Messages

[indiscriminately]

LOL! I spell God's name as L.O.V.E. (not D.R.U.G.S.), and that makes a difference in my answer to the thread's initial question, I suppose.

If the goal of the experience is the experience itself (AP, OBE), then it's logical to assume that any means of achieving it (including drugs) should be good and useful.

If, however, the goal is unity with the divine, self-and God-knowledge, then the externals (like OBE and Ap) are simply side-effects we experience on the journey and inducing them with drugs does little to help you arrive at your destination and may even prevent you from reaching it.

Throughout this thread I see an underlying theme that "everything is relative," i.e., only you can decide if drugs are right for you.  I don't agree.

Ontological absolutes do exist. What may be relative is our understanding and acceptance of them, our willingness to respect them as realities that can form our lives and our decisions.  If it's an uncomfortable subject, one that causes us to have to think logically, assume responsibility, or suffer some internal discomfort when others disagee with us, then the everything-is-relative argument always does the trick

1. "Don't knock it if you haven't tried it."

I've never bought that argument; a very poor one, with little logical weight.  

I've never tried arsenic, but I know what it can do in one large dose or small doses over time.  I certainly can state a particular drug can be harmful if there is sufficient research to show its effects.

2. No one can decide for another what is good for them or not.

If next week someone here said Russian roulette was a great way to "open your mind up" (by opening your head) and everyone agreed, should I be silent or go with the flow so everyone will think I'm "tolerant" and fair-minded? After all, who am I to tell you it's dangerous, stupid, or immature?

Rules exist within societies based on community and individual needs. We have social rules against murder and theft and child abuse and an assortment of other things. It is possible for people to know what is good/bad for others and themselves.

Enough research has been done on dissociative and seratonic drugs used by dabblers in recreational spirituality to know that many of them can be dangerous with long-term moderate use or high dosage,  short-term usage.

3. You are disrespecting age-old religious cultures if you say drugs shouldn't be used in spiritual practices.

The point you all are missing here is that natural drugs were not used indiscriminately within those cultures. Shamans, priests, spiritual leaders placed conditions on and supervised their use; in most instances, the person was required to accept the responsibility of and training in discipleship before the use of those drugs. Drugs use in spiritual practices was supervised and controlled.

What I see in this advocated in this thread is the indiscriminate use of these drugs, without a true sense of responsibility, or a willingness to be trained properly in their use.

We're not talking a shaman suggesting mushrooms for a Vision quest here. Be honest with yourselves. We're talking mostly about recreational spirituality, which generally lacks any long term discipline, clear spiritual direction, and is regulated only by what the user determines is "relatively" good for hirself.

So, for me, if God is spelled L.O.V.E., then any spiritual practice should bring the person closer to being that love, understanding what it is, how it operates, and how we can use it to help ourselves,  others and the world.

If God is spelled D.R.U.G.S., then the ultimate goal is probably self-pleasure and ego-stimulation. As such, I'd venture to say it has little to do with the true spiritual journey.

[fully alive, conscious, aware]

Hi, David, will try to answer again.

The reason I started this topic was because I have had such an experience.

Then you probably came away from it realizing who you are in some way. The rest of your life may be spent trying to figure out what that means in everyday terms. While the experience shares certain similarities, it is different in terms of message and meaning for each person, imo.

I was a normal teenager and had never done anything to bring it about.

I come at it from a christian contemplative perspective, which is the lense through which I interpret the event. I would agree with you, enlightenment isn't an achievement, something we earn after doing some step-by-step spiritual process. It is a gift; we can particpate, but we do not initiate.

In retrospect I can see how my life was led toward the experience

For me, I believe this is true. The spiritual exercises can place us in a position to recieve the gift and prepare us to understand it better.

but at the time, to put it lightly, I had no clue what had happened to me (and no I was not on drugs).

LOL! I believe you. I'm not sure any drug can yeild ultimate enlightenment. Drugs can access parts of the brain we're not accustomed to, make us believe we've learned something unique, but they bring about "effects," not enlightenment itself, imo.

The fact that you had no clue as to what happened to you makes me wonder if we're talking about the same core experience. There are a wide variety of spiritual experiences, most of them pretty "impressive" to say the least. Yet, I believe the very nature of such "enlightenment" experiences is one of certainty about what happened.

As a teen I had an experience that totally rocked my spiritual world. About 6-7 years later Moody came out with his first book on NDEs and I realized my experience perfectly matched an NDE, except that it was self-induced.  What others might now call astral projection or OBE.

What I also know is that it was a completely different experience than the one I had 15 years later, the one to which the term "enlightenment" might apply. As impressive as that first (and several later) experiences was, it paled in comparison. Apples and oranges.

A little over a year ago I met a professor of philosophy that had some knowledge of this sort of thing and I have become more aware of others that have had similar experiences. Reading about their experiences has given me a vocabulary for the subject.

Interesting, because I believe there are lots of filters through which we can explore the meaning of the experience--different religious practices, science and medicine, philosophy and metaphysics--and whichever we prefer usually becomes the language of choice for talking about it. I myself prefer a mixture of contemplative and medical/scientific jargon.

I'm not saying I know anything special and as the good wisdom on the other page says, I am just trying to 'be' (theoretically a more difficult task than it would seem).

Imo, the experience doesn't make us wiser, better, more loving, more anything . . . however, I do believe it's the impetus to become those things.

For me, the experience came and went over a weekend period.  At one point I said "Please, no more. I can't handle this. I'm burning out." It stopped and has never returned. Nor have I sought the experience willfully again.  I don't need to. I know now the Kingdom of God is within me, others and the world itself. I don't need to separate mind, body and soul to "discover" it, or go to some other plane of existence to find God. S/He is constantly with me and available--in myself, others and all of creation.

Among other things, I also learned that this is a gift, not something we can "achieve" or take credit for.  Though it is our heritage, our right, who we are meant to be--fully alive, conscious, aware-- it is still a gift, a grace. We cannot create it and, while our potential is tremendous, our actual ability to hold and maintain such overpowering freedom, love and truth is actually quite limited. I believe we're here to activate that potential to the best of our ability and our will before the next phase of our lives.

I'm interested in what everyone thinks the relation to any sort of astral experience is to the context of the conversation? I liked R. Bruce's thoughts on the 'Source', has what he said jived with your experiences?

The language may be different, but there are similarities. I believe that astral experiences are what traditional mystics and contemplatives would call visions and locutions--happenings beyond the "norm."  Chrsitian contemplatives are taught to ignore such  things because they can easily stall your spiritual progress by appealing to the ego and creating a false sense of self. They make us think we've "achieved" something ourselves, made progress, become "holy"--when all we are experiencing is a spiritual pride.

Because they are so appealing and gratifying, we may get stuck at that "level" in the spiritual journey and forget the true goal, which for contemplatives at least, is the spiritual union with God.

On the medical/scientific side of the concept I've done a lot of reading on the brain and "reality breaks" that occur in religious experiences. Any spiritual truth must also work within the framework of human knowledge and truth, imo. I find the the relationship beween schizotypy and religious experience quite remarkable. I believe anyone interested in "other realities" should be aware of the dangers that may be present.

So, I have mixed feelings about Mr. Bruce and his work. In some ways it's good that he is appealing to people to explore their spiritual identities. Like all religions and religious teachers, there's some truth to what he teaches.

Yet, again as with all religions, blindly following someone else's "truth" can be extremely dangerous. His methods, like all religious practices, appeals mainly to those of us born with schizotypical tendencies. To continually seek to break with sensory reality, rather than to integrate the experience with physical reality, is a dangerous thing that plays with people's mental well-being, imo.

Hi, Greytraveller.  I was referring to the ego when I used the adjective "delightful."  Yes, some spiritual experiences can be frightening, but I meant that ALL such experiences appeal to our egos and in that way delight us. We feel we have "achieved" something, no matter how terrifying the experience.


 

Ack! Wrote a long answer and it didn't post.   If I have time later, David, I'll reconstruct my reply.

Basically, I said that astral projection may be one path, but we can easily get side-tracked by all the delightful experiences if we're not clear about our goals and allow the means to become that goal . . .

[being]

>>Has anyone had such an experience and want to talk about it?

Those who have such experiences usually don't talk much about them, David. "Ineffable" is the word that comes to mind . . . the difference between "to be" and "being," imo. We can write/speak a million words defining what it means "to be"--and many who have been gifted with the experience do spend lots of time talking about all the associated aspects of it.

Yet "being" is an experience, one that doesn't lend itself to words and trying to describe such a personal experience ends up being an exercise in frustration.

It's the difference between knowing, understanding, and discussing ontological truths like love/freedom/beauty/onesness--and being Love/Freedom/Beauty/One.

>>Does anyone have any thoughts on what such an experience would ultimately mean to the experiencer?

Whatever it is that God wishes to communicate through the experience, I'd suppose.  

For me, it was a certain knowledge that "God is me, but I am not God."  While twenty years later I'm still exploring the depth of meaning in that one small statement, I came away from the experience with a clear, soul-deep understanding that I am a created being, not a god-in-the-making, that to be one with God is not the same as becoming God. A humbling experience I am very grateful for.

For others, it might be different. I can't say.

[a side effect]

Good Hope, I honestly don't believe you are being attacked by a succubus or a neg or any entity physical or spiritual.  What is happening is not unusual at all.  

In strictly scientific/medical terms, meditation practices can affect levels of neurotransmitters in our brains, such as dopamine--and one of dopamine's jobs is to regulate our sexual urges.  It is not unusual for people who meditate regularly to be affected by sexual thoughts, urges, or even orgasm while "praying"/meditating.  Biologically speaking, your dopamine level probably has been increasing, especially if you are doing longer periods of meditation than usual.

From the spiritual point of view, such occasions can be viewed as transformative moments, periods when our spirits open up.  Yoga practitioners would probably say the sexual urges represent the rising kundalini . . . when understood, placed into perspective, and you are supported by those trained in the practice, they can be part of moving forward spiritually, a time of healing and transformation. Misunderstood or handled without guidance from those who know what's actually happening, such experiences can be disturbing to say the least, and even harmful if responded to improperly or without full understanding of what is actually happening.

Christian contemplatives like Theresa of Avila would describe those sexual urges as tests of your spiritual growth, distractions that arise as you come closer to the goal of union with God. She, and other christian contemplatives, advise us to ignore all such physical manisfestations and focus only on the goal--union with God.

Someone simply into the variety of experinces associated with the spiritual life might suggest it's just one more good thing to enjoy, so why worry.

Others, as I've seen on Christian sites opposed to new age spiritual practices and, oddly enough, here in this forum as well, might suggest they are demons or entities out to harm you.  Though I respect all opinions, I do believe some takes on the spiritual life stretch rality a bit and I'm not shy about saying so when I think well-intentioned advice can harm others.

For me, I believe truth is found in balance. The rational with the emotional; the scientific with the esoteric; the material with the spiritual.

So, my answer is that there's nothing inherently good or bad about the sexual urges.  They're simply a physiological response to rising dopamine levels. But, without a sense of spiritual discipline, of knowing where we want to go, what we want to achieve, and how the masters arrived there before us, such things can easily become distractions that keep us stuck on lower levels of consciousness and spirituality.

What I would suggest is that you leave the meditation alone for a few days and ground yourself a bit.  Jog, garden, bicycle, take walks . . . when you begin to meditate again, go slowly. If you experience unwanted sexual urges, try to remember it is only a side effect that can be safely ignored. If you cannot get past the intrusion, then end your meditation period and do something active, or engage your mind elsewhere, in a book perhaps or a game.   Over time you'll be able to increase your meditation periods again until such affective responses no longer intrude on you.

My 2 cents . . . hope it was common "sense" as well

Trisha, I don't disagree that there is a natual cycle of life-death-life, but war is not equivalent to the "food chain." War is a wanton, conscious, moral choice of man to destroy other men unnecessarily.

I'm not sure this war is about oil. It's more likely about the US placing a NATO ring around the former Soviet Union's neck.  Oil's just a good distraction to keep people arguing.

NATO has a mandate--it can become nvolved in disputes in neighboring countries--we must be "neighboring" Russian states and countries in order to "get involved," extend our control, use those areas resources (much more valuable than oil in Iraq or gas in Afghanistan), and keep Russia from ever returning to the former balance of power it had with the US.

Take a look at your map and where the US has been involved lately and where we have a NATO presence: Afghanistan (we trained, armed and cooperated with the Taliban), the former Yugoslavia (we trained, armed and operated with the KLO terrorists), Georgia . . . where is Irag?  Very strategically placed in a spot that plugs a hole in that "collar" surrounding the former USSR.

I'm not that scared about a madman with (unproven) one or two nuclear weapons.  But if America is doing what I personally think it is, then we should remember that Russia has traditionally avoided war, but when the Russian people's backs are aganst a wall, they fight like bears.  And they have REAL nuclear power at their disposal . . .

Interesting discussion, Gandalf.

Thought about it a bit myself over time and still wouldn't venture a defnitive answer, but I'm inclined to think evil, like love, is an act of the will and has nothing to do with ingnorance and knowledge. The most ignorant person can choose to love.  The most knowledgable person can choose to harm someone else.

Humans all act "from the good," meaning they believe they are doing the right thing. The question, though, is whether we wish good for ourselves only through selfishness, or the good of ourselves through choosing the good for others as well.

In Hannibal Lector's case, the character was not ignorant of his choices and what they meant. He was, in fact, highly intelligent and had his own (perhaps warped) sense of morality.  However, I believe he viewed his needs as superceeding those of his victims.  His will, his choice, was turned towards his needs and wants alone.

I've come to believe that all life can be described by a bell curve. Two extremes where 10% of the population fall at either end, and the vast majority of people fall somewhere in the middle.  In the case of evil, I would describe this as what direction and degree a person turns toward or away from selfishness.

10% are turned completely away from their own needs; in fact, their need is to serve others through the conscious choice to love--the saints of the world, the Ghandis and MLKs and Christs.

Another 10% turn absolutely toward their own needs and desires with no consideration of "the other" at all--the Hitlers and Lectors.

Most of us, to varying degrees at different times fall prey to selfishness, but try for the most part to do what's good for ourselves by considering others.

So, for me, it all comes back to free will--something I saw discussed in another topic, so I apologize if it's out of place here.  The direction and incilnation of our will (what we choose, our general disposition toward self and others) is the central feature of evil, not our knowledge or lack of it.

Either we're turned toward ourselves, or we are turned toward "the Other."  True evil exists only when the will is entirely turned away from the good of others.  Pretty rare, imo, but very real.

LOL! Well, Nerreza, you know what they say happens when we assume . . . and I did.  Hee Haw!

I'm not sure what it was that put a feminine picture in my head for you, but I tend to "assume" that people who express positive attitudes toward female values are women. I'm sure that tucked into your posts were many such little snippet-clues, but I should know by now that many men have explored and accepted that part of themselves.  I'd apologize--but I happen to think it's a compliment to you that I came to an incorrect conclusion

Doesn't change the fact that I enjoy your take on spirituality and life in general and I look forward to our friendship . . . with a clearer mind picture of you now.

Adrian:

I believe that the four pillars of society (education, law, religion and economics) are all hierarchically structured with men at top, women inhabiting, for the most part, along with other minorities, the base levels of the social structure. While some women are being acomodated at higher levels, they are the exception to the rule in most places, and they frequently must use the the traditional "male" concept of power-over to maintain that position or rise further. Most institutions operate on principles created by men over the last 4000 years or so, and emphasize "male" values for that reason as well.

I don't view this as bad intent on the individuals within those social structures, mostly just ignorance of the power structure behind the systems (churches, colleges, corporate board rooms, courtrooms) they live and work in operates.  It's so pervasive that people are usually blind to it.

Wiccans have created their own structure based on feminine values and social organization. Rather than trying to change a church from within (which I'm not sure can be done since the basic structure remains powered by male values), they created something of their own.

I'm not sure it makes a difference whether a God or Goddess is worshipped.  Had women created Wicca with a male God as the central figure, they still would have valued the intuitive over the rational, emotion over reason, power-to instead of power-over, bonding over individual achievement etc. The result would have been the same.

Truth is, I don't think organized religions are so much anti-female as they are pro-male.   Makes sense; they're institutions created to serve masculine goals and ideals of how the world should operate.

Doesn't make me mad any more.  Women, too, have allowed this to continue, taken part by their reluctance to pay the cost of change and their mistaken ideas that we must "ask" men to change what is natural for them, instead of assuming our own power, as Wiccans did, to create something new for ourselves.  Can't blame men and their male gods.  They're doing what comes natural to them, imo, and serving their own purposes as humans are inclined to do.  

One reason I visited this forum was because someone told me that what I described as part of my  spiritual life was actually OOBE.  Though I don't care what the "label" is, I couldn't help but be curious.

I don't have websites or links for you, but can tell you that I personally believe that yes, the interior prayer lives of monks definitely affects the love-hate balance in the world.

For instance, there is a Buddhist meditation called Tonglen, sort of breathing in the bad in the world, breathing out the good to take its place; breathing in the pain, breathing out the healing. They transform the hate and pain by accepting it into themselves and converting into love for the world.

Christian contemplatives like Thomas Merton believe that within their silent contemplation and union with a loving God they can create a balance to the evil in the world.  I haven't read him in a while and I may be wrong, but I recall once a line about contemplatives may be the only reason our world has not been destroyed by nuclear weapons.  I personally believe it.

No, I don't think they do this in the sense of their astral projections fighting demons or evil forces one on one. As I understand it, the focus isn't on destroying evil, it is on converting it or creating the good instead. And, from what I've read so far, the forms, practices and "effects" are similar to AP, OOBE in some ways, but the intent/goal of the meditation, and the interpretation of results is different.  

Personally, I wonder if turning the tide of hate and war in the world isn't a simple matter of more people creating love and good this way  than the number of people hating in one day. Thinking about the number of people here in one web forum alone who practice meditation makes me wonder if there isn't someway to channel that power into combating hate in this way.  Quite a powerful idea, imo, and I was glad to see this thread questioning the role AP could play in such a thing.  

Hi, Nerezza.  I've appreciated your posts and saw a lot of similarities between us through them so far. Years back I majored in RC theology, but withdrew in my last semester when I realized my other studies, feminism among them, had altered my view on some of the very basic concepts a Defender of the Faith is supposed to defend. I've never lost my faith, my relationship to God, but as I stayed on the path meant to deepen that relationship, I seemed to draw further away from organized religion itself.

When I switched classes (and majors) to the state college one of my professors made the comment to me that most religious studies majors were closet agnostics . . . I've come to agree with her

I miss the community very much.  Always have and I don't believe I will ever stop feeling that loss, but I was not able to take part in the sacraments without a sense of hypocrisy, so I finally withdrew.  Over time, I came to see I can't honestly call myself Christian anymore because I don't accept basic tenets of Christianity such as original sin and the need it created for redemption through Christ. Jesus is my brother; I try to live the way of life he preached and the Sermon on the Mount is probably the guiding force in my life. In fact the name I choose on spirituality boards, Assia, refers to the name of one of his sisters found in the Coptic History of Joseph the Carpenter--and is the main charactrer in a novel I'm almost finished writing, Xe Mapia ("Hail, Mary" a Greek graffitti found at primitive church burial sites).

I look forward to sharing with you.  I honor and respect women who remain within the church in order to change it from within by their lives and loves. Unfortunaely, that wasn't my path, but I have a feeling we have a lot in common.

Since the Vatican hasn't shifted it's position on women in the priesthood, you'll have a difficult path ahead of you and I admire your courage.  I'm aware of several ordained women, such as Ludmila Javorová, but I don't think those ordinations will be recognized in the near future.

My view agrees with Adrian, when the student is ready, the teacher appears; and with Moonchild, that a good teacher is one who knows s/he can't give you something you don't already have.

The job of a teacher is to "lead out" that which we already have inside, not to "stuff in" their own particular brand of knowledge. So, I'd imagine the first step in recognizing (rather than finding) your teacher when you are ready is that it will be someone who respects the path you are on, knows how to listen, allows you the freedom to make your own choices, and helps you understand your mistakes when you chose poorly.

A good teacher is someone who respects and understands the importance of the student following their own path. Following someone else's path, even your teacher's, means that at the end of the road you will find them--and not yourself. And finding yourself is the real goal of all spiritual searching.

A good teacher listens and asks questions that require us to think for ourselves. They don't lecture or instruct, but willingly provide information they might have that could shed light on our own journey.

A good teacher never judges, but leads you to the place where you are capable of judging yourself accurately and honesty.

Most of all a good teacher is someone who lives the life you wish to emulate.  They walk the talk they share with you and by doing so, help you learn to walk yourself.  

My thanks to "V," my teacher, whom the above describes.

I like "42" as the answer, but prefer "E=mc²" myself.

I'm energy, mass, movement combined in an amazing equation of life.

For me, the energy is choice, expressed though my physical body, in a movement called love . . . or something like that

Thank you for such a warm welcome, Adrian.

I understand your tolerance of passing remarks, but the "I hate Roman Catholicism" ones were a bit more than a generalized comment about organzied religion; they were very specfic, as a matter of fact. Kind of threw me a bit on a forum dedicated to finding the higher consciousness.
 
Don't get me wrong, I'm not asking to eliminate such statements. In fact, I'm all for letting any such comments ride.  They can be a pretty good litmus test of how well a person can "walk their own talk."  Which, of course, makes it easier for me to decide how much weight to place on the rest of their talk

I've been browsing the rest of the topics--lots here, just in this one area of the forum.  Will take some time to read them, but it should be enjoyable.

Thanks again for the welcome!

I remember arguing as a teenager with the religion teacher over the impossibility of predestination if we had free will. Must have driven that poor nun batty!  After class my friend cleared it up nicely for me when she explained that my problem was in equating my-time with God-time.

When it comes to time (and many other things), humans think linearly. God doesn't.  I face a decision (point A on the time line).  I "move ahead" and make a decision at point B. The effects of that decision are felt later at point C. We figure God is moving along that line with us at the same "time," so S/He must be "forcing" the decision on us to get to a particular point C.

However, if we think of God as standing outside that time line--though actually encompassing it--God exists in present, past, future, so S/He experiences points A, B, and C simultaneously. No matter which decision I make God is aware of it as it is made--and it "fits" no matter what it is, simply because all possibilities are possible in God's time frame.

Those inclined toward parodoxical thinking like my friend Sue see it easily. Those who think linearly, as I did, have a bit of trouble with the concept, that's all.

For the record, I'm no longer a practicing Catholic.  But not because I dislike or am angry at the Church.  I left out of respect for it when my Christological views changed and I came to believe that all religions are man-made constructs mean to control society. I probably wouldn't have mentioned that except for the disparagement of Roman Catholicism I noticed in this thread.  Surprised me in a forum which seems so respectful of other non-traditional spiritual paths.  Logical to assume that respect should be "catholic" or universal

Anyone who studies various religions in a personal search for truth can always find that faith system's particular beauty and truth if they look for it. Catholicism is no exception.  When what they actually teach is understood, it's easy to see much truth in that spiritual path.

Like kakkarot, I believe that the spiritual journey moves from the simplicity of childhood, through complexity as an adult seeker, and back to simplicity as we mature. The amazing thing, though, is that the latter simplicity--love--can paradoxically encompass that previous multitude of complex things.  It doesn't eliminate them, imo, it explains and unifies them. And, once you've experiened that simplicity, it's hard to hate any person, religion, or spiritual path because you see them as part of that unified whole.