You’ve already won, mate. Basically, technically, I am correct: you are not supposed to be posting about your direct seeing, your position that you don’t care what any tradition says, etc. here. The FAQ makes this abundantly clear. But, you won before I even challenged you, because the rules are not enforced. So, ultimately, there doesn’t seem to be anything wrong with your posts, and, in an amusing twist of fate, I am the one who is in the wrong for trying to follow the rules, and suggest that you do, too. You won due to lack of enforcement of rules, and a curious probable eventuality, as I’ll detail when I come back to it.
Further, you’ve nothing to challenge me on, here. You have not challenged me, personally, even once. This is because my personal views are almost never posted here. Whenever they are, I always clarify that my views are wrong, because CT is correct, here. This is because I follow the rules. The stuff I post is always positions in agreement with CT, and then quotes from experts to back them up. Many of my personal views do not agree with CT at all, and some not even Buddhism itself. So, anywhere you’re thinking you’ll refute me, you’ll just be refuting CT, ultimately. Even if my inarticulate personal writings on here sound different from CT, that’s just a failing on my part, and why I always defer to expert quotes. In fact, you already have ostensibly challenged me in ways that I, personally, actually agree with you, but I still refuted you on CT terms, because CT does not agree with you. This is the fundamental thing about this site’s rules: technically, CT is always right, no matter what. You seem to think I’m some super hardcore CT guy. Nope, not really, I just follow rules. You know literally nothing about my personal views, you just don’t understand CT, so you mistook it for my views. You are on a CT site, getting frustrated because someone is presenting CT as the authoritative position, and rejecting your position, in favor of experts in the field, and requesting you stick to the CT position. Think about that.
The bitter irony is If I loosen up, and start challenging others on the CT stuff I do not agree with, it would just seem like I’m trolling, and trying to challenge the moderators to enforce their own rules. I would most likely be warned, and then banned, even if I started posting stuff that agrees with exactly what you’ve already posted with impunity. In reality, on free for all Buddhist forums, I say all kinds of stuff that challenges the CT view, I just don’t here, because that’s literally the opposite of why this forum was even created.
This means you’ve won, so completely, that, not only do I have to shut up and leave off correcting you, I can’t even do the same thing as you are doing. You are above the rules, for some reason, and I am not. This means this forum has no value to me, and I’m leaving it completely, unless it changed dramatically. So, congratulations on somehow, inexplicably being right, and winning, even though you’re completely, diametrically opposed to the stated purpose, and rules of the forum, and I’m the one holding them to the letter lol! This is the amusing probable eventuality I mentioned above.
And the biggest irony: I don’t even care about your opinion outside the rules of this forum. If I saw your posts on some general Buddhism forum, I’d just ignore them. People who believe what you do, think they have the exact same unique, deep understanding of reality you do, and so on, are a dime a dozen. CT adherents are extremely rare, at least on forums. For every one CT user I’ve seen online, there are one thousand users like you, and I don’t think that’s an exaggeration; there are countless people who are just general “Buddhists,” and very few CT specific adherents online. Hence, I gave up on arguing personal positions on Buddhism a year or so ago, when I left dhammawheel, in favor of using only this forum, where there is an authoritative position, and authoritative texts, and commentaries to make sure we know how to interpret these texts in an authoritative way.
Finally, you’d get more sympathy about how tiresome this is for you, and how frustrated you are with me, if there wasn’t an “ignore” button on everyone’s user page. You are reading and responding to my replies at your desire. Everyone knows you could simply choose not to even see my posts. And, you started this whole thing by coming onto my thread, which was already concluded with experts on CT quotes that made very clear that CT is realism, and challenged it with your personal philosophy that has zero backing in the CT tradition.
As to frustration: try spending 20 years studying the dhamma, and dealing with hundreds of people who believe CT is not realism, despite it being stated, clearly, and repeatedly, by experts in the field. Yet, every person thinks how they read the texts is the real way, and the experts are ignorant, and beneath their own personal revelation somehow. This is just as ridiculous as someone going to a Yogacara forum and claiming Yogacara is realist materialism, and that they know this because they have some personal revelation of “direct seeing,” so they know the truth of Yogacara, which is superior to expert opinion, and even the tradition itself; I would challenge that just as much! Because both are equally asinine positions, in total contradiction of scholarly consensus, and what the schools own texts say. Call me crazy, but I’m not going to believe random people on the internet over well known experts on a topic, and each schools own stated positions and texts.
Basically, it’s Westerners who simply do not understand the differences between traditions. Few Westerners would walk into a Christian church with some personal ideas about what Jesus is, and try to tell everyone what’s up, because they see that that’s absurd, and it would be a waste of time, because each Church has their own specific, hard and fast, previously agreed upon positions. But, with Buddhism, most Westerners have trouble separating them, and don’t see that the different traditions are as distinct as the different sects of Christianity. I’ve even seen this at Buddhist temples, people just don’t understand.
I’m not even hung up on one tradition, per se. While what I believe is largely compatible with CT, my Buddhism is more of a composite, ultimately, but I do know the differences between schools, and what each believes. It is obnoxious and tiresome to have yet another hippy who thinks they are going to school everyone else on their personal idea of Buddhism, suggest that drugs are the same as some of the highest possible states in the religion, and that whatever their idea is applies to whatever school they say it does, just because they say it does, even if experts disagree.
For me, if I’m at a Zen temple, all is mind, if I’m talking with Theravadins, realism is correct, if I’m at a church, ok, Jesus is awesome. I’m a student of religion, generally, and respect each school’s positions, in the context of their own spaces. The only time I present counter views is in the appropriate place and context, like discussing religion comparatively in a forum designated for that purpose, or discussing with an atheist, or a non Buddhist, or refuting Mahayana in the context of a CT forum, or challenging whatever and mixing and matching in an anything goes Buddhist forum, and so on.
I’m not the one looking to be a contrarian, coming to people with a stated view, in their own space, and presenting my own take on it, and claiming I am correct, and the experts are wrong. That’s you, bud. You’re the frustrating one.
Nonetheless, against all odds, rules, logic and reason, you win. Good job.
Much metta. I hope you ordain, stay sober, reach actual, real, drug free jhana, and reach enlightenment, and know perfect peace and calm! Good luck!
As to this:
I wasn’t delineating the very specific hallucinogen drug you were promoting, my mistake, here’s the correct definition:
5-MeO-DMT or O-methyl-bufotenin is a psychedelic of the tryptamine class. It is found in a wide variety of plant species, and also is secreted by the glands of at least one toad species, the Colorado River toad. Like its close relatives DMT and bufotenin, it has been used as an entheogen in South America.
It’s a close relative of DMT, shares the same name, and, like DMT, is a hallucinogenic drug, but it was important to delineate them, for some reason, glad we got that straightened out.
.