Sounds like you did get some good benefits out of it. I find that sometimes when people give a knee-jerk responses to some things with the general addage "there is no free lunch," they can make presumptions and assumptions about what "payment" is and isn't in ways that can frame an event without looking at the wider picture. An example would be winning the lottery. Are lottery winners "cheating" when it comes to, say, circumventing lessons about money? Some people can win the lottery and have it ruin their lives and interpersonal relationships. Other times it could get a person out of a nasty hole, or some other type of reprieve. Laura won the lottery and used that to get a pool. Intention counts for a lot I'm sure. Payment can be made before, during, after, possibly even in another lifetime.
Well, yes and no, sometimes you don't miss the wider picture per se, you are actually looking at the very particular picture and seeing how the decision is made, and THEN explained, not to deny the particular instances of beneficial and positive outcomes, but to acknowledge the nature we all possess of explaining our choices to ourselves after the fact in order to safe guard our psyche.. does that make sense?
And in the example of the lottery, well you kind of do pay ahead, you pay for the ticket... which implies your intent, winning the money.. unless, of course, you found a winning lottery ticket that someone else paid for.
I can understand this point of view but I think it is too generalized and cannot be applied to everyone. It would be a mistake to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I can imagine that many users of psychedelics do it for fun or because it is new age and in contexts that have absolutely nothing to do with a will to understand oneself and to work on oneself. Some people probably don't have the broad shoulders and the necessary anchorage to see the experience for what it is and not for what it could be.
I agree, my point was more towards long lasting effects that go beyond memories of experiences in someone else's shoes. I am not saying is always negative, nor always positive, I was saying that the intensity of the experience, of such large perception, does belong to someone else, someone that one hasn't worked to become, and the memory lasts, because of its intensity, but it remains as that.. for the most part, which is disconnected from one's experience. Does that make sense?
Like living the life of a millionaire for a day, and then going back to one's regular financial status. It does matter how one uses that experience and memory, of course, so it's not negative by default, but it would remain that.. a memory.
This was not a state reached easily either as I felt I was processing trauma 50% of the time. It was a bit of "if you want to touch heaven, you have to go to the roots of hell" The audio recording allowed me to look back on my experience and understand more about my connection to my family, how I view myself. Today this experience remains as having had benefits on different levels, this goes hand in hand with the studies on depressed patients where the results on the long term are still quite significant. Maybe I'm wrong here but I have the impression that we have been oversold the effects of psychedelics @Alejo ? The idea of the shy guy reminds me of the person who takes a hit of cocaine and then falls back in a bad way, I still think that for a part (even a small part) of the people who have experimented with psychedelics with the intention of working on themselves and a proper set and setting, it doesn't seem to fit this situation. Nevertheless your message is an interesting contribution to this thread as you correctly point out that nothing is obtained/understood/integrated without suffering and effort.
So perhaps I misunderstood you, are you saying that your experience was akin to going through the roots of hell?
And yes, I do believe we have been oversold the effects of psychedelics, on both ends, the ones that praise it and the ones that demonize it by default, the substance does what it does, and it is the individual who reacts to it.
And that was my point, about the individual who goes through it, and how truly honest with themselves they are about their reason to go through the experience. As I said above, my concern or warning wasn't really against an inert substance, or the practice of using it, nor was I questioning your story.
My warning was more about how creative and convincing we can be with ourselves about the goals we have by bringing ourselves to use a substance with such potential. Which I think you mentioned, becoming enamored with the experience, and I was expanding on that by saying that to me that experience belongs to someone else really.
So what I was highlighting is the importance of that self honesty, not just about the intent, but also about one's ability to justify what feels good one way or another, because that is the biggest hook that such a substance would have to turn into a dependance.
I hope the above was clear.