doc benway

I find two flaws in this argument - 1. Buddhists don't necessarily expect or intend for "every living thing to be happy with this arrangement." 2. Most Buddhists are vegetarian. Even the Tibetans living in diaspora tend towards vegetarianism once there is the opportunity to do so, which doesn't exist at altitude. I'd be interested in fleshing out the Buddhist web of delusion further There is no question about the wisdom inherent in those lines from the Daodejing. While there is much truth to these lines, we are humans, not earthquakes, tornadoes, or floods. It is our nature to feel emotion and we can choose to act with compassion towards others or to take advantage of the weakness of others. When we live a life of caring and compassion, we experience tangible benefits from that as do those around us. When we live otherwise, we experience negative consequences. That is the truth of karma and the foundation of compassionate action on the relative level in Buddhism. The sage has transcended the wheel of karma and sees the world from both the absolute and relative perspectives. The sage sees the futility that you point to and yet still has the choice to be kind and compassionate or mean and predatory. Rather than this undermining the value of compassionate action, this awareness can also reinforce the principles of compassion and equanimity. The sage sees the world from the absolute perspective where the unity of Dao means that life and death have little meaning. At the same time, that very unity means that if I hurt someone else, I am equally hurting myself. If I help someone else, I am equally helping myself. If this is experienced directly, beyond intellect, it is enormously powerful. This can be a wellspring of unconditional love and compassion. That is the foundation of compassion in Buddhism on a more absolute level. Simultaneously, the sage can see the absolute truth where all living beings are "straw dogs" as well as the relative truth where humans and animals actually experience happiness and suffering in a very real way. It's my experience that sagely folks are more likely to be kind and compassionate than predatory or selfish.

This is the key.

I was referring to the power of thought relating to its tendency to assume it can explain everything, which it can't. Thoughts can be powerful in the sense that an idea can lead to enormous change for better or worse. Our tendency to grasp at thought, which seems to be inherent in thought itself, is also enormously powerful.

Thought is indeed powerful

Realization cannot undermine the life force. Realization is direct connection with and expression of the life force. If you are in an existential quandary you are mired in a state created by thought, not realization. True realization will unleash the creative force, the spontaneity of unconditional love, it has nothing to do with thought. There are no questions or doubts there whatsoever.

"Enlightenment is stuff to drop" Interesting how this dovetails with a quote discussed in the Buddhist forum: "Nirvana is merely the exhaustion of error."

Fuzzy

cold frigid winter words hang suspended in air frozen in space-time

Power grip is mostly in the lesser fingers (middle, ring, small) so these are the most important, along with the thumb of course.

PS - I just want to offer my opinion that this sort of self examination and action are far more important than anything one could ingest. That's the doorway to the other side, whether achieved through sobriety or intoxication. _/\_

And I will stop preaching at you....

There is a role for effort and a role for allowing. In the indigenous communities, the shaman first serves as apprentice for a long time - much effort involved. Once the foundation is established, then and only then can one let go of the effort. If no effort is exerted from the very beginning, it's unlikely the novice will make much progress. It's exactly the same in meditation, martial arts, just about any experiential discipline.

I wasn't originally going to respond but I re-read your post and I do think there are a few more points worth making. It's not so much that I suggest we leave it to the authorities as much as we can learn from those authorities and benefit from their knowledge and experience. Yes, none of that is required but the outcome of our meeting with the teachers (the plants) will be affected by the circumstances of that meeting. A casual approach and a reverent approach will yield very different results. It is not so much about the plant as it is about our intention as you've already picked up on. Please do not steer me away from what is working for me. I spent many years not understanding the value of reverence and the meaning of holiness. That has changed for me. If you don't want to go there, fine. Do it your way. Please don't impose limitations on me. If I am not looking for something greater than me (the me I think I am) then why bother with any of this at all? Of course we are looking for something greater, otherwise what's the point? Eventually we realize who we truly are and see that we, in fact, are that very "thing" which is greater. That is when we may realize the meaning of holy and feel true reverence and gratitude. I've never studied Zen but I know a few advanced Zen practitioners and while they may be playful, irreverent, and maintain a sense of humor (as do the Tibetan masters I know), they are no strangers to feelings of awe, devotion, gratitude, and reverence. The key is not to get stuck on that, not to get attached to it - kill the Buddha that you meet in the road. I disagree. Perhaps it is crap to you at this moment, and I respect that. It was for me once. Not anymore - once again, please don't impose your limitations on me. It doesn't make me dependent, it allows me to open and take advantage of the support of others. I walked a solo path for a very long time and ran into a dead end. Opening myself to the support of a teacher and lineage have helped me to get past that. Of course, we all have to experience "God" for ourselves, no one can ever do it for us. We all need different things at different times in our life. I think it's important to respect that. It's OK for you to feel that way. It doesn't offend me at all. I understand it and used to feel the same way. There is a very common misunderstanding of reverence and devotion. The cultivation of reverence and devotion have nothing to do with the object of veneration. It is all about subjugating and disassembling the ego. The other side you yearn for is what is beyond the limitation of that ego. The reason to use entheogens is to enlist their aid in helping us to transcend those same limitations. This is the exact role of veneration and devotion. We do prostrations to subjugate our own ego, our arrogance, the very boundaries you wish to transcend. We do offerings to generate gratitude and generosity, feelings that indicate a loosening of the grasp of ego. There is the practice of chöd which is literally to offer one's own body, a cutting of the ego's attachment to the body. The difference is that entheogens act on the ego in a very sudden, violent, and potentially damaging way. This is why approaching them with sincere feelings of gratitude, devotion, and reverence are helpful. They help soften the harshness of that impact. Again, it is all about what is happening in us, not in the plant. The religious practices that your ego so despises do the same thing in a more gradual, gentle, and progressive way. The ego does not want to give itself up easily. That's why the idea of subjugating oneself, kissing someone's feet for example, is so distasteful. Once in the grip of the plant spirit, we have no choice. It makes kissing someone's foot seem like a party. Both work in their unique ways and each of us needs different things in our lives at different times. No need to apologize. I'm not offended and we're OK. I get where you're coming from and I try not to take things too seriously or personally. While I may sound very serious in my writings, I'm actually pretty laid back and playful in real life. I find that harder to express in writing. Zen is great and effective for some folks. I guess it wasn't right for you otherwise there would be no need for plants. I will again caution you, however, that being "casual and disrespectful" as a part of your spiritual practice may not serve you so well working with the plant teachers. They are not always so forgiving. I'd also like to acknowledge the many wonderful posts on this thread from multiple contributors.

I wish you well

I'll also add that in looking over my posts I definitely come across as more dogmatic than I intended. To a large degree I think my comments came from concern for the well being of others - I can be overly protective sometimes. I meant well.

Yes, I am human and I do think for myself. I also learn from others with gratitude and humility. I have experimented with entheogens without guidance, and I recommend caution and guidance for those who want to get the most out of the experience. Then why are you looking for books? You are willing to blindly trust the authority of a book but not learn directly from a master? You are saying that if a stranger wrote information down in a book years ago, you will accept that and use it as the basis of your knowledge and practice but I am a sheep if I meet and connect with a living master and learn from their living knowledge and action. How does that make sense? All of your criticism of my recommendation for a teacher is equally valid for your dependency on books which are far less useful than a living teacher. Certainly we should use our own judgement and be our own authority. We should question our teachers (and books!). The difference is the teacher can respond, the book cannot. There are times when we should completely go it alone and blaze the trail. Not a good idea when it comes to eating toxic roots, leaves, and mushrooms. I don't advocate accepting the limitations of others or imposing limitations on others. I'm simply saying it is better to learn from a living master than a book. And question that master. Adopt what works for you and adapt or abandon what doesn't. For sure, each of us is our own ultimate authority. We need to take responsibility for ourselves and our progress and choices. And when ingesting toxic substances, it is a good idea to use caution and have some expert guidance. You agree with that or you wouldn't be asking about books. Acknowledging that others can help us on the path is not weakness, it is strength. Respecting those that have gone before us is not being sheep, it is being intelligent and efficient. I do respect those that choose to blaze a trail and if that is your choice, go for it. But don't kid yourself that you are doing it on your own by reading books. Those are just static, anonymous, two dimensional teachers that you will likely never meet or be able to question.

While not an entheogen cookbook by any means, Supernatural: Meetings with the Ancient Teachers of Mankind by Graham Hancock offers a fascinating perspective on the subject.

Yes, and to gain the knowledge of how to use it properly requires an apprenticeship to an experienced curandera. It's not something one can learn from books. One needs to be invited and introduced and, if accepted, then spend a lifetime developing a relationship to the spirits. It is not to be taken casually. I doubt I'll look into it further. If he is still alive today, I would have no clue how to find him. Even if I did research this, I would never presume to be able to do something like that myself. One would need an accomplished and experienced curandera for that.

I had a good friend in college who like to experiment with entheogens and hallucinogens (as did I). He made the mistake of ingesting a bit too much Datura without expert guidance. He had a psychotic break and never recovered. I ran into him on the streets of Baltimore many years later, homeless and incoherent, it broke my heart.

You must be a big hit with the ladies!

"hanging Truth out in the wind to flap around meaninglessly" sounds like a criticism but seems to me to be the whole point. There is a limit to what the conceptual mind can grasp, pointing out that limit is helpful in transcending that limit.

That seems to apply when talking about truth in dharma also. There's relative truth associated with everyday experience. There is then the philosophical level that engages, for instance, madhyamika reasoning. Then there is absolute truth which is beyond conceptual. Is it experiential? (not really as there is no experience/experiencer) Is it theoretical? (not really as it transcends concepts) It seems to be more akin to religious experience in the West. There doesn't seem to be an equivalent in Western philosophy that I am aware of but I will admit that I have very little knowledge of Western philosophy.

I think that even in English, most of what we think of as truth is relative and conditional.

I agree that he has the look of opiate addiction. If he does use opiates, he would certainly need to put a lot of emphasis on cleansing the lower intestine.

Perhaps Mr. Coffee Bean?