Psychedelics have helped me reach the same conclusions as religions do through other

[BenzosBudOrBooty]

Methods.

Religions use things like meditation, prayer, becoming so dizzy until it slows down your thinking (the whirling dervishes), and so many other methods of ways of slowing down your thought process to become more transcendent and one with God.

I wish I could find the text, but it was by Aldous Huxley, it was the intro to a version of the bodhisattva. It said there are 4 things that all religions have in common. And they were 4 revelations that I've came upon by doing psychedelics. I used to be a hardcore atheist and I'm not trying to say psychedelics necessarily lead you to religion, but more that psychedelics helped me find these principles on my own, without the help of religions. I don't confine myself to any set of religious principles. What I'm saying is that we as psychedelic users are kind of a religion of ourselves. One of them being something about consciousness, another about heaven/a power greater than ourselves/something worth more than just life in this lifetime.

I'm not saying everyone experiences this all but I used to be sort of a nothing person and psychedelics have helped assist me in becoming a thinker, a more moral righteous person who believes in God. God is my god. And shrooms and acid is my Jesus. Shrooms and acid are my way of meditating and becoming more transcendent. I think we psychonauts should get the same respect that a Christian does for their way of becoming more transcendent. Or whatever religion. Maybe one day. And I've always respected people who meditate as their method of becoming "one" with God and nature. But I choose psychedelics in moderation as my way. I find it easier, more useful, more fun, and more effective for me.

Maybe nature is your higher power. Maybe you don't believe in God. But regardless, we as psychedelic users, when used responsibly are just as much a religion as any other religion. Religion isn't only about God or being confined to a set of principles that if you don't follow you will burn in hell, but just becoming more "transcendent". And that's what we do as psychedelic users. That's all thanks.

 

[max_freakout]

Be careful not to fall for modern drug war lies, such as the whopping great lie that you can have intense religious/mystical experiences without using drugs (ie by spinning around on the spot, or meditating for years, or whatever). For any average ordinary person with ordinary brain chemistry, the kind of mindblowing experiences that are the foundation of all the religions are only accessible via ingesting drugs and tripping out.

According to the entheogen theory of religion, the essence and origin of religion is ingesting psychoactive plants (such as mushrooms, cactus, ayahuasca etc) in order to experience the dissociative (or 'loosened') cognitive state that reconfigures the mind from the egoic configuration into the transcendent configuration. In particular, the central religious experience is that of psychedelic death and rebirth (ego death). All the religious stories (such as Jesus' crucifixion, Buddha's enlightenment, Mohammed's angelic revelation etc etc etc) are metaphorical descriptions of psychedelic ego death.

From the sound of your post, you are in the process of discovering the entheogen theory of religion, ie the religious significance of the psychedelic altered state of consciousness. Be careful you are not led astray by drug-war lies that make people believe stupid senseless things, such as believing that the 'sufis' were somehow able to trip and see God merely by spinning around in circles. Per the entheogen theory, the sufis achieved their transcendent experiences (and subsequent realisations) by taking drugs, just as you have done.

If you dont believe the entheogen theory, try spinning around on the spot and see if it makes you start tripping.

 

[max_freakout]

I think we psychonauts should get the same respect that a Christian does for their way of becoming more transcendent

Beware of false dichotomies such as this ^ one, which tacitly implies that the Christian "way of becoming more transcendent" is somehow different from the psychonaut way.

There is only one way of genuinely becoming religiously transcendent, which is by encountering the higher reality in the psychedelic drug-induced altered state of consciousness and being psychologically transformed by the experience

It is a standard mental progression as follows:

Egoic mental worldmodel ----> Psychedelic transformation -----> Transcendent/Religious mental worldmodel


Jesus said: "the only way to heaven is through eating my flesh and drinking my blood". The flesh and blood of Jesus is the sacred entheogenic sacrament.

 

[perpetualdawn]

Jesus said: "the only way to heaven is through eating my flesh and drinking my blood". The flesh and blood of Jesus is the sacred entheogenic sacrament.

Oh yeah? how do you know that Max?

You're just the same as an evangelist, preaching that your way is the only way...

 

[.:Holy::Toast:.]

Be careful not to fall for modern drug war lies, such as the whopping great lie that you can have intense religious/mystical experiences without using drugs (ie by spinning around on the spot, or meditating for years, or whatever). For any average ordinary person with ordinary brain chemistry, the kind of mindblowing experiences that are the foundation of all the religions are only accessible via ingesting drugs and tripping out.

This is just absolutely not true.
Many people may not have the discipline for years of meditation but to say that drugs are the only way to feel a mystical experience is absolute bogus.
I love drugs and the experiences they provide as much as the next person but I will not say that they are the only way.
You sound like you read a Terrence McKenna book and took his opinion as absolute truth

 

[Ismene]

I get what you're saying benzos but I think you're downplaying psychedelics a little in comparing them to man-made religions. Psychedelics are their own path - vastly superior in every regard to any man made religion. I think any similarity is more down to limitations of language than any genuine similarity. There's only so many words to describe a so-called "mystical" experience so obviously religious experiences will sound kinda similar.

For me, a psychedelic experience is something entirely seperate to some muslim whipping himself into a frenzy or a christian at a gathering collapsing when some fake preacher "lays his healing hands" on him. I think they're coming from different motivations and different mindsets. A psychedelic user is creating his own belief system directly - a christian is following someone elses. That's a massive and fundamental difference.

And I agree you don't need drugs to have a mystical experience. Some people have mystical experiences playing golf at St Augusta, some have mystical experiences sailing out at sea. There's a thousand and one ways people can feel a sense of the ineffable apart from getting high on psychedelics.

 

[max_freakout]

Many people may not have the discipline for years of meditation

Many people may or may not have the discipline to meditate for long periods, but the important point is that meditating (whilst sober) does not typically cause people to start tripping, no matter how long it is done for.

If you dont believe this, try it out for yourself, - sit cross legged and close your eyes and see if you start to trip. It is very unlikely that you would start tripping unless you had also taken drugs.

but to say that drugs are the only way to feel a mystical experience is absolute bogus.

there may be cases where people have fleeting mystical experiences without taking drugs, because the human brain is primed to trigger these kind of experiences with entheogens, and the brain also produces its own endogenous entheogens (DMT).

However drugs are the only ergonomic (ie safe, reliable, repeatable, guaranteed etc) route of access to the intense mystical altered state, in particular the experience of mystical death and rebirth (ego death).

With entheogens, mindblowing mystical experiences are available easily 'on-demand'.
Without entheogens, mindblowing mystical experiences are rare and fleeting, and there is no possible way to trigger them on demand.

 

[Ismene]

However drugs are the only ergonomic (ie safe, reliable, repeatable, guaranteed etc) route of access to the intense mystical altered state, in particular the experience of mystical death and rebirth (ego death).

With entheogens, mindblowing mystical experiences are available easily 'on-demand'.
Without entheogens, mindblowing mystical experiences are rare and fleeting, and there is no possible way to trigger them on demand.

But the vast majority of the human race don't find psychedelic experiences particuarly enjoyable or valuable - only a tiny, tiny minority of the people who take psychedelics have the kind of personality to take them repeatedly. Most people would find meditation preferable to a "drug" for many reasons. Getting way out on psychedelics is a minority sport.

 

[.:Holy::Toast:.]

Yes but altered states are not the only way to achieve a mystical or religious experience.
You're insinuating that tripping is the only type of real mystical experience.
For example someone meditating may gain awareness of themselves and awareness about the interconnectedness of the world, this could greatly change the way they view themselves and the world.
Are you attempting to say that this epiphany that they may define as mystical or enlightening or what have you is not true or real because they weren't on drugs?

 

[max_freakout]

I get what you're saying benzos but I think you're downplaying psychedelics a little in comparing them to man-made religions. Psychedelics are their own path - vastly superior in every regard to any man made religion. I think any similarity is more down to limitations of language than any genuine similarity. There's only so many words to describe a so-called "mystical" experience so obviously religious experiences will sound kinda similar.

For me, a psychedelic experience is something entirely seperate to some muslim whipping himself into a frenzy or a christian at a gathering collapsing when some fake preacher "lays his healing hands" on him. I think they're coming from different motivations and different mindsets. A psychedelic user is creating his own belief system directly - a christian is following someone elses. That's a massive and fundamental difference.

And I agree you don't need drugs to have a mystical experience. Some people have mystical experiences playing golf at St Augusta, some have mystical experiences sailing out at sea. There's a thousand and one ways people can feel a sense of the ineffable apart from getting high on psychedelics.

The first two paragraphs here ^ directly contradict the third paragraph. In the first two paragraphs, you strongly distinguish psychedelic experiences from non-religious sober experiences, then in the third paragraph you suddenly reverse position and conflate psychedelic experiences with non-religious sober experiences. This is illogical self-contradiction. I agree with the first view, i disagree with the second view, psychedelic drug experiences are distinct from drug-free sober experiences.

Which is it that you really believe? Can you experience intense psychedelic experiences without drugs or can't you? You can't believe both positions without contradicting yourself.

Is the drug-free sober person such as the "muslim whipping himself" or the "person playing golf at st augusta" experiencing the same thing as the high-dose peaking psychedelic drug-taker, or not? You can't have it both ways.

 

[max_freakout]

Yes but altered states are not the only way to achieve a mystical or religious experience.

Religious/mystical experiences are a specific kind of altered (ie non-ordinary) experiences. The ordinary state of consciousness is distinct from the altered states.

You're insinuating that tripping is the only type of real mystical experience.

what do you mean "insinuating"?
Tripping and mystical/religious experiencing are essentially the same thing, there is no specific, definable difference between them.

For example someone meditating may gain awareness of themselves and awareness about the interconnectedness of the world, this could greatly change the way they view themselves and the world.
Are you attempting to say that this epiphany that they may define as mystical or enlightening or what have you is not true or real because they weren't on drugs?

No im saying that they will not experience an intense psychedelic trip unless they take drugs.

 

[perpetualdawn]

Max if you define religious experiences to be experiences which are identical to those experienced on psychedelic drugs, then by definition you can't have one of your "religious experiences" without the use of drugs. It's a circular logic.

In the meantime, muslims will keep having their religious experiences, sun-dancers will have theirs, buddhist monks will have theirs, and you'll have yours by taking drugs.

 

[max_freakout]

Max if you define religious experiences to be experiences which are identical to those experienced on psychedelic drugs

The experiences are not defined in this ^ way. Rather they are defined in terms of their phenomenology, ie what the experience is actually like.

A psychedelic trip isnt defined as merely "the experience that results from ingesting a drug", instead it is defined as a particular kind of experience (mind manifestation), which feels a certain way, with certain identifying characteristics (such as geometric patterns, rainbow colours, metaphysical insights etc etc)

Similarly religious/mystical experiences are defined in terms of what it feels like to have the experience.

 

[.:Holy::Toast:.]

No im saying that they will not experience an intense psychedelic trip unless they take drugs.

Well this goes without saying but you are taking away the validity of mystical experiences that people can and do have without the use of drugs.
It seems rather naive to say that psychedelics are the only way of producing mystical experiences and you do not have the epistemic superiority which allows you to make the claim that mystical experiences produced without the use of drugs are invalid.
All you have is your opinion but you're stating that opinion as objective fact; this is a philosophical no-no.
People are allowed to have their own subjective definition of what is spiritual or mystical to them as they are both entirely subjective concepts.

 

[max_freakout]

allows you to make the claim that mystical experiences produced without the use of drugs are invalid.

im not making this ^ claim

 

[.:Holy::Toast:.]

im not making this ^ claim

Be careful not to fall for modern drug war lies, such as the whopping great lie that you can have intense religious/mystical experiences without using drugs (ie by spinning around on the spot, or meditating for years, or whatever).

Yes you are, quite explicitly actually.

 

[max_freakout]

You cannot see the difference between the following two claims:

1. Most people cannot reliably and repeatably access intense psychedelic altered state experiences without taking drugs

2. intense psychedelic altered state experiences that do not involve taking drugs are invalid

I am making the first claim, not the second claim.

 

[.:Holy::Toast:.]

To me it appears like you are simply equivocating but I'll leave that be.
The second part I have trouble with is that you are so narrowly defining a mystical experience based solely on personal opinion without taking in to account the subjectivity of mystical experiences.

Tripping and mystical/religious experiencing are essentially the same thing, there is no specific, definable difference between them.

Again there can be many differences between them depending on your belief in the meaning of psychedelic experiences and your personal definition of a mystical/spiritual experience.
I don't believe that mystical experiences are so easily defined as simply being moments of epiphany or moments of extreme awe or wonder or personal revelation, or as you put it the phenomology of the experience.
Mystical experiences can incite these feelings but I don't believe them to be the same.
You are undoubtedly correct that psychedelics can produce mystical experiences but that does not make them the same; psychedelics are simply another tool someone may use to access them, however someone with a differing view of mystical experiences could take psychedelics their whole lives without ever having said mystical experience although they may through meditation or religious practice.

 

[Ismene]

The first two paragraphs here ^ directly contradict the third paragraph. In the first two paragraphs, you strongly distinguish psychedelic experiences from non-religious sober experiences, then in the third paragraph you suddenly reverse position and conflate psychedelic experiences with non-religious sober experiences. This is illogical self-contradiction.

No max, it's simply acknowledging that people are different. Because you and me like tripping hard doesn't mean my granny would. Y'follow? Most people don't like being out of their mind on psychedelics.

Is the drug-free sober person such as the "muslim whipping himself" or the "person playing golf at st augusta" experiencing the same thing as the high-dose peaking psychedelic drug-taker, or not?

Depends on the person doesn't it. I think more people will get a mystical experience out of playing golf at St Augusta than will enjoy being high as a kite on psychedelic drugs. Do you disagree with that? How many people do you know who find tripping that enjoyable?

1. Most people cannot reliably and repeatably access intense psychedelic altered state experiences without taking drugs

Most people can't reliably access mystical experiences by taking heavy trips - most people would find them disconcerting, uncomfortable and frightening. You seem to taking psychedelics is as popular as playing football or something.

 

[max_freakout]

Whether people 'enjoy' the experience or not is irrelevant to the issue of mystical/religious experiences

mystical/religious experience is often deeply unpleasant and traumatic, and it is commonly depicted as such in religious literature, like the examples i gave earlier of Jesus, Buddha and Mohammed, who are all depicted having terrifying and painful experiences.

'Mystical' experience is not the same as 'pleasant' experience