| | I disagree strongly with your models of enlightenment. They are idealistic and do not stand reality testing. Fear and neurosis are par for the course due to being mammals and are as empty as anything else. Thus, the notion that taking a drug that temporarily eliminates fear makes one closer to enlightenment is simply wrong. Fear arises from its own biology and causes, and the notion that simply seeing the true nature of phenomena will eliminate it is the confused dream of a spiritual kindergardener.
Nathan28's critique revolving around "content" is an important point: most spirituality is obsessed with the particulars of what happens, which clear are important, except when training to see all things as they are and their True Nature (as possibly expressed by such concepts as The Three Characteristics, emptiness, no-self, true self, shunyata, luminosity, etc.). The endless obsession with models of reality that presuppose it to be certain ways, of enlightenment to have specific emotional or psychological characteristics, for people to behave in particular, essentially arbitrary ways, are all ideals that can prevent people from gaining real, fundamental insights that are beyond these naive and religious notions, not that there isn't something to be said for the beauty of many of those ideals from a relative point of view.
Thus, you are attempting to rationalize drug taking in the most lofty of spiritual terms, terms that are currently beyond your depth. Stick to what you know for certain, as your speculation at the highest levels falls widely off the mark. Consider checking out Jack Kornfield's book After the Ecstasy, The Laundry, which, while having a title that just happens to fit with this debate, is relevant and sane reading, as well as possibly reading my book: http://web.mac.com/danielmingram/iWeb/Daniel%20Ingram%27s%20Dharma%20Blog/The%20Blook/18C2EF5A-FE35-4754-B42F-B9156CCD7068.html |