I took a sugarcube which was dosed with, what I was told was and what I believe to have been, LSD in an unknown quantity. Not the greatest of starts for an empirical investigation but, alas, them's the breaks and that's what I had to work with. At 2250 on Monday 16th of April 2012, I took the 'cube and sat at the PC reading the Actual Freedom website, in the previous days and in the lead-up to taking the acid I had been reading [redacted] and watching a Robert Anton Wilson documentary, all generally aiming towards an open, flexible trip which would allow me to investigate the PCE which had began a few hours earlier. A synchronistic series of events, as such things often are...

By 0054, the LSD had taken effect but everything was still very much a PCE in terms of the clarity of experience and the sense of "me" existing. I noticed minor perceptual alterations, like a sense of pulling somewhere around the eyelid which seemed to be due to some element of "me" still trying to come into being, some subtle emotional fluctuation which was most apparent in the periphery of the visual field. It wasn't like a blinking sensation, more of an mental tension experienced in that area but without any mental imagery coming up. Internally, or what I could feasibly call internally given that the distinction was more down to how it was being experienced, (bear with me, this may get complicated), all I could detect was this shimmering, translucent (all experienced more as a mental tension (affect - pleasant at that point) being overlayed 'behind' the body, not as a visual object) 'ghostly' thing which was clearly not actual. At this point there was a complete absence of "me", apperception was occuring and each sense was crystal clear as it happened, pristine and everything you've ever read about a PCE.

Bear in mind as you read this, I'm using affective language here; my metaphors and linguistic representations are clearly not the experience itself and will obviously be described according to my mental processes. In short, take all of this with a pinch of salt and excuse any seemingly fanciful flights of description.

As the acid took effect, I just remained attentive as I normally would and conducted myself in the same way I usually do, paying attention to the senses closely as I observed each happen at the same time, "non-simultaneously apprehended" to quote Bucky Fuller. I noticed thinking happen of it's own accord, the thought concerned me trying to use some "fancy intellectual term to describe this", I was taking notes on what was being experienced and constantly, constantly inclining towards the PCE i.e. using pure intent. I bore this in mind from Richard's comments on the AFT with regards to this very thing I was engaged in at that moment, and pure intent most certainly is incredibly powerful since I appear to have been able to spend increasingly more time in, at the very least and remaining incredibly rigorous with my investigations, a 'high' EE since then.

I digress. Back to the notes...(these are directly lifted from the unedited notes from that night)


I recall thought being scattered for short periods, I would get caught in some idea or another about practice and inbetween "I" would reappear as a feeling about some idea or connection, whether it was good or bad, realistic, actual, basically feelings about feelings which were "nipped in the bud" with attentiveness and intent.


The reappearance of this "clear light of awareness" metaphor needs some clarification in case it leads to misinterpretation; this relates to an insight which occurred early on in the trip, the realization that what those words relate to experientially is simply this pure, pristine, always here, always now is-ness of actuality. When the senses are experiencing, there's no "me" required, no feeling involved, it's just as it is and "I" as a feeling being and identity am not required, it's just a different metaphor, a different map of the territory and still, even though it's so screamingly obvious in direct experience, people still split hairs over it! I'd been reading a lot of Thusness' blog and the posts by "asunthatneversets" in particular, contemplating Thusness' interpretation of AF in terms of that particular map and learning a hell of a lot from the AFT site too. Being able to compare my own understanding of those two models, albeit informed and possibly altered by the ingestion of LSD, was informative and useful even with the potential for something like acid to completely void the result...then again, I'm just playing at being a scientist here so go along with the show for the moment.


This was while thinking about how people end up having a "bad" trip, which is almost always down to that intial stage of ego-loss common to any experiment with strong psychedelics. That depersonalization can appear through everything from insight practice to depression, it's how we deal with it and/or learn from it that makes the difference and intent seems to be a deciding factor.


This looks really obvious written back, at that moment it was like a direct realization of it at a deeper, and also more interestingly, more permanent level. It's hard to describe, basically it was like being able to see the entire process of each sense door without any feeling overlaid, from seeing to thought, each seen as being transient, empty, luminous, all those poetic terms so commonly spouted by people who don't actually know what they're talking about (including me a few months ago), happening right now. More on this later.


It's not that information itself, as in sensate phenomena making contact with the sense door, was happening any faster, it was just that the senses were able to take in more information than I could accurately record. This opened up the senses to an even clearer level, sub-modalities of perception were apparent in a fascinating way and the experience of heat was as distinct from, yet identical with in a way language simply can't express, the smoothness of the coffee cup I was drinking from. These words don't fully express the levels of wonder, felicity, naivetè, sincerity and, when required, of pure intent involved here.

The "This is literal" comment was a message to "me" to pay closer attention to the senses themselves and look at the finer details, like how sub-modalities like heat, smoothness, or pressure happen, and generally to allow as much information as possible to discerned accurately.


I remember I was laughing as I typed that but it actually sounds quite useful when read back.


The idea that "I" am what "joins the dots" is something I'd been contemplating for a while: The way I think of it is that "reality" is a series of data points we organize, via the various information processing faculties genetically endowed upon us by evolution on this particular lump of matter in this infinite space, to create a consensus model of the thing. Long story, I've already typed more in this thread than I thought would be required. I'll continue, we can discuss notes at the end of the ramble.


Self-explanatory. No pun intended.


This was like a "eureka" moment, realizing that what we call "mind" doesn't exist either, it's just consciousness arising of its own accord, not "in awareness", not "in" anything at all. Consciousness is conscious of consciousness, the waveform collapses. The death of this body is the end of the game, but the universe continues to experience itself as a sensate human being; since "I" never existed anyway there's nothing to be lost since there was nothing to loose in the first place. As I read back what I've written it occurred to me that my language may be unnecessarily metaphysical, on the contrary I'm trying to comment on my own notes as best I can and in as plain language as possible. What may seem to be words 'pointing at' something is actually literal unless specified otherwise, please bear this in mind as you read and try to understand this in terms of how it relates to a PCE, and an actual freedom from the human condition[1]. What I wrote as I sat there was intended to be as phenomenological as possible, based on whatever seemed to be the correct thing to write at that moment.


The clarity referred to here, or previous lack thereof, was brought about by deliberately trying to bring up the feeling of fear and investigating it deeply (see the following section). I can't recall exactly what preceded the movement back to an EE rather than a PCE. I just thought this was quite a funny thing to have picked up on.


Thought seemed quite 'broken-up' in terms of being experienced as a "train of thought" as it would be normally, but I began to notice how that came about when "I" got involved in having a feeling about a thought. On seeing that, it stopped and the PCE revealed itself again. Internally, which is the only way I can describe it conceptually, the actual experience doesn't involve a perceived "inner" or "outer", there was just stillness, a vast, peaceful, calm, stillness typical of the PCE. Any affective response was like a ripple in a lake, it didn't disturb anything, it was there and it was gone.


Which led to this:


Boom. No idea what the hell happened, something like a fruition but like a massive dilation of consciousness rather than a contraction. It's here where something appears to have changed in my entire practice towards AF, or whatever you want to call it, I don't think I'm "there" yet, even though it's clear as day that there's no "there" until "I" put it there and clip my own heels, I now appear to be far more able to incline towards the PCE and remain there for increasing periods. Whatever it was, it was fun but it's just another part of the process. Onwards and 'roundwards...


The first section is related to a Buckminster Fuller quote I heard via Robert Anton Wilson; this is what I've understood so far and further contemplation on it has brought about similar conclusions. I find it to be a useful model to describe the process of apperception and wondered if anyone else would find some use in it.[2]

The "dance of creation" is a wonderful, playful metaphor. If it can be understood as describing the actual, physical process of apperception i.e. the senses operating by themselves, the brain then organizing that information on an instant-by-instant, 'frame-by-frame' (formations) basis to form order from chaos then I think we can begin to understand, at least as I see it, where some of the problems of interpretation between actualism and other traditions happens. Anyway, that's a complicated topic which could be fun to discuss another time. But not right now.


I quite liked the idea of "divine comedy" as a way to express how funny it was to see how "it's all in my head" i.e. "me". The whole time I remained as attentive to the senses as possible, as continually as possible, relentlessly and with pure intent aimed towards the PCE. The "I am a meme" referred to the process of self-replication which affect gives rise to, it feeds itself and the only way to stop it is to see it for what it is: a fabrication. "I" can only exist as a feeling about something, "I" give rise to more of "me", feelings about this empty, transient phenomena gives rise to "me" hence the whole ""I" am my feelings and my feelings are "me"" thing.


For some reason, most probably due to having been reading Leary's book and Thusness' blog, the idea of the Tibetan model of the elements came up and how they're absorbed into consciousness or, perhaps more accurately, seen clearly as not being seperate from consciousness and so the affective, mental, fabricated process which leads to the automatic creation of those boundaries goes into cessation.

O.k., I've written far more than I thought I'd need to but hopefully there's some useful information here which can be used in (non-chemically enhanced) practice. I've tried to be as clear as I can but feel free to ask if there's anything you'd like to discuss, or know more about. I've been applying these insights to my current practice and it's been incredibly effective, I intend to go through it and try to list some of the specific details of what happened, not just to add more information but to try to bring more clarity and nuts n' bolts, phenomenological details to proceedings. As I said in the disclaimer, I don't recommend than anyone indulge in there sorts of pursuits, and particularly not without considerable study of the substances in question or a serious consideration of whether or not you're prepared for what could possibly occur. I don't mean to sound like a spoilsport, prude or authoritarian figure but for the sake of safety, even though a site like this isn't going to make front page news anytime soon, I'd rather point out the inherent dangers in altering your experience through something as unpredictable as LSD. I genuinely can't say that I've used, or would recommend the use of LSD for purely recreational purposes, in the times I have it's always been for specific purposes and I've used it as a tool. It's not always a fun drug, there are ways to do it more safely should you be inclined to do so but please do your research and seriously consider the facts before proceeding. If you can't be safe, be careful.

Anyway, I'll sign off as I've written enough for now. I'm enjoying writing again and will try to get some new blog stuff posted soon, this is all good practice and enjoying whatever you're doing, as much as you possibly can is a wonderful thing to do.

T

[1] Also loosely to the model described by Thusness who's work, along with An Eternal Now, I've developed quite a taste for. It lines up quite cleanly with my own experience so far and so I consider it useful for further investigation and practice.

[2] An alternative way of looking at that Bucky Fuller quote could be to see the "non-simultaneous" part as referring to the way that the senses are normally perceived i.e. by an observer, not clearly seen as being these five faculties through which "reality" is (ap)perceived, operating of their own accord. Unenlightened perception experiences this as occuring in time and space, with "space" being used in the affective sense. Even someone new to meditation can quickly see that the thought occurs after the sensation happens, it's in that process of objectification, the creation of an observer through having a feeling about that sensation, that "I" come into being. If we assume this viewpoint, it also makes sense, and in my experience is very useful in practical terms, to try to experience as much of reality as we can at any given time via straight-up attentiveness to the senses. Look at what it's like to see, hear, taste, touch and smell all at the same time, just allow your field of attention to gently expand as if you're opening your eyes wide and take in as much information as you can clearly experience. Big thanks to Trent for the "opening your eyes" and advice on experiencing two things at once.

[Edited for righteous justice]
[Edited to add [2]]
[Edited to remove reference to Leary]

i'll start by saying that should you be concerned that anyone will use drugs as a means for practice... simply reading posts about insights has its own effect that could be a sober version of mind-altering. what i mean by that is the brain's ability to absorb or interpret information is mind-altering. (tommy we have discussed this before, but more specifically along the lines of "parroting" information.) cause & effect is an automatic change (alteration) and so the brain, by the mere fact that it exists, is inseparable from this, meaning it is also automatically changing (altering).



can you describe the sub-modalities in a bit more detail? are you talking more about about the actual qualitative sense contact aspects of heat, smoothness, or pressure... or more about the process of how they are understood? apperception of apperception... which is also just apperception.



right. not sure i've talked to anyone who thought their sense of "being" was rooted in, say, their finger. so why the sense of "being" as "mind"? possibly mainly because we have learned the brain is the central storehouse and processing center? technically the brain is "how we know it all happens". this is pretty cool, but why is that fact seemingly more important than anything else? because the brain functioning means we're alive and without it functioning it means we're dead... so a very fundamental source of identity gets generated from the simple fact that there is life. it goes back to being that rudimentary. take away the concept of life and death, and what is there?







trying to join up the senses into categories is like creating inner inners. meaning, segmenting false sense of inner into even more divided inners... like creating boxes within boxes, russian doll style.

i might add more later, but that's all for now.

steph

Hi Tommy, an interesting and well written documentation of your experiences and insights

Thusness recently wrote some pointers to someone which I added to my e-book and thought of sharing here as well as it might be relevant for you.

"Last year, a forummer from the NewBuddhist forum penetrated within a year the realization of I AM to non dual and anatta. He is an avid reader of my blog and writings. Thusness wrote the following pointers for him:

There are several points that maybe of help to Taiyaki:

1. First there must be a deep conviction that arising does not need an essence. That view of subjective essence is simply a convenient view.

2. First emptying of self/Self does not necessarily lead to illusion-like experience of reality. It does however allows experience to become vivid, luminous, direct and non-dual.

3. First emptying may also lead a practitioner to be attached to an 'objective' world or turns physical. The 'dualistic' tendency will resurface after a period of few months so it is advisable to monitor one's progress for a few months.

4. Second emptying of phenomena will turn experience illusion-like but take note of how emptying of phenomena is simply extending the same "emptiness view" of Self/self.

5. From these experiences and realizations, contemplate what is meant by "thing", what is meant by mere construct and imputation.

6. "Mind and body drop" are simply dissolving of mind and body constructs. If one day the experience of anatta turns a practitioner to the attachment of an 'objective and actual' world, deconstruct "physical".

7. There is a relationship between "mental constructs", energy, luminosity and weight. A practitioner will experience a release of energies, freedom, clarity and feel light and weightless deconstructing 'mental constructs'.

8. Also understand how the maha experience of interpenetration and non-obstruction is related to deconstructions of inherent view.

9. No body, no mind, no dependent origination, no nothing, no something, no birth, no death. Profoundly deconstructed and emptied! Just vivid shimmering appearances as Primordial Suchness in one whole seamless unobstructed-interpenetration."

Hiya A.E.N.,

Thanks very much for posting this, it's really interesting and does seem very relevant to what's happening right now. I can now see how 2. and 3. could be an easy trap without further insight into the way into 5. onwards come about. Much appreciated!

Aye, I know what you mean. It's possible to use written language to induce states in the same way a hypnotist would with a verbal trance induction, basic pacing and leading, it's quite good fun to learn and seems to be something ol' Ricky boy uses on the AFT site.


When I say sub-modalities, what I'm referring to are, as you said, the specific qualitative aspects of each sense door; in the example from my notes it was the direct perception of "heat" itself, not experienced as just being "part of" the sense of touch but as it's own complex, fascinating "structure" of tactile sensations. Obviously the distinction is only required to describe the experience, it's not that they're experienced as being seperate or anything, it's just that there's so much more going on within what we're calling "touch" that it's worth looking more closely at it.

In terms of how to use this practically, I think of Tarin's quote:



It's just more of what's happening, by paying attention at the level of sensory sub-modalities you're getting into the subtle physical side of things and investigating what Thusness and A.E.N. suggest here: "If one day the experience of anatta turns a practitioner to the attachment of an 'objective and actual' world, deconstruct "physical". (At least, that's my current understanding of this quote but it may be inaccurate.)


Aye, that sounds plausible, we're taught that thinking occurs in our heads from childhood so it makes sense to map it in this way. Another interesting (and funny) example of this process is how we say that some men "think with their dicks"; a rather graphic metaphor for the instinctual passions, anyone?

Remember that language instantly introduces a false duality, don't forget who creates the distinctions...

Ah yeah, ok. Applying the mind further is one of those nuggets o' wisdom that I keep going back to. Good way to raise the bar. Notice more and more and more, finer, subtler, etc. so the mind has no room to move. Basically I've been working with the PCE instead of jhana as the stillness/light for exploration.



I think a couple things generally happen here: 1) Deconstruct what seems physical, and turns out is not. Or 2) Deconstruct what seems physical, and turns out is. Deconstruct how physical is known. Maybe AEN can expand. I'm also curious about further explanation of this one: "8. Also understand how the maha experience of interpenetration and non-obstruction is related to deconstructions of inherent view."

Nothing more to say to this end. harr harr.

This matches some instructions I've read about noting more than one sense at one time. I wasn't sure how that could be done but that description looks like it.

It'd be good if AEN added something about this when he gets a chance 'cause his explanations are always really useful, but in the meantime here's my current understanding of it (subject to change, as always):

During that five-day PCE, something happened where the entire sense of the body even existing in the first place completely vanished. There wasn't even any experience of the senses being what was receiving information and to this day I haven't been able to conceptualize what occurred so that I could explain it better. However, reading Thusness' descriptions of the maha experience - and this quote in particular, "the maha experience appearing as "universe chewing" and the spontaneity of pristine happening must still remain maha, free, boundless and clear." (my emphasis added) - is about the closest thing I've ever come across to express it. It only lasted, by my estimation, about two or three minutes (I was standing at the buffet trolley in Pizza Hut at the time...what was that Dan said about "The Story"? Ha!) but it was so profoundly different to anything I'd experienced before.

Anyway, what I'm (eventually) getting at is this: Even what we label as "physical" is a fabrication, the senses don't have any independent existence from the objects they perceive. It's only a view or belief that this is so, that's what informs your perception of the thing and what gives rise to experiencing it in that way i.e. subject/object duality, still being created through ignorance of actuality (which I'm using in the sense Thusness and AEN use it), but at an even more subtle level than before.

That direct, albeit fleeting experience of all things as "the one thing", and not in an affective, emotionally unitive way, this was as direct and actual as a PCE, demonstrated how there is still an inherent dualistic view operating and preventing that way of experiencing from being the case 24/7. After a few months of practice, studying and contemplation, it became clear to me what actuality is, if such a thing can be said: Actuality is, in as simple terms as I can think of, the direct experience of "reality" without the labels. By labels I mean any conceptual overlay, belief, idea, viewpoint, worldview or any intellectual, not forgetting affective, process through which these distinctions are created.

At least that what I suspect at this moment...

Glad that was of use to you! Rather than trying to "note" more than one sense at a time, just gently notice how you can, for example, see the screen in front of you while hearing the sound of the keyboard, at the same time feeling the sensations of pressure and smoothness as the fingers automatically type out words you can "see" and understand in your head.

It's all happening right now, just look at it. ; )

For me the "self" likes to bounce from one focus to another. I'll try and see if I can incorporate this with Shinkantanza. It's hard to "do nothing" and still notice everything so keeping them as separate practices might work better.

Your test certainly isn't Buddhist to say the least and is more in line with that movie Altered States, so you are definitely taking a risk

Thanks for taking one for the team. I hope you stay healthy after these experiments.

Try this approach and see what happens to the experience of 'self' (and mental stress and tension in general) when it is done with this in mind.

Nick

"Taiyaki" also experienced the mind-body drop as you described, which is why Thusness wrote something for him about that.

Also, Thusness wrote an article to someone in 2007 which also mentioned about this, mind-body drop is the 2nd stage of nondual under this particular map. http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/05/different-degrees-of-non-duality.html
(Awakening to Reality: The Different Degrees of Non-Duality)

Zen Master Dogen (and lots of zen masters) have also talked extensively about this mind-body drop off including my Taiwanese Mahayana teacher. My Taiwanese teacher equates this mind-body drop-off with liberation. While I won't exactly agree that it must equate to "liberation from samsara" as the Buddha would have it in the pali suttas, it does definitely feel liberating.

Zen Master Dogen: "To study the buddha way is to study the self. To study the self is to forget the self. To forget the self is to be actualized by myriad things. When actualized by myriad things, your body and mind as well as the bodies and minds of others drop away. No trace of realization remains, and this no-trace continues endlessly." - http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/03/genjo-koan-actualizing-fundamental.html

Something to note here is that of course, mind-body drop does not mean that if someone drop hot soup on your body you won't have physical feelings or awareness of that sense contact. Neither does it mean dissociating from the body via neti neti (not this, not that: I am not my mind, I am not my body) to some formless Self, awareness or observer. Rather, it simply means that any feeling of a body as having a substantial (with solid shape and form) and localized (in here vs out there) entity and any sense of 'me-ness' linked with "my body" is completely deconstructed and dissolved.

What is important is to realize that the "body" doesn't truly exist, it is merely a construction, a perception. And why do I say so? If you strip yourself of perceptions and investigate, there is no solid entity called body, it is just a bunch of disconnected, spontaneous and disjoint sensations arising and ceasing moment to moment - sensation of itch there, sensation of cool breeze there, and so on. Coupled with the visual image - which is just another disjoint and spontaneous sensation... Due to the view of inherent self and object, we mentally "join up" these disjoint sensations and perceptions into one solid coherent image or construct of a "solid body in here where I inhabit". In other words, we mentally construct a solid image of a "something" with solid shape and form, and we feel as if there is a "me" being in here, looking "out there". All these are just false constructions and a bit of investigation can allow us to expose this perception as a mere delusional construct. Seeing thus, one relinquishes any sense of a body or division and simply opens up and allows the expanse of pure consciousness to unfold (to forget the self is to be actualized by myriad things).

U.G. Krishnamurti spoke similarly: "Your movement of thought interferes with the process of touch, just as it does with the other senses. Anything you touch is always translated as 'hard', 'soft', 'warm', 'cold', 'wet', 'dry', and so on.

You do not realize it, but it is your thinking that creates your own body. Without this thought process there is no body consciousness -- which is to say there is no body at all. My body exists for other people; it does not exist for me; there are only isolated points of contact, impulses of touch which are not tied together by thought. So the body is not different from the objects around it; it is a set of sensations like any others. Your body does not belong to you.

Perhaps I can give you the 'feel' of this. I sleep four hours at night, no matter what time I go to bed. Then I lie in bed until morning fully awake. I don't know what is lying there in the bed; I don't know whether I'm lying on my left side or my right side -- for hours and hours I lie like this. If there is any noise outside -- a bird or something -- it just echoes in me. I listen to the "flub-dub-flub-dub" of my heart and don't know what it is. There is no body between the two sheets -- the form of the body is not there. If the question is asked, "What is in there?" there is only an awareness of the points of contact, where the body is in contact with the bed and the sheets, and where it is in contact with itself, at the crossing of the legs, for example. There are only the sensations of touch from these points of contact, and the rest of the body is not there. There is some kind of heaviness, probably the gravitational pull, something very vague. There is nothing inside which links up these things. Even if the eyes are open and looking at the whole body, there are still only the points of contact, and they have no connection with what I am looking at. If I want to try to link up these points of contact into the shape of my own body, probably I will succeed, but by the time it is completed the body is back in the same situation of different points of contact. The linkage cannot stay. It is the same sort of thing when I'm sitting or standing. There is no body.

Can you tell me how mango juice tastes? I can't. You also cannot; but you try to relive the memory of mango juice now -- you create for yourself some kind of an experience of how it tastes -- which I cannot do. I must have mango juice on my tongue -- seeing or smelling it is not enough -- in order to be able to bring that past knowledge into operation and to say "Yes, this is what mango juice tastes like." This does not mean that personal preferences and 'tastes' change. In a market my hand automatically reaches out for the same items that I have liked all my life. But because I cannot conjure up a mental experience, there can be no craving for foods which are not there.

Smell plays a greater part in your daily life than does taste. The olfactory organs are constantly open to odors. But if you do not interfere with the sense of smell, what is there is only an irritation in the nose. It makes no difference whether you are smelling cow dung or an expensive French perfume -- you rub the nose and move on." - http://www.well.com/~jct/mystiq2.htm
Indeed. At this point there must also be clarity of how 'views' shape our moment to moment of experience:

1. Sensations + dualistic view + inherent view
2. Sensations + non-dual view + inherent view
3. Sensations + anatta + inherent view of objects
4. Sensations + 2 fold emptiness view


Realizing anatta deconstructs the view of a subjective self, allowing us to realize there is no agent, and not even a "one mind subsuming everything". Everything is deconstructed into the sensate constituents: in seeing only the seen, no seer, in hearing just sound no hearer, in sensing just sense... Etc.

However this pertains to the emptiness of a subjective self is the firstfold emptiness and is insufficient to liberate us from the view of objects/universe/physical as having objective inherent existence.

At this point then it is important to learn about the emptiness view - it is a raft, a skillful means. When we investigate with the view of dependent origination and emptiness, we can further penetrate the corelessness of all phenomena, and also experience the Maha sensation like the whole universe is giving its best for this moment, the universe exerts completely as this breathe, this action, and then simultaneously cast-off/self-released. At this point all sense of a source, an agent, or a self/Self is not only transcended into "just the senses", it is transcended into a non-solid ongoing process of interdependent arising.

Tibetan/Mahamudra/Dzogchen stresses the coreless, illusory, self-liberating aspect of phenomena while Zen (especially Zen Master Dogen who is truly clear about this even though his works may seem obscure and poetic but are direct experiential expressions of this) emphasize on the Maha interpenetration. But both are important and should be complemented.

On emptiness and maha, one can read what Thusness wrote here: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/03/on-anatta-emptiness-and-spontaneous.html

Thanks for taking the time to reply, I know you're a busy guy and I really appreciate it.

This section in particular really speaks to me, my current practice has made this very process abundantly clear:



I think I had this realization the other night, I'll try to describe the experience itself; I was lying on the couch just noticing how I was only aware of the body where a point of contact existed, in this case it was my shirt touching my chest. Something shifted and all of a sudden I was only aware of those points, no sense of the body other than as these "impulses of touch". Since then I can "see" this "translation" happening, but it doesn't lead to the automatic experience of the body as a coherent, stable object like before. I'm still getting to grips with how to describe this stuff so my metaphors are a bit clumsy, but everything you've said here is so well-timed in it's appearance and clear to me now that it makes me laugh out loud, literally.

I'm going to read over this all very carefully and then go get stuck into reading your journal!

Thanks again mate.

Definitely, definitely, definitely check out those links Nick posted. They're that useful.


While I'm inclined to adopt Crowley's "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" when it comes to these things, I also fully accept and appreciate the risks involved and prefer to be as clear as possible about them. I spent a long time learning about psychedelics before I ever took them, I educated myself, looked at all the arguments for and against them, studied them, researched further and reached my own conclusions. I suppose, from a certain point of view, my experiments in "chemgnosis", as it's sometimes called, have been part of my Path but that's not to say that the same goes for everyone else.

I appreciate your concern, I do take every precaution to ensure that my ability to function in the 'real world' isn't impaired through these experiments, which are actually few and far between in recent years, and I'm happy if anyone can learn anything via my writing rather than having to take any risks themselves. The whole "taking one for the team" is kinda the spirit in which I posted this report, I figured that a few people in recent months had been asking about hallucinogens and insight, or even AF related stuff, and thought it might be useful to post a report by someone who's familiar enough with each to describe things in mutually understandable terms. At present, I'm very much in good health, aside from a persistent cough hanging around from an earlier chest infection, and very, very happy.

K, I think I know exactly what you're talking about here. I have noticed for some time that the body keeps getting more and more amorphous, and this seems to directly correlate with each shift that happens (whether small or very noticeable). Thus the lightness, weightlessness, sense that things are floating through space... or now, it's not even as if things are floating anywhere necessarily. It's funny to say that cuz there is the touch sense of things happening, but what was previously rendered as a relationship of tactile (or whatever sense) happening in proximity to other things has really broken down. The "point of contact only" experience happens regularly, without being conceived of as point of contact and so yeah, I understand that point of contact is just a filler to describe.

This is absolutely amazing to me. Such incredibly lucid language! Thank you.

EDIT:

Did anyone read this? I'm in awe...

Here's a little quote from two pages further along that link.

An interesting sidenote...

Yesterday, I visited someone who was taking LSD...to cut a long story shorter, they took a dose of the same batch that inspired this thread while I was with them. After about 30 mins, I noticed that they appeared to become quite anxious, based on the look in their eyes and their body language, so I decided to help them out by 'directing' their trip in a more pleasant way by pointing out things like how the senses operate of their own accord. Over the course of about 20-25 minutes, I managed to help this person to have a full-blown PCE - something I am quite certain of based on their descriptions, the way they expressed their amazement with the directness and intimacy of experience, and their reports of having no experience of emotion at that point - and from there suggested that, should they experience any anxiety or tension, they may wish to turn their attention to the simple fact of pure consciousness as it is; free, open, natural, friendly, perfect.

I spoke to them briefly once I'd come back home and they were in good spirits, actively interested in pursuing the same happy and harmless experience without chemical enhancement. I just wanted to record this in the thread as I basically pointed out the same things which are apparent to me and which I mentioned in this report before.

quite a story =]
were they been pursuing meditation previously, if not - are they now?
just curious

No, this person had previously expressed incredulity when I described similar non-chemically induced experiences! I should clarify that this person, who shall remain anonymous, is someone I've known closely for over 20 years and who had no interest in meditation previously. They had a passing interest in Chaos magick about ten years ago when I first became involved in it, albeit not in any serious way, but are otherwise not inclined towards this sort of thing at all. This person is also an experienced psychonaut and had extensive experience with, and knowledge of, the chemical in question.

They commented that they could now understand what I had been talking about with all of this stuff and why I always appeared so carefree in my day-to-day activities, but I explained that all of this was entirely possible through the investigation of this immediate experience of being alive and that it gets even better...and that's without having taken anything.

It seems our karma is connected directly.

Really nice work. Your descriptions are so clear, it felt as though I was remembering something that happened to me as I read them. This thread truly is a goldmine.

Although I would be happy to pile on the weight, instead I'm just going to throw out a small counter balance, and then get back to practice.

Notice, I am capitalizing "I" and that there are no quotes around "I" unless it is grammatically appropriate to include them.

Just because a thing can be deconstructed, or redefined, does not make it invalid when it is constructed, or make the or original definition untrue. So, just because the self, all of reality, or non-reality can be deconstructed, does not mean its full construction is less valid. Just because the self can be redefined, does not make previous definitions less true.

I'm not being poetic, I'm being very literal. The nature of meaning and value dictate that:

The person, who experiences self as body, is body
The person, who experiences self as mind, is mind.
The person, who experiences self as everything, is everything.
The person, who experiences self as process, is process.
The person, who experiences self as nothing, is nothing.
etc.

Just because "I" can be redefined, doesn't mean that it should be, or that any version is any better or more correct than the starting point.

So, my point is,

The person, who doesn't experience self has more time for other shit.

Glad you enjoyed it, thanks for commenting and contributing!

I'll explain a bit more exactly why I placed the "I" in quotes as it's done for a specific reason.

I ceased to experience any sense of self and was no longer able to identify anything as an "I" (or conversely, everything appeared to be exactly the same as this "I") earlier last year. My current practice, and that of several of my fellow explorers on here, has demonstrated that there is still a sense of existing, a sense of being here. It is this which I refer to as "I", the feeling of existing which is brought about by the process of objectification. It's not the same as the "I" which is seen through at 1st path, this is the entire 'background' of experience itself which gives rise to a sense of "me". This "I" arises as the feelings we have about an object, but it can be seen through in the same way as you've already seen through the illusion of a self.


Indeed they do!

Hi Tommy, I have been a lurker on and off for a few years. I recently got back from retreat and have decided to help out online in various ways, including occasionally popping in here and saying hi.

Over a year ago, either the same username or a similar one berated another for posting drug-related information, telling them this wasn't erowid, and that the person's experiences were not valid enough to talk about on this forum.

From my own experiences, drug-induced states triggered several rounds of permanent changes mirroring various fruitions discussed among various traditions. Years later after much retreat, much schooling into neurophilosophy and neuroscience, as well as physics/quantum mechanics/quantum theory I can safely say I am an expert in hallucinations and psychedelics.

I have studied Leary's book in depth for several years (psychonautically and otherwise) and can safely say you took less than 350 micrograms and did NOT reach the clear-light as described in his book. Further, it appears you didn't experience the second bardo at all. Leary outlined a consistent psychological structure, not something that is metaphorical or some type of metaphorical principle .
Many people don't reach it when they take full 500 microgram doses. 95% of lsd users do not take enough to reach hallucinations, they only have distortions. Utilizing the mind's pattern recognition programs one can create a pattern fabrication from the distortions. After allowing this pattern fabrication to resync (a fabricated visual pattern created from the prior patterned distortion) a few times, one finally achieves hallucinations. One can do by focusing on visual consciousness, including the peripheral , but nothing in particular. Unless one can't hold focus well, then one should try to label/identify the patterned distortion only for a moment right when the resync occurs, then go back to focusing on nothing in particular in visual consciousness. By perceptually labeling, it is easier to lock in that point in transition between regular perception and the bardo.One should continue this resyncing until the hallucinations consume ALL 'objective' reality (this is even needed if one is trying to just stabilize the first bardo, even if one is trying to skip the second all together). The bardo is fully arisen once the hallucinations are all one can experience, this is critical.

Without getting into a real in-depth discussion concerning the subtle points of divergence concerning my study of the tantras/bardo yoga and Leary's work (difference between the clear-light and ground-consciousness; the difference between the ethnically-neutral ground consciousness and the actual ground counsciousness ) I just want to make clear that the essence of what leary was getting at is not simply a "PCE" or anything like regular perception. The clear light is not realizing mere identitylessness.

Hiya Omega Point,


It's more than likely that it was me, although I don't know that I "berated" anyone for posting anything drug-related. The only post I can specifically recall regarding that subject where I was replied in a less-than-encouraging way about the persons reported experience as they continually referred to having taken acid as having taken "the medicine" instead of just being upfront about it.

A lot has changed in over a year, but I've never been anti- or pro- drugs but, as you know yourself, it's hardly the most stable way to go about investigating reality.

.
Interesting, it'd be good to hear how you've practiced from a different perspective.


I didn't say that I reached "the clear-light" or the Second Bardo as described by Leary in his book, and I also stated that the dosage was unknown to me; given my experience with psychedelics in the past, I know for certain that it wasn't a proper "psychdelic" dosage and so you're guess of -350 mics. is likely correct.

It seems that you've taken my report and assumed that I was trying to phrase it in the language of Leary's book, which isn't the case. I had been reading "The Psychedelic Experience" in the week or so prior to this, but it's not the conceptual model I would usually refer to since it's mainly based on Leary's idiosyncratic interpretation of the Tibetan Book of the Dead. You are clearly more familiar with Leary's work than I am, and also appear to have a more solid grounding in the use of psychedelics in an insight-based context than I do so I'd be interested in learning more about your take on this, particularly the "consistent psychological structure" you refer to.


Sounds similar to a Vajrayana-style practice, which isn't a tradition I'm very familiar with. Is this something you've encountered through your own experiments with high-doses of LSD?


At no point did I suggest that Leary was getting at the PCE or "anything like regular perception", I conducted this experiment to investigate the PCE which was occurring at that moment and not as an investigation into Leary's model of the psychedelic experience. If anything, I think I was quite clear about my intent and deliberately made continual references to the, at that time, "AF"-based context in which I was working.

The line I've placed in bold from your reply above is not what I was referring to when I used the term "clear light". I said that I was using it metaphorically, but I agree that experience of "it" is certainly not anything metaphorical. I certainly don't consider it to be remotely similar to "identitylessness" which is more appropriate to describe the PCE.

Hopefully that clears at least a small part of this up, I have no intention of doing any deeper study of Leary's interpretation of the Book of the Dead and the mention of it in the first place seems to have been what's led to this misunderstanding, but I'd be very interested in hearing more about your own experience with this approach.

Tommy M,
I didn't mean to force a defensive posture, no need to argue semantics concerning the definition of berate. It was the disregard of the potential for permanent, useful changes due to your experience with some standard psychedelic as well as 5-meo-dmt (complete waste of time and nothing at all like n-n-dmt or dmt-n-oxide) that stuck out.

You should be much clearer in what you mean by "not the most stable way to go about investigating reality". Also do you mean regular drugs or psychedelic drugs? I don't consider crack or the warfare agent 3-Quinuclidinyl benzilate in the same category as entheogens.

I do plan on going into graphic detail concerning some of my practices before I go back into retreat. I have a conference and family, but will surely make an effort to post something before I do. I have been hesitant about the best ways to present or if presenting is ethical as there are health risks when these practices are not implemented correctly(not talking about the use psychedelics/substances here). Which has presented an ethical issue for me for a few years, similar ethics caused much of the same category of tantric practices to be kept secret until one sufficiently proved oneself as responsible, determined and disciplined enough.

Your I-maker is responsible for your misapprehension. I was responding to clarify for anyone in case the situation arose. When I relay you did not reach the second bardo, it is to guard anyone from a certain range of misapprehension. This doesn't mean you were accused of claiming anything. Again this interpretive reaction is solely due to the I-maker and doesn't represent any sort of inherent or implied knowledge or claim as to you.
An assumption emerged in relation to your use of metaphorical language in which specificity could be designated to mild depth without having to write prerequisite disclaimers appeasing an I-maker. Sorry indeed good sir.

By referring to Leary's book and not using the language increases the propensity for misapprehension. Someone having read the book but not understood it in terms of a priori knowledge could get confused etc, which is why I chose to attempt to decrease the propensity.

To say Leary's book is mainly based on an idiosyncratic interpretation of the book of the dead is to completely miss the point or the history of the book. 100s to 1000s of people were tested, and through trial, a structure became clear. It is true that the Book of the dead spurred interest in 'controlled psychosis'. Though it wasn't until many trials were completed did the recognition of the multi-level use of the book of the dead dawn; that it was giving direct advice as to how interact with this consistent psychological structure that is brought out using many methods, some of the most effective being the compounded use of psychedelics with refined technique. There is no doubt it is a structure not created by psychedelics but made easier to access and further that this structure is held by all of us. Modern research in Germany is touching upon this very point and is crudely (early stage in the game of quantification) remapping the same structure with a new set of jargon.
If you have read Leary's book, it outlines the structure rather clearly. Each stage in the structure brings out a consistent range of visionary content and obstacles(such as visionary versions of the more difficult stages of insight).

Any regular (non n-n-dmt or dmt-n-oxide) psychedelics in sufficient doses brings out the bardo. What happens to one in relation to the bardo and the said worthy dmt molecules present a conversation far too long and experiences far too unique compared to other psychedelics that at this point it isn't worth summarizing or speaking of.

Again the I-maker conflates the point of my response. You have cleared up everything that wasn't confusing me.

The clear-light is so much more then identitylessness. Identitylessness can be realized using course level of mind, while the clear-light is passed even the subtle and is considered the subtlest. The primary clear light can be thought of as a range of abiding suchnesses. The visions of the secondary clear-light consist of the expansions and contractions of universes and visionary access to the knowledge of evolutionary perturbations, literal knowledge visions. Also access to the ethically-neutral ground state delusion, which has to be overcome by mastering the heart practices (using the 4 immeasurable joy practices and bodhicitta with meditative heat<after one reaches middle of tummo fruitions>) and perturbing all levels of mind (including clear-light) into a perpetually blissful state (using meditative heat, kammamudra etc). After doing this, when one enters the security of suchness, paradoxically the varying blisses including the blisses that arise from depths of heart practices, follow. Finally with this supreme posture of suchness coalescing with a few other postures (like the integration of deity yoga, where "in order for the deity to fully emerge, one must fully perceive oneself as the deity") one will be able to transmute the suchness into the ground-state. In other words, once one accomplishes this suchness one needs to hold non-dual concentration for a while then dissolve all perception open-eyed. If one holds this dissolved posture once all the aforementioned fruitions have been accomplished for long enough, the suchness will dawn but this time will be indistinguishable, as once the samadhi is brought to an end one sees that suchness has impregnated all of illusion with it's security. Suddenly illusion becomes extrinsically empty, and one sees what Padmasambhava was speaking of when discussing non-empty forms. That is the integration of nirvana into illusion, the mastering of non-abiding nirvana. One then has accomplished very similar but perfected mental posture to what is seen when one experiences the body of emanation advanced dream yoga accomplishment (samboghakaya). This is how to accomplish a buddhahood that is considered higher then the mid-buddha light body fruitions.



Notes: Samboghakaya can be found in dream if one is lucid enough to forcefully dissolve the dream, leaving varying colors. When one gets black, the perception of the subject-object, and usually a sense of falling, then one needs to hold non-self,non-dual posture and one will gain no-otherness and will intuit emanating like one does moving one's body. It is surprisingly natural and non-conceptual in terms of operation. One can manifest as a pure-field instead of a mind-body complex if one chooses.

Also, if this is being read by someone who is attachment free or has achieved such a definite imprint in terms of lack of suffering and simply cannot generate the 4 immeasurables through empathy/suffering simulation or attachment co-emergents then,
practice tummo and learn to force prana into the central channel using the heat, once you have forced the heat to your heart area, prana will circulate that area much easier. With just prana in the area one can generate course heart fabrications WITHOUT needing attachment. With the heat and prana, one can generate even finer ones. With the heat and prana and the activation of the heart bliss through the heat practice and focusing it there while generating fabrications, one achieve extremely fine heart fabrications.

Lastly know, this isn't the description of the practice I will post before retreating again. So if this isn't clear in terms of practice don't get discouraged and be patient.

Well, I won't be mentioning Leary's books again should I choose to do another experiment if this is what it leads to.

I'll remove the solitary reference to it so as to avoid any potential confusion...

Edited to add: By the way, all the stuff about the samboghakaya and tummo is way beyond where I'm at but the information is appreciated. Also, I've experience 'hyperspace' on n-n-dmt (extracted from mimosa hostilis bark at home) but only once and never since, so I understand what you mean about the uniqueness of it. I haven't been able to get the money together to try this again but your mention of it, and also in another thread, has set wheels in motion. I'd be interested in talking with you more about this particular topic if you'd like to do so, even via PM or email if it suits you better? I have nowhere near the knowledge you appear to have on this stuff so it'd be great to get some advice on it.