starchild wrote:Is it the assumption in these discussions, that the desire for an altered consciousness (whether through drugs, chemicals, hypnosis or the opium of the people) is inherently wrong?
No, to be honest. Just a statement of fact. Human beings are largely still drunken monkeys, drunk or addicted to one chemical stimulant or another. Given all the births and deaths involved, one is left wondering who is driving human evolution, ourselves or the alcoholic yeasts. Power is also a pretty potent intoxicant ...
I am way out of date on the current state of research on these issues but I decry that gee-whizz type research done by active proponents of external chemical stimulants such as the schools of Timothy Leary and Terence McKenna.
The questions that arises for me is how much of so-called entirely "spiritual" experiences are also just chemical experiences, e.g. yogas, zen-like austerities, hypnoses triggering off abnormal chemical reactions within the brain? How much of the experiences one has practicising Brahma Kumarism are, in fact, chemical or drug induced (by which I mean internally produced drugs not externally taken ones)?
The scientific-skeptical seems to consider that it is ALL chemical because there is not such thing as "spirit". The pro-intoxicants seem to consider that MOST, or even all, religious experiences are rooted in drug taking (herbs, roots etc) and they downplay any possible "psychic" or spiritualistic elements to their habits, especially any possibly negative "psychic" or spiritualistic elements to their habits.
There is a Tibetan saying regarding spiritualism that goes, "just because someone is dead, does not mean they are enlightened". To that we might add, "just because a state of mind is altered, does not mean it is good or enlightened either".
Thank you regarding the drunken monkey video, this was the one I was originally looking for ...