• Psychedelic Drugs Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting RulesBluelight Rules
    PD's Best Threads Index
    Social ThreadSupport Bluelight
    Psychedelic Beginner's FAQ

Question for people who have had very many psychedelic experiences

Thank you Rortrhon, I concur. Incunabula, I am aware of science as a method. In fact, I never said "science is just another worldview". When I was speaking about scientists coming together under a shared worldview, I mean they share the view that science is valuable and worth their time just as when people gather together to listen to a Zen talk, they share the view that Zen Buddhism is worth their tine. I never made any definitive statements about what science is or isn't.

I'm sure you can find christian thinkers who agree with you about "not knowing the mind of God", but I'll still hold that you'd have the majority of the 2.2 billlion christians in the world against you on that. Both the new and the old testament claim very much to know Gods mind.

Ok so beautiful, the fact that I can find Christian thinkers who agree with me proves my point. When I am speaking about religion, I am speaking about the whole of it, not just whatever definition you wish to confine it to. So my point was that these ideas do exist in religion and can be easily by discovered by students of religion and hence there is great value (for some people) in studying religion. I would also point that in that in all the years I have spent around Christians and studying Christianity I haven't once met a single Christian who claimed to know the mind of God.

There are certain things that define a christian, like believing that jesus Christ was the messiah prophesied in the old testament, and that he is the son of God. And that he died for our sins. He also needs to read the new testament as holy scripture, and believe what Jesus is supposed to have preached.

Of cause, if you define religion so loosely, that you can be a christian without believing in those fundamental tenets of christianity, then yes, then everything goes and then christianity isn't absolutist. But otherwise it is, in the sense that it demands absolute faith in jesus Christ, with all that entails. With absolutist I mean a dogma that works in absolutes, presenting an absolute worldview - you either believe, or you don't believe.

Are we talking about religion or your narrow interpretation of Christianity now? I explained already, there is the outward aspect of religion, that is the banner under a group of people come together and then there is the inner, mystical aspect of religion, which is what is t5ypically referred to as the "inner life" by most theologians. From the perspective of the inner life, Christianity is seen as a guide for how to maintain one's spiritual health. In that sense, it has about as much to do with dogmatic beliefs as a book about how to maintain one's physical health has to do with beliefs. Yes there are tenets and principles, just as a physical doctor might be speak of tenets and prrinciples of good health but their purpose is to accomplish the goal of good health, not simply to believe in because the book says you should.

Beliefs don't mean anything in an of themselves. Ok so you believe the new testament is scripture, that Jesus is the son of God and that he died for our sins. Ok, so what? Is that you think religion is about? Intellectual ascent to those statements? I guess I shouldn't be surprised, as many people do seem to think that's what its about but do you have any idea what that actually means? What does it mean that Jesus is the son of God? What does it mean that Jesus died for our sins?

When I was a child, I was told these things but I remained unconvinced. Why? not because I could argue that Jesus didn't fit the Jewish descriptions of the Messiah or that the evidence that he died on the cross for my sins was lacking. No, I disbelieved because I had no clue what any of that meant. You see the same thing in Christianity, with different denominations arguing over the interpretations of the Bible, they might all agree that Jesus "died for their sins" but there are many different understandings about what the heck that even means. Ultimately, trying to understand spiritual and metaphysical truth through words is a dead end. It can be hinted at but never fully captured.



And remember we are talking about religion, not Christianity alone. To illustrate my point I would like to use the example of the native american religions. Native americans use stories (myths) in order to illustrate principles about how life operates often using metaphors from the natural world. When properly understood the myths confer wisdom on the listener.

Of course, Christianity does the exact same thing, as the Bible is filled with natural metaphors and Jesus spoke in "parables". But I like to use the example of native american traditions because it shows you how this is a crosss cultural phenomenon and has absolutely nothing to do with specific dogmatic systems. And its also true historically powerful people have corrupted Christianity in order to keep the populace ignorant of the true meaning behind its metaphors and this was done for political control. But thats way off topic, so back to native americans. As I was saying they tell stories to illustrate points which teach life wisdom.

We actually share wisdom not only in religious metaphor but also in just plain every day speak all the time (the technique is so obviously useful that you will even hear the most staunch atheists use it). For example, here are some common american sayings that have nothing to do with religion:

A person who gets all wrapped up in himself makes a mighty small package.

A small leak will sink a great ship.

A living dog is better than a dead lion.

A pebble and a diamond are alike to a blind man.


So religion serves this same function, only rather than being geared toward a specific situation it is aimed at helping man learn how to live in harmony with the rest of existence. In that sense, it can be even be considered a science of sorts and of course there are the spiritual sciences, like kabbalah, shamanism, alchemy, etc which aim to make precise use of metaphysical principles in order to bring the body and soul into the desired state. That is why, I also say religion, like science, is a method.

By the way, you're still sporting that sanctimonious and arrogant "holier than thou"-attitude, know it's just "I've read holier scriptures than thou". You never supply arguments for why you believe what you believe, it's always just "I think it's like this, so it must be like this". Were's the arguments that are supposed to make me agree?

Claiming to be learned or knowledgable on a topic is no argument in itself. neither is claiming to be "enlightened" for that matter.

hmm, well, I don't really recall claiming to be enlightened, nor do I really see how my attitude is any more arrogant than your own. I am simply sharing my experience of how religion can be a valuable tool for growing wiser, finding inner balance, peace and healing. If sharing that makes me holier than thou and arrogant, I apologize. I never claimed to be perfect.
 
Last edited:
I like your last post, burn out, you put a lot of more reason behind your statements. Anyway, eventhough I agree with some of the things you say, I obviously don't agree with it all. And as when've already seen earlier in this thread, I thikn we disagree on a very fundamental level - even about what reality is.

Thank you Rortrhon, I concur. Incunabula, I am aware of science as a method. In fact, I never said "science is just another worldview". When I was speaking about scientists coming together under a shared worldview, I mean they share the view that science is valuable and worth their time just as when people gather together to listen to a Zen talk, they share the view that Zen Buddhism is worth their tine. I never made any definitive statements about what science is or isn't.
No, not directly. But it was the meaning I got from your post. You group Einstein and Tesla together with Buddha and Jesus, how is that not saying science is just another religion among religions?

also

the scientists come together with a shared worldview and discuss each others finding under a shared set of assumptions.
I totally disagree with that statement, I think I've already argued why. You make it sound like scientists at a conference are the same as a bunch of priests at a prayer meeting.

Your statement that "they share the view that science is valuable and worth their time, just as when people gather together to listen to a Zen talk, they share the view that Zen Buddhism is worth their tine.", I completely agree with :) I mean, how could I disagree.

That is why, I also say religion, like science, is a method.
That's were we disagree. There is no comparison between these two. I think that I've already stated why I don't think so, in my previous post.

the scientific method created the computer that you're writting on, and the internet we are communicating through. And it even flew humans to the moon too.

It also disclosed that fact, that it is actually the earth that rotates the sun, and not the sun that rotates the earth. But of you think that everything is all about the subjective experience, I can see it must be hard to appreciate.


hmm, well, I don't really recall claiming to be enlightened, nor do I really see how my attitude is any more arrogant than your own. I am simply sharing my experience of how religion can be a valuable tool for growing wiser, finding inner balance, peace and healing. If sharing that makes me holier than thou and arrogant, I apologize. I never claimed to be perfect.


No, you didn't claim to be enlightened, that's why I put "" around it. When I said "enligthened" I meant it in the sense, as when you claim to have had "many revelations about the nature of reality". In a way, it is the same as claiming to be, at least partialy, "enligthened". I guess it was the wrong word to use. I just didn't know what else to call it.

More on point, it's statements like this, "I got the idea from years of studying religion." and "So as one studies religion, you might start out by learning basic beliefs but as you progress into studying things like sacred scripture, and the writings of great mystics and theologians." that I think comes off as completely: "I know something you don't know, and that is why I am right."


If you go back and read my posts, you will see that in at least two places I admit my own arrogance, which I do acknowledge. This quote is from my very first post in this thread.
I personally think that people who consider themselves "spiritual" are phony, no offense meant. It's just my honest opinion - and it's pretty arrogant too.


While we might differ on the opinion of what importance the subjective experience has, I think that it's a fact that other peoples personal subjective experiences or epiphanies, are about as important and interesting to other people, as hearing other people talk about their dreams. That's why I ask you to to try to use arguments when you state something. And not just "I've read alot of books and thought a lot about it" or "I took a trip, and realized that this must be the truth".

And again, claiming to be learned or knowledgable on a topic is no argument in itself. If you go back and look at my posts, I never use that as an argument. I even don't mention anything of the sort. On the other hand, I try to explain the logic or train of thought that lead me to a conclusion.

Also, I frequently use the word: "I think that..." or "in my opinion", when I feel that I don't have a strong enough argument for what I'm saying, so I demote it to something that might very well not be true, since it's "just my opinion". When you write something, you state it as fact, while not even providing how you came to that conclusion, except: "I got the idea from years of studying religion." - That is what I find arrogant.


But we've been through this before, I found your first post in this thread full of "spiritual superiority". But maybe in reality you didn't mean it like that at all. Or maybe you weren't aware that it came off like that. Not that you're extreme in any way, plenty of posts like your on bluelight. I think being spiritualy inclined is very common here in PD.

FYI, btw. I'm not completely clueless on the philosophy of religions, eventhough I'm clearly agnostic/atheist. I have had my phase of going to 10 day vipassana retreats in India and yoga and what not, and I'm still not completely dismissive of it. My main point of studying christianity though, has been it's inconsistence and the selfcontradictons it's so full off.

Anyway, let's end it here. I will read your reply though, if there is one. :)

There is just one thing more aggravating than religious people trying to proselytize. It is people without any knowledge of what is science trying to convince others of their view. They jump on their supposed intellectual superiority to brag and insult others, which is just a sign of their insecurity and fear. You obviously have no idea what is science, but if you try hard you may get it, although you require more time than other people [do not let this deter you!]. I suggest you start with Popper and try to give it a shot. Afterwards you may continue with Feyerabend and, if you feel brave, you may go backwards in time to good old Wittgenstein (which incidentally opposed Popper in some of his views).

But as per what I've seen from your arguments, I honestly doubt you can understand a word of these gentlemen and will continue your fundamentalist and baseless assertions, shouting " This is SCIENCE!" to everyone.

Finally, this will probably not be understood, but I end with a quote by old Ludwig "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." You should take his words to heart!

I am blown away by your strong arguments and your mentioning of names. That I am ignorant of what I speak is you opinion - and you're entitled to it.

It's pot calling kettle black, but seeing from your angry posts in this thread, it would seem that you're the one that feel threatened and all insecure about your worldview.

I'm going to leave this thread now because I don't see this going anywere good.
 
Last edited:
Don't feel like reading most of this stuff but let me share my experience...

Entheogens along with other methods of spiritual practice (meditation, yoga, chanting etc) are no doubt in my experience a way for human beings to experience DIRECTLY their "true" nature... If you think you are really a human being you are mistaken..... You are having the experience of being human.


What is that nature?

It is the experience of being the very core of "existence" itself, The Universe, The god-head, the cosmos, the christ conciouscness,etc etc.. that which HAS no name.

Obviously only those who have experienced what I'm talking bout know what I'm saying;

because it cannot at ALL be quantified or even explained in words; Trust me for those who have been there THEY KNOW... It is almost IMPOSSIBLE to share or explain to someone else..... Hahahah it is laughable..

It is BEYOND any experience or feeling that is even CLOSE to remotely "human". Such peak mystical experiences make me realize

1) We are all one (consciousness)
2)This one consciousness or energy is HIGHLY intelligent and is in ALL things in all realities of EVERY dimension. Ill keep it simple and not mention the other dimensions outside the 3rd..
3) In such altered states of consciousness there is a sense of "You just are" you have always been, and you will always be. Aka the god-head a feeling of tremendous omnipotence, omniscience, omnipotence, interconnectedness.

This state is more real and true than any human experience... It feels like "home". Ironically and paradoxically we are all there right now eternal as the ONE which permeates all beings and nonbeings everywhere through its myriad of forms.

What I'm trying to really convey here is ineffable, inexpressible, and words do it NO justice. However we can keep trying what ppl have been trying to do for thousands of years....

For those who have been there they know how UTTERLY terrifying it is; as you have to completely die as a human to reach such a place..

It is nothing pleasant and I would not recommend it to anyone....


Finally, After having had the terrifying,enlightening,and incomprehensible experience to visit my true self it makes me realize in my normal human consciousness that not only do i NOT KNOW SHIT; but NOBODY has a fucking clue what is really going on here.... and it makes me think that existence and life itself likes to be a mystery....

Would be a bit fun to pretend like you weren't the very fabric of existence itself planting yourself into this human body having a unique subjective experience...... you could even argue against yourself.....

By the way i know nothing.
 
I like your last post, burn out, you put a lot of more reason behind your statements. Anyway, eventhough I agree with some of the things you say, I obviously don't agree with it all. And as when've already seen earlier in this thread, I thikn we disagree on a very fundamental level - even about what reality is.

I think you're probably right and I'm glad you realize that. I find it frustrating when I get into a debate with someone who can't comprehend that the fact that someone else might have a vastly different vision of reality then they, and thus continually make arguments based on assumptions which i don't share not even realizing they are assumptions. As long as you can acknowledge that it's even possible for others to see reality in a fundamentally different way, I can respect your line of thinking.

No, not directly. But it was the meaning I got from your post. You group Einstein and Tesla together with Buddha and Jesus, how is that not saying science is just another religion among religions?


Well maybe because my point had nothing to do science being a religion but rather had to do with emphasizing how people with great insights into the nature of reality as I refer it to here, tend to be revolutionaries in their field regardless of what field it is, science, religion, even art.

I totally disagree with that statement, I think I've already argued why. You make it sound like scientists at a conference are the same as a bunch of priests at a prayer meeting.

But it is the same, at least in the sense that I was saying it was. Each involves a group of people coming together to practice their chosen profession. It's not clear to me on what bases you're saying it's different. Are you saying it's different because discussing science is better than praying? if so, that's a value judgement. Are you saying it's better because scientists (supposedly) do more good for the world? Again, that's a value judgement and its also based on the assumption that prayer is not a valid exercise, which you have not proven. And in fact, there may be scientific evidence to the contrary: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104310443

Bottom line, it's just humans doing human things. It's human to pray and discuss theology and it's human to reason and experiment and discuss data. We don't have to set these up in oppositions to each other.

That's were we disagree. There is no comparison between these two. I think that I've already stated why I don't think so, in my previous post.

the scientific method created the computer that you're writting on, and the internet we are communicating through. And it even flew humans to the moon too.

It also disclosed that fact, that it is actually the earth that rotates the sun, and not the sun that rotates the earth. But of you think that everything is all about the subjective experience, I can see it must be hard to appreciate.

I wouldn't say it's hard to appreciate, I think computers and the internet are pretty great. But that's beside the point. The fact that you like technology, doesn't mean it's superior to spirituality or religion. That's a value judgement. Technology has also given us weapons of mass destruction, pollution, increased government surveillance, distanced us from nature and created a host of other problems. It would seem to be that how we use technology is more important to creating the sort of world I'd like to live in than technology itself.

I should say that in a sense you are right in saying I think it's all about the subjective experience because our experience is ultimately all we ever have. Ask yourself this question: What do I care about more? Having a computer, the fact that people went to the moon, etc or being happy and healthy? Or living in a world full of love, beauty and goodness rather than corruption, greed and violence? People lived for centuries without computers or going to the moon. Can you truly say those inventions have fixed the problems of this world? Again, which would you rather be a hard working but happy peasant living in the middle ages or a miserable office worker sitting in your cubicle with air conditioning and hot coffee?

I don't know about you, but I'd rather be the happy peasant in the middle ages. I very much believe that its not things like computers and microwaves that really make or break our happiness and satisfaction with life. If fact I bet just about any man would pick a beautiful loving wife (something that has been available since the dawn of man) over the fastest, newest computer. I see the ancient, timeless elements of life as the most satisfying, not any new inventions, new inventions are like perks to living in this age but not the main course which is being alive itself, in my view.

From my perspective, its our minds, hearts and spirits that come first (and even bodies) and we make sure they are healthy and harmonious, then we can project that health outward with wise decisions and responsible social behavior that is line with the natural (and metaphysical) principles of life so that we dont destroy the planet or cause a whole lot of negative consequences to land back on ourselves due to our thoughtless greed as we are currently doing. This is the arena that religion and spirituality have traditionally spoken to.

Now of course I am not saying we should abandon science and technology and just sit around praying and meditating all day (although I will remind you, that there have been various tribes and peoples throughout history who lived in peace and harmony with nature and saw no need for things like computers and tvs) but I see room for both. If we learn to be smarter, wiser, more loving and more spiritual beings we can make better use of science and technology to create a better world. What use is technology if youre just going to use it to sit on the couch and get brainwashed by television? You honestly think science rules because it has created a whole race of people who do just that?

Even if you do, it's just your value judgement that thinks that's how life ought to be, or that's preferable to a society with different values. I dont see it as objective fact that living how we do is superior to living as hunter gatherers in a life rich in ritual, symbolism and reverence for nature or God with little to no science and technology.

In a sense, science is just another religion once people start worshipping it. But I am saying there is another element to human existence beyond just our logical, scientific side. Most scientists see this also, even if they fail to acklowledge the truth of it through cognitive dissonance. In fact the way we do science has always seemed a little cognitively dissonant to me, as often the discoveries imply that something is "just" something like a person is "just a collection of atoms obeying physical laws". Ok, if that's so then would you object to me killing you or stealing your wife? Why not? After all its just atoms obeying physical laws and who is to say one arrgament of atoms is better than another? But of course scientists possess conscience and moral intuition also and would object. But is there objection based on sound scientific reasoning?

How many scientists do you see getting married in a lab? They prefer to get married in churches or on beaches or some place with a beauty and atmosphere, not a sterile laboratory. That is because aesthetics, beauty, atmosphere, etc speak to the human spirit and have value of their own, even if you can't put it in a test tube.
 
Last edited:
...its also based on the assumption that prayer is not a valid exercise, which you have not proven. And in fact, there may be scientific evidence to the contrary: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104310443

Bottom line, it's just humans doing human things. It's human to pray and discuss theology and it's human to reason and experiment and discuss data. We don't have to set these up in oppositions to each other.

I know you're not talking to me, but I just wanted to mention that prayers are indeed real. They are given out and stored in the 7th chakra. Funny thing is, like you said, this is backed up by science, which honestly continues to evolve as what is classified as such.

Yes, I am just learning about all of this fascinating stuff. :)
 
It also disclosed that fact, that it is actually the earth that rotates the sun, and not the sun that rotates the earth. But of you think that everything is all about the subjective experience, I can see it must be hard to appreciate.

Oh yeah, forgot to mention the commonly cited "earth actually rotates around the sun" discovery as proof of the superiorty of science merely highlights a different point of view. In the religious cosmology the earth is the center of the solar system. Now why would this be? It's because its describing the cosmos from the point of reference of our own experience (which I would argue is the only real point of reference). Everything centers around our experience, or our conciousness and from this perspective, the earth is center of the solar system and the sun does revolve around it.

Scientists tend to study the universe as though it could be understood independent of consciousness, which is actually the strangest and most fascinating part.
 
scientists are always totally missing the forest for the trees.... They are all essentially just studying and searching for the very fabric of unquantifiable "existence" deep within each of their cores as human beings... or the intelligence "consciousness" present in all things and empty space.....
 
Amen to all I've just read. Most of my LSD experiences were between 1973 and 1976. We had a huge block of acid, windowpane, that was phenomenal and we were always sure of its potential. I enjoyed the writings of Dr. John Lilly and Carlos Castaneda. My time was a few years after LSD became a Schedule I drug in the U.S. Dr. Lilly had reagent-grade LSD and Carlos studied shamanism with a guild of sorcerers in Mexico. Dr. Lilly tripped many times in sensory deprivation tanks and stated that one time he certainly did too much.

I loved these guys. Two great quotes of Carlos' are "A man of knowledge lives by acting, not by thinking about acting" and "All paths are the same, leading nowhere. Therefore, pick a path with heart!"

Dr. Lilly's book, "The Center of the Cyclone" is a must-read.

I gained amazing insights through the use of LSD. Bill Wilson of Alcoholics Anonymous used LSD in the 1950's for ego-deflation and also turned on his wife, Lois.

Those were the days. I am very happy that I've had many experiences with LSD but I'd never do it again. Mushrooms still interest me but I haven't seen them since my last Jerry Garcia concert in West Hartford.
 
I have had hundreds of LSD trips. Probably more mushroom trips. A lot of DMT and around 20 Ayahuasca trips. I know from my own experience after 20 years of meditation practice that I can indeed achieve similar headspaces

Just because you have never achieved states like this with a sober mind does not mean its not possible. It may not be as easy as taking a substance but with work and practice amazing things can be achieved.

I agree with this.
 
Amen to all I've just read. Most of my LSD experiences were between 1973 and 1976. We had a huge block of acid, windowpane, that was phenomenal and we were always sure of its potential. I enjoyed the writings of Dr. John Lilly and Carlos Castaneda. My time was a few years after LSD became a Schedule I drug in the U.S. Dr. Lilly had reagent-grade LSD and Carlos studied shamanism with a guild of sorcerers in Mexico. Dr. Lilly tripped many times in sensory deprivation tanks and stated that one time he certainly did too much.

Afaik Castaneda has been totally discredited. Still an interesting read, but really nothing but fiction.
 
Top