Thread: Insight - How can a drug teach?

Wow Darkmatters, now you're really nitpicking. I know what I've said and what I am saying; I think you're being a little too superficial.

Buddha may have suffered quite a lot and his body may have been stressed too, but these are not requirements and nor were they taught as ways to achieve happiness. Similarly, you know you can teach something without having to make all the same mistakes; you can prove something without having to do all of the same experiments. Certainly nobody has to be tortured to find peace; arguably this was not the case for Buddha. The point is that meditation is one of the most powerful ways to shift perspective and improve one's well-being, and recreational drugs I believe do give people wrong impressions by comparison.

Ok I'll give you that - I was picking nits with the Buddha thing. I agree with what you've said in the last post. And while I also agree that drugs are dangerous and that, as (I think it was Tausaur) said above, the insight can only go so far from drugs - I still maintain that it's a viable way to get a different perspective that can provide a good deal of insight into the nature of things - or at least shake up a person's firmly-held beliefs and make them see things differently.

Peace

The phrase "drugs are dangerous" is ridiculously vague and misleading. Everything we are able to experience carries a certain danger, to a certain degree. Food is dangerous.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

The phrase "drugs are dangerous" is ridiculously vague and misleading. Everything we are able to experience carries a certain danger, to a certain degree. Food is dangerous.

Food is drugs.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

The phrase "drugs are dangerous" is ridiculously vague and misleading. Everything we are able to experience carries a certain danger, to a certain degree. Food is dangerous.

Do I really have to explicate what I meant? Actually Xaq, I'm not sure if that was directed at me or Really.

Ok - psychedelic drugs carry a certain danger beyond eating spaghetti or ice cream. More akin to eating something risky, like blowfish (or is it pufferfish? Or are they the same thing?). I'm certainly not recommending that schoolkids start doing acid or shrooms. If someone has some mental issues that they might not be aware of yet, psychedelics can do great damage. But if someone is an adult they can decide for themselves if the risk is worth it. We do risky things every day, like crossing the street.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Do I really have to explicate what I meant? Actually Xaq, I'm not sure if that was directed at me or Really.

Ok - psychedelic drugs carry a certain danger beyond eating spaghetti or ice cream. More akin to eating something risky, like blowfish (or is it pufferfish? Or are they the same thing?). I'm certainly not recommending that schoolkids start doing acid or shrooms. If someone has some mental issues that they might not be aware of yet, psychedelics can do great damage. But if someone is an adult they can decide for themselves if the risk is worth it. We do risky things every day, like crossing the street.

I'm not sure who I was directing it at; you because you made the statement or really because he takes the position?

The point of my statement "food is dangerous" is that not only is the level of danger not stated, but also the meaning of food is not immediately apparent (like the meaning of drug). Poppy seeds are a food, and also a drug. Sugar is a food and also a drug. Apple seeds contain hydrogen cyanide. Drinking too much water will kill you. Saying that children shouldn't have access to lsd and mushrooms is not that much more topical than saying infants shouldn't eat peanut butter. On a scale of the dangers of illegal drugs, I would say lsd or mushrooms are right around the bottom (or most benign) end of it in terms of physical dangers associated with their consumption. It is unknown if it is even possible to over dose on lsd, and there is at least one documented case of someone accidentally taking 50,000+ hits at one time without dying or experiencing any ill physical side effects. Try taking 50,000 'doses' of ice cream and we'll see if you die from insulin shock or the ice cream headache.

Drugs being dangerous is not the fundamental reason behind my former posts.

However I think recreational drugs present more significant psychological danger as well, speaking of the long-term. Dangerous because they can reduce many mental abilities, as well as ways of thinking clearly and living normally without addiction. That includes handling anger and depression as well.

Originally Posted by really

Drugs being dangerous is not the fundamental reason behind my former posts.

However I think recreational drugs present more significant psychological danger as well, speaking of the long-term. Dangerous because they can reduce many mental abilities, as well as ways of thinking clearly and living normally without addiction. That includes handling anger and depression as well.

This is true, with any type of therapy there's a fine line between medicine and dependency