net effect is negative. They generate depression and anxiety. Skillful meditators are those who refrain from using drugs. The moral dimension is to not use drugs, to not be heedless. There's a whole precept against it.

What is required is faith about the Noble Eightfold Path. No experience of fulfillment induced by drugs can increase faith.

They don't highlight any nature or lack of it. They don't show uncertainty of reality. They only confuse and sow doubts.

Psychedelics do not produce addiction. In fact, they have been used successfully to cure addiction to other drug habits. Sometimes only one trip is enough for some people.

They likewise do not generate depression, and have been used to treat depression successfully.

You can't be mindfully practicing sense restraint whilst on acid. If you were, you wouldn't be taking acid in the first place.

Yes you can. It's not a sense pleasure it's a mind manifesting agent and meditation integrates with it perfectly.

Jhāna is a state where you are secluded from sense desires. It only comes about in part through virtue and sense-restraint. Of having a balanced mind. Of not giving rise to wanting to experience this or that. Of letting go. Using drugs is the opposite of that. You are chasing an experience, rather than letting go. Jhāna can of course be grasped wrongly, but Jhāna isn't comparable to drug use. You can't compare a state that is based on letting go with a state that is immersed in delighting in the senses. Apples and oranges.

Again you are conflating the application with the means. You can use psychedelics to delight in the external senses or you can use them to go deeper into the mind.
I have posted reports of use in this way which you have ignored and are clearly nothing to do with chasing sense desire but are aligned with some types of meditative goals.

Using hallucinogenics doesn't decrease greed and delusion. You can't get into Jhāna whilst using drugs, and without Jhāna you can't awaken at all.

Again, blanket statements don't apply. It can reduce or increase greed depending how the state is used.

As I said, the Buddha would have known about the practice of using substances to alter one's mind for spiritual purposes. All the evidence we have is that he rejected that practice. If you want to argue that he could have taught it because it makes sense to you, you can. However anyone can argue for anything being taught by the Buddha with that logic can't they.

No, there is no evidence he rejected or endorsed the practice.
I can't see him talking openly on their use though even if it could be beneficial for some due to probably the image it fostered amongst laity.
Certainly though if he was against them outright he could have included injunctions saying it was wrong rather than relying on people having to stretch the fifth precept against alcohol, to trying to cover substances that give some people a clear sense of having tasted nibbana and seen past lives etc
So I see his silence on the matter as significant.

Anyway I have my views based on much experience and they are no hindrance to me but a great benefit on the occasions they are used, which is usually only every few months or years.

I'm not trying to convince anyone and not really interested in debating the matter. There is plenty of direct experiences and emerging research supporting my perspective but I can accept the counter arguments also so we can leave it there.

There is an extensive review of the relationship between meditation and psychedelics here for those interested and open minded

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6137697/

[mjaviem]

Psychedelics do not produce addiction. In fact, they have been used successfully to cure addiction to other drug habits. Sometimes only one trip is enough for some people.

They likewise do not generate depression, and have been used to treat depression successfully.
...

Ok, whatever the effect and whatever the benefit you claim it yields, it can't be beneficial for the buddhist practice itself. You can say that it helps you to understand the world, or some truth you are looking for but you can't say it helps you with your buddhist practice. It's like saying that making kills helps you with the practice because you came to understand first hand real consequences of these actions. Or like saying hanging around with bad people helped you to understand the importance of having good friends in dhamma. I don't know if using drugs is helping you to understand about perceptions or consciousness or selfhood or lack of self, or whatever. It is not real understanding. The way to real understanding is taught by the Buddha and it supports itself without the need for external supports and accessories as explained here:

At Savatthī. “Bhikkhus, I will teach you noble right concentration with its supports and its accessories. Listen to that….

“And what, bhikkhus, is noble right concentration with its supports and its accessories? There are: right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness. The one-pointedness of mind equipped with these seven factors is called noble right concentration ‘with its supports,’ and also ‘with its accessories.’”

[Bundokji]

Using drugs for meditative purposes is wrong practice. It generates addiction, not release. The net effect is negative. They generate depression and anxiety. Skillful meditators are those who refrain from using drugs. The moral dimension is to not use drugs, to not be heedless. There's a whole precept against it.

What is required is faith about the Noble Eightfold Path. No experience of fulfillment induced by drugs can increase faith.

They don't highlight any nature or lack of it. They don't show uncertainty of reality. They only confuse and sow doubts.

Methodological use of psychedelics does not cause addiction as far as i know. Some reported net positive effects from using them such as Sam Harris and Bernardo Kastrup. Faith can be triggered by a mystical experience, whether drug induced or otherwise. Especially in the context of materialistic societies, drug induced experiences can make people believe that there is something beyond appearances (another shore), or that science is not the only or best way of explaining phenomena.

The relationship between medicine and poison is an interesting one. A methodological use of poison can turn it into medicine. The aim is always a state of health.

If on the hand there is no wound, one may carry even poison in it. Poison does not affect one who is free from wounds. For him who does no evil, there is no ill.

[Pondera]

It’s true that psychedelics are non-habit forming. That goes for mushrooms, DMT (the active ingredient in ayahausca), and roots like kava and ibogaine.

It’s also true that psychedelics can often cure other addictions. I have a friend who was a hardcore opioid addict - using heroine to the point where even here in the north west part of the Americas where our incoming opioid supply from China is contaminated with Fentanyl, my friend could take as many hits as he wanted. His tolerance to opioids could allow him to take what would otherwise be a deathly dose of Fentanyl.

Long story short, he used Ibogaine at a recovery centre in Mexico and had a 12 hour waking dream where a spirit guide showed him the paths he could take in life and where they would lead. This has caused him to abandon opioids completely and to live a very clean life. Not to mention that some of these psychedelics actually repair opioid receptors which is an added benefit for certain addicts.

I recently took a recreational dose of kava root extract and had a very pleasant three hour feeling of calmness in which I was acutely aware of my surroundings. It reminded me afterwards that I often don’t pay attention to how my nose is reacting to my environment. I’ve always known that my sacral chakra stimulates nerves in my brain associated with my nostrils. But it’s only now because of the kava that I’ve paid more attention to my sniffer and have relaxed it with the benefit of an elimination in long term lower back pain.

But no, none of these drugs are effective in the moment for jhana or awakening. They stimulate the mind, where as the point of jhana is to calm the mind by the gradual letting go of sense-consciousness.

[Sam Vara]

Certainly though if he was against them outright he could have included injunctions saying it was wrong rather than relying on people having to stretch the fifth precept against alcohol, to trying to cover substances that give some people a clear sense of having tasted nibbana and seen past lives etc

The phrasing here is interesting. Are we talking about a person actually having tasted nibbāna, or having a sense of tasting nibbāna? Is the use of the adjective "clear" representing veridicality or merely a subjective sense of clarity?

If the former, then it is a form of question-begging. If the latter, then it raises David Hume's point that if someone tells you that God spoke to them in a dream, then all they are reporting is that they dreamed of God speaking to them. And what do we make of a person under the influence of drugs (or NDE, etc.) who have a clear sense of having experienced God? Wouldn't that be at odds with Buddha Dhamma?

[Pondera]

Certainly though if he was against them outright he could have included injunctions saying it was wrong rather than relying on people having to stretch the fifth precept against alcohol, to trying to cover substances that give some people a clear sense of having tasted nibbana and seen past lives etc

The phrasing here is interesting. Are we talking about a person actually having tasted nibbāna, or having a sense of tasting nibbāna? Is the use of the adjective "clear" representing veridicality or merely a subjective sense of clarity?

If the former, then it is a form of question-begging. If the latter, then it raises David Hume's point that if someone tells you that God spoke to them in a dream, then all they are reporting is that they dreamed of God speaking to them. And what do we make of a person under the influence of drugs (or NDE, etc.) who have a clear sense of having experienced God? Wouldn't that be at odds with Buddha Dhamma?

I don’t think the Buddha ever outright declared that God did not exist. You can prove me wrong with a sutta reference of course.

From my reading of the suttas, the Buddha goes as far as to entertain the idea of an “OverLord”. The “OverLord” is also lumped in with all the devas in MN 1.

So, perhaps the idea of a Creator God (a benevolent Creator God, mind you) is out of sorts with Buddhism. The idea of an OverLord who’s power and might are incomparable is not.

I firmly believe in the OverLord and understand the extents of his power to influence reality and I am very much not at odds with Buddhism.

How do I know any of this? Well it didn’t come in a dream.

Let me posit the following:

Schizophrenia (as the doctors like to call it) “hallucinations” cannot be reduced to a brain state any better than the experience of red can. This is the hard problem of consciousness. And for anyone who’s heard voices, there are inconsistencies in the scientific, biological view that it’s “all in the person’s head”. Such as access to information one could not have obtained without the words of the voices … historical facts, the location of certain items, what song is going to come on the radio next, etcetera.

[Sam Vara]

Certainly though if he was against them outright he could have included injunctions saying it was wrong rather than relying on people having to stretch the fifth precept against alcohol, to trying to cover substances that give some people a clear sense of having tasted nibbana and seen past lives etc

The phrasing here is interesting. Are we talking about a person actually having tasted nibbāna, or having a sense of tasting nibbāna? Is the use of the adjective "clear" representing veridicality or merely a subjective sense of clarity?

If the former, then it is a form of question-begging. If the latter, then it raises David Hume's point that if someone tells you that God spoke to them in a dream, then all they are reporting is that they dreamed of God speaking to them. And what do we make of a person under the influence of drugs (or NDE, etc.) who have a clear sense of having experienced God? Wouldn't that be at odds with Buddha Dhamma?

I don’t think the Buddha ever outright declared that God did not exist. You can prove me wrong with a sutta reference of course.

From my reading of the suttas, the Buddha goes as far as to entertain the idea of an “OverLord”. The “OverLord” is also lumped in with all the devas in MN 1.

So, perhaps the idea of a Creator God (a benevolent Creator God, mind you) is out of sorts with Buddhism. The idea of an OverLord who’s power and might are incomparable is not.

I firmly believe in the OverLord and understand the extents of his power to influence reality and I am very much not at odds with Buddhism.

How do I know any of this? Well it didn’t come in a dream.

Let me posit the following:

Schizophrenia (as the doctors like to call it) “hallucinations” cannot be reduced to a brain state any better than the experience of red can. This is the hard problem of consciousness. And for anyone who’s heard voices, there are inconsistencies in the scientific, biological view that it’s “all in the person’s head”. Such as access to information one could not have obtained without the words of the voices … historical facts, the location of certain items, what song is going to come on the radio next, etcetera.

I guess I tend to think that "issara" in MN 82 means a benevolent creator God, and also that such a God would need to be a permanent self in order to qualify for the title. But in any case, one can substitute other things that one might have a "clear sense of", and which would put one at odds with the Buddha's teachings if believed. A permanent self, for example, or the non-existence of kamma.

I've no experience of the overlord as you report, but I agree with your point about the hard problem of consciousness. I also believe that the type of thing you report - precognition, in particular - are indisputably real.

Two asides. 1) The last time I made the claim that the Buddha denied the existence of a benevolent creator God in a face-to-face interaction, it was to an apparently mild-mannered Jesuit professor of Theology at Cambridge University, a renowned specialist in Christian Spirituality. He got so angry that he reported me to the Dean of the college, and it was also the last time that I thought I was going to get into a fist-fight!

2) I like the monkey. He looks like he knows a thing or two!

[mjaviem]

Methodological use of psychedelics does not cause addiction as far as i know. Some reported net positive effects from using them such as Sam Harris and Bernardo Kastrup. Faith can be triggered by a mystical experience, whether drug induced or otherwise. Especially in the context of materialistic societies, drug induced experiences can make people believe that there is something beyond appearances (another shore), or that science is not the only or best way of explaining phenomena.

The relationship between medicine and poison is an interesting one. A methodological use of poison can turn it into medicine. The aim is always a state of health.
...

All right. But in any case, there is dependency on an external substance to supposedly achieve the buddhist goal. Whatever the positive effects they bring they are not related to the Path. It's like saying reading has positive effects on the mind and the spirit. Sure, but we are talking about the buddhist path. It might even cure some disease but it does not cure all kinds of suffering. Whatever technology humans develop, it is not required and it does not support the development of the Noble Eightfold Path.

If it triggers faith, it is not faith in the enlightenment of the Tathāgata nor in the Noble Eightfold Path. The only nutriment for faith is hearing the good Dhamma. You don't need any substance to nourish your faith.

[Bundokji]

All right. But in any case, there is dependency on an external substance to supposedly achieve the buddhist goal. Whatever the positive effects they bring they are not related to the Path. It's like saying reading has positive effects on the mind and the spirit. Sure, but we are talking about the buddhist path. It might even cure some disease but it does not cure all kinds of suffering. Whatever technology humans develop, it is not required and it does not support the development of the Noble Eightfold Path.

If it triggers faith, it is not faith in the enlightenment of the Tathāgata nor in the Noble Eightfold Path. The only nutriment for faith is hearing the good Dhamma. You don't need any substance to nourish your faith.

In a gradual path, presenting the goal as an end seems to be annihilationism. The other alternative is moving upward. This is what Buddhists are promised, either nibbana or better rebirth, you seem to be neglecting one to emphasize the other. In the raft simile, the utility of the raft was confirmed, and only negated upon arriving to the further shore.

What triggered faith in the Buddha is not hearing the good dhamma, but seeing the four messengers. The seeking for medicine (the fourth messenger) seems inseparable from the inconveniences associated with the first three. The four noble truths are often interpreted using medical terms (an ancient Indian medical formula): diagnosis, cause, prognosis, and treatment.

[mjaviem]

In a gradual path, presenting the goal as an end seems to be annihilationism. The other alternative is moving upward. This is what Buddhists are promised, either nibbana or better rebirth, you seem to be neglecting one to emphasize the other. In the raft simile, the utility of the raft was confirmed, and only negated upon arriving to the further shore.

What triggered faith in the Buddha is not hearing the good dhamma, but seeing the four messengers. The seeking for medicine (the fourth messenger) seems inseparable from the inconveniences associated with the first three. The four noble truths are often interpreted using medical terms (an ancient Indian medical formula): diagnosis, cause, prognosis, and treatment.

You seem to be claiming that the medicine to cure suffering may include using drugs skilfully and for this purpose only! This is wrong.

(And I'm talking about buddhists' faith not prince Siddharttha's faith. Drugs use won't help developing buddhists' faith.)

[Bundokji]

You seem to be claiming that the medicine to cure suffering may include using drugs skilfully and for this purpose only! This is wrong.

(And I'm talking about buddhists' faith not prince Siddharttha's faith. Drugs use won't help developing buddhists' faith.)

Monks use cow urine for medicinal purposes (which is perceived poisonous under normal circumstances).

Buddhist faith and siddartha's faith are not mutually exclusive. The dhamma is not a false dilemma.