Is "Be Here Now" Bullshit?

I have no problem with chemical 'states of consciousness,' since there really is no difference. You can interpret experiencing 'god,' on acid or meditating with your guru, it really doesn't matter, since it will be the ego that interprets it as an experience of 'god' based on whatever ideology the ego adopts as 'true.'

But is there an experience of something more than ego or even not ego involved in terms of making that interpretation? I believe there is a field of uninterpretable consciousness from which ego arises, but if I make such an interpretation from an experience, doesn't that assert ego ownership and therefore the interpretation will be tainted by ideological learning?

In fact, could we not say that all interpretations of a present moment are interpretations acquired from the past. For instance, you may have an experience that you interpret as "be here now" but if that experience is ego-self interpreted (and how could it not be), and all interpretations have an ideological viewpoint and must come from a 'self,' then it was learned from the past and therefore, IT IS the past that is applied to the experience. In other words, who or what from the past, taught you to interpret certain experiences as "be here now"?

This is why I take issue with all interpretive language, especially the sacrosanct, ideologically specialized concepts like "awakening," "enlightenment" "nirvana" "samadhi" "satori" etc, etc, etc.
Once I hear these ego-self interpretations of experience, I tend to figure that this was the paradigm going into the 'experience' and it's what's declared as 'truth,' coming out. The experience merely serves to further reinforce the ideology and bolster the ego-self.

Is there an "authentic awakening"? It seems there are numerous "awakenings" one could have, that do nothing but take an experience of normal "awakening" into a higher or more profound interpretation and if one achieves different states of consciousness (drugs or meditation) then clearly value will be applied to each episode of experience.

Much Hindu/Zen/Advaitist ideology revolves around 'awakening' levels and degrees. This seems to keep the enlightened fat-cats at the top, "yes, grasshopper, you may be awakened, but you are only first-level, novitiate awakened, not grand-awakened such as I" (a little Yoda humor).

The sacred ones tend to avoid me and I don't blame them, all this reductionism gets pretty tedious and discouraging. However, we all have egoic "frames of reference" and I think spiritual paths provide such 'frames.' They are very helpful in negotiating the world. However, I don't believe an ego-self can transcend itself employing the ideologies and practices currently advocated.

Yet, I don't totally disbelieve either. Nevertheless, if this is even possible, we'll need to really understand the underlying ego-self dynamics, that we spend our wholes lives ignoring, if we wish to find a way to go beyond the usual interpretations of 'enlightenment,' 'awakening' or 'god.'

mikeS