If weed isn't a "real" psychedelic how do you explain arabesque/hindu art?

[Doldrugs]

certainty or uncertainty are not relevant to this issue, it's about the relative plausibility of explanations, and different ways of interpreting religious symbolism.

If you were saying "my preference is to interpret these stories this way," or "I like this explanation," that would be true. But that's not what you're saying (as we'll see below).

Perhaps this is a language barrier issue? Is English not your first language? I'm not trying to insult you, just understand your perspective. It seems like you're either using the wrong language or you fundamentally misunderstand the concept of "knowing" something, or the concept of making an unconditional statement.

I havent asserted this ^ even once. If you are unable to paraphrase me accurately, stick to "quoting" me then you can't go wrong. The authors i mentioned, and numerous others, all support various aspects of the entheogen theory of religious history, and they provide ample evidence to support their case.

Sure, I'll quote you. The first bolded section is almost identical to my barely-paraphrased version.

Esoteric psychedelic insiders know (and have always known) that the religious stories are about entheogenic experiences. Esoteric insiders are able to recognise the psychedelic level of reference in the religious stories because they are familiar with the psychedelic altered state of consciousness, they interpret the religious stories as allegorical descriptions of the psychological dynamics of the altered state experiences (in particular the ego death experience). For example the story that Jesus *walked on water* is an allegorical reference to the wavy visual alterations that people see when they trip (compare this to Moses who parted the red sea then *walked between two walls of water*).

Clueless exoteric outsiders cannot recognise (and have never been able to recognise) this level of interpretation because they are unfamiliar with the psychedelic altered state. Because they do not know what it is like to trip out and experience ego death, they do not recognise the psychedelic references in the religious stories.

These two levels of religious interpretation esoteric/exoteric have always existed alongside each other. The history of religion is the history of the dynamic relationship between these two levels.

Bolding mine. These are all unconditional statements that are simply meaningless because they are without adequate evidence. Benny Shanon would never make your statement above because he understands the scientific method. He uses very unambiguous language to make it clear that this is an unproven hypothesis. You are using him as a source for your assertions but if he were posting on this message board right now he would disagree with you.

 

[Vurtual]

Doldrugs and ebola's posts are better, but here's my bit:

Esoteric and exoteric are not different religions, as you seem to suggest here ^ (ie there is no such thing as "one of the esoteric religions"), they are two different ways of interpreting any religious story.

ALL religious stories depict people undergoing deep mystical experiences (such as Jesus, Buddha etc.). Exoteric religionists interpret these stories as literal events that occured to particular people in history; whereas esoteric religionists interpret the stories as allegorical descriptions of the subjective mental content of mystical experience as it happens to anybody (not just Jesus, Buddha etc) when they eat the holy food and trip out.

I know what esoteric and exoteric mean; i wasn't suggesting that they were different religions, i was sarcastically quoting you to illustrate the circular logic. You're pretty fundamentalist and reductionist about this (it's the claims to know stuff as if fact which is down to your own interpretation (or one of those authors')).

Esoteric/occult traditions by their very nature are symbolic, vague and hard to pin down as they're hiding stuff the lay people might not like; whether deeper meaning of of parables, advanced yogic techniques, magic rituals, sex magic, learning about the thetans, or (yes) drug use (or just contempt for the punters). They can be a rorshach test to project anything you like onto - it's a matter of interpretation: You can't wield this interpretation as if it's a concrete fact, especially if other people give good arguments for other interpretations - you should say it's your interpretation, rather than saying it's objectively true.

If those authors you mention actually give good evidence that shows any esoteric tradition as being about drugs, can you not quote some of it here? (i'd actually be interested in reading all those authors, but just give us a taste for now). Like doldrugs i think it's possible, even likely that some religions have had drug use in their esoteric traditions; but it's plain to see that some or most have none (leaving aside archaic shamanism) - your arguments will find a more receptive audience if you qualify them in such a way to show a bit of humility, whether feigned or not. For myself, i know for a 'fact' that people can achieve 'divine' mind states without drugs.

...

@Ismene: But i was actually talking about enlightenment in zen being a much more accesible/tangible state than the usual '30 years on a pillar' sort of stereotype; zen is about sudden enlightenment which can come anytime like a smack in the forehead with a stick; though like tripping, it's likely that the more disciplined and experienced seekers will bring more back from their transient enlightenment experiences. (in my limited understanding as a non-zen-ist) Zen doesn't get as hung up on the concept of enlightenment as a goal and concentrates on being in the here and now - “Before enlightenment; chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment; chop wood, carry water.”

 

[max_freakout]

If you were saying "my preference is to interpret these stories this way," or "I like this explanation," that would be true. But that's not what you're saying (as we'll see below).

that would be a tepid and weak way of writing, and nobody here writes like that even when they present their vague "alternative" theories about the meaning of religion, so you are holding me to a standard that you dont hold yourself, this is inconsistent.

 

[ebola?]

but is instead based on the easily available drug-induced psychedelic experience that is available to everybody, all the time.

Yes, psychedelics have played roles in various religions at various points (I have no reason to doubt such), but mystical religions have emerged multiple times in the absence of plausible psychedelic sacraments, and their followers have often found their own mysticism in practicing these religions. People really do feel they touch something profound in religion's various rituals which seek the trans-logical and ineffable. Otherwise, religion would just be a hollow set of procedures and myths to memorize (and it is that for a number of people (well, with added anchoring of "community" by the church)).

im not saying anything about my own experience, i am just one person so my individual experience is largely irrelevant, because im talking about what people commonly, typically experience in deep psychedelic drug-induced experiences. There are thousands of trip reports on the internet, and numerous scientific studies, that clearly describe the general effect of psychedelic drugs. Psychedelic experiencing includes the full range of mystical/religious experiential phenomena, this is very well established and accepted.

This wasn't in dispute and isn't really directly relevant to the current debate. Rather, you argued that people don't enter psychedelic states (or to some extent mystical states in general) without psychedelic drugs despite others' numerous reports of such. So what would you be inferring from other than your own lack of such experiences? I mean, I don't really enter mystical states without the aid of psychedelic drugs, so I can empathize, but I can't write off others as liars so easily. . .

Also, psychedelics aren't even reliable for such--one cannot just push a Shulgin ++++ into being with some specific dosage of something; they remain rare too.

ebola

 

[max_freakout]

Esoteric/occult traditions by their very nature are symbolic, vague and hard to pin down as they're hiding stuff

This ^ is a distinctly exoteric, unenlightened conception of what esoterica is all about, relying on vagueness and mystery. The core of esotericism is actually very simple and straightforward, it just involves tripping out on drugs, that is the "hidden" meaning (hidden in plain sight).

 

[max_freakout]

mystical religions have emerged multiple times in the absence of plausible psychedelic sacraments,

what do you mean "in the absence of plausible psychedelic sacraments"? The sacrament is available to everyone, there are magical plants everywhere (see Ratsch). Esoteric/mystical religion can only exist because of the existence of psychedelic drugs; where there are no drugs, there is no mysticism.

you argued that people don't enter psychedelic states (or to some extent mystical states in general) without psychedelic drugs despite others' numerous reports of such.

I have never argued this ^ or said that anyone was "lying" (although there are good reasons to lie about one's own drug use, especially in the modern context of drug prohibition), people may well experience psychedelic states without taking any drugs, it stands to reason especially since the human brain creates powerful psychedelic chemicals (DMT and beta-carbolines) endogenously even without any external chemicals being ingested. But there is no way to reliably and repeatably enter the intense psychedelic state of consciousness at will without taking drugs.

 

[Doldrugs]

that would be a tepid and weak way of writing

No it's a normal, correct way of writing. It's the way Benny Shanon writes.

you are holding me to a standard that you dont hold yourself

No I'm not. I hold myself to the same standard I hold everyone else. I expect people to back up the unconditional statements they make.

 

[ebola?]

what do you mean "in the absence of plausible psychedelic sacraments"? The sacrament is available to everyone, there are magical plants everywhere (see Ratsch).

I wouldn't say that plants bearing 5ht2a agonists, nmda antagonists, and cannabis (and I guess Fly Agaric mushrooms too) grow "everywhere". Stuff doesn't grow at all well in deserts, where many current religions were born. So yeah, I think that psychedelic drugs were in certain situations rare enough for mystical experience induced otherwise to play a role.

where there are no drugs, there is no mysticism.

I though you said that such plants were everywhere? And again, do you mean that "mystical experiences are very rare and unreliable" in such cases, or that they are entirely absent?

I have never argued this ^ or said that anyone was "lying"

Oh...I must've misunderstood; sorry. I got confused when you substitute "cannot" "will not" "never", etc. for "occurs quite rarely and unreliably"; they mean pretty different things.

But there is no way to reliably and repeatably enter the intense psychedelic state of consciousness at will without drugs.

I'd say that various meditative practices allow a decent degree of reliability, but only within a given well-practiced and initially talented meditator; so you have reliability within but not between individuals (and again, psychedelics are only dubiously reliable here, at least when it comes to the mystical).

But it sounds like we agree on a lot of things any way...

ebola

 

[Vurtual]

This ^ is a distinctly exoteric, unenlightened conception of what esoterica is all about, dwelling in vagueness and mystery. The core of esotericism is actually very simple and straightforward, it just involves tripping out on drugs, that is the "hidden" meaning (hidden in plain sight).

Again, a massive claim of knowledge. How do you know this with such certainty? (with specifics)

Edit: ok, i just read this:

people may well experience psychedelic states without taking any drugs, it stands to reason especially since the human brain creates powerful psychedelic chemicals (DMT and beta-carbolines) endogenously even without any external chemicals being ingested. But there is no way to reliably and repeatably enter the intense psychedelic state of consciousness at will without taking drugs.

This sounds a bit more nuanced, but i'd argue over the last sentence (but not put it as well as ebola above)

 

[max_freakout]

I wouldn't say that plants bearing 5ht2a agonists, nmda antagonists, and cannabis (and I guess Fly Agaric mushrooms too) grow "everywhere". Stuff doesn't grow at all well in deserts, where many current religions were born.I though you said that such plants were everywhere?

Except at the extreme icy poles, there are psychoactive plants *everywhere* (see Ratsch - encyclopaedia of psychoactive plants), the deserts have mescaline cacti, syrian rue (eaten by the muslim prophet Mohammed in the desert before his angelic revelation) and acacia trees, and psilocybe mushrooms grow in every country (see Stamets - psilocybe mushrooms of the world), also there are LSA-producing plants, scolpolamine-producing plants etc. Magical plants are abundant across the world, wherever there are people in the world, there are magic plants.

do you mean that "mystical experiences are very rare and unreliable" in such cases, or that they are entirely absent?

the former ^, without drugs mystical experience is rare, unreliable and completely off-limits to the vast majority of people, but at the same time an absence of drugs would be forced and artificial situation given the abundance of magical plants across the world.

psychedelics are only dubiously reliable here, at least when it comes to the mystical)

On the contrary it is very firmly established that psychedelic drugs trigger the full range of mystical/religious experiential phenomena, this is widely documented and attested to.

 

[max_freakout]

How do you know this with such certainty?

How does anybody know anything with any certainty? This is a separate question from the details of the entheogen theory; I don't know anything with any certainty, but i find that the entheogen theory makes the most complete, satisfying and coherent theory about what religion is all about, supported with a huge amount of compelling evidence, and far superior in its explanatory power than any of the nebulous, vague "alternative" theories of religion that don't incorporate drugs.

It's a beauty contest between two competing paradigms, the drug based model of religion versus the drug-free model of religion. In the drug-free exoteric version, intense mystical experience is rare, off-limits to all except the few "special" people that have the special ability to trip without drugs. In the drug-based esoteric version, everyone is able to access the intense mystical altered state via the magical plants and chemicals, so it is the experience itself that is special, not the people who are able to have it.

the exoteric version of religion derives from a lack of awareness about the intense mystical experience, it is how people who have never tripped (or who have not integrated their trip experiences into their understanding of religion) interpret religion. The esoteric version of religion is when religion and tripping are fully integrated with each other.

 

[Vurtual]

Well i think you're right in the general sense that esoteric religion is about a more direct experience of the mystical, often with secret methods to achieve this, just not that this always means drugs - if you said 'it mostly involves drugs', then we could move on and argue about the degree (we can move anyway if you like ).

And there's a contradiction there: you saying that drugs means anyone can get access to these states and exoteric religion obfuscates it and says it's only for the special few - and yet i can't think of any esoteric tradition that couldn't be described as massively exclusive, and definitely for a chosen few (it defines esoteric pretty much) - this can't be explained fully by public/state anti-drug attitudes making them hide it because those attitudes aren't universal through history by any means. I'd also agree with ebola that the incidence of substantially 'spiritual' plus 4 experiences from psychedelics among the population, and the propensity to seek such out, is not that common - probably about similar to how many people get into non-drug mystical practices (though i'd accept that they'll get more noticeable effects sooner with the drugs).

 

[max_freakout]

esoteric religion is about a more direct experience of the mystical, often with secret methods to achieve this, just not that this always means drugs

There are no "secret methods" besides drugs, so if religion doesnt involve drugs, then it doesnt involve personal mystical-state experience, and therefore it is merely exoteric relgion based on secondhand testimony from the few rare special people who can trip without drugs, instead of direct personal mystical experience. Drugs are the only method that provides reliable, repeatable access to the intense mystical altered state.

Without drugs, religionists have to rely on the experiences and testimony of the rare few people who are supposedly able to trip without taking drugs. The drug-free so-called "alternative" methods like meditating or yoga etc do not allow most people to access the intense mystical state. You can meditate for decades and experience nothing that remotely compares to a strong psychedelic trip. In particular, drug-free methods do not allow people to experience loss of control and ego death.

the incidence of substantially 'spiritual' plus 4 experiences from psychedelics among the population,

With psychedelics, "spiritual" or mystical/relgious experiences are very common and easy to access. Without drugs, such experiences are rare and fleeting, and inaccessible to almost everyone. Drug-free methods like meditation are an entirely different thing from drugs, there is no real basis for comparison between them. Drugs make people trip reliably repeatably, meditating does not make people trip reliably and repeatably. Because of this, drug free meditation ends up serving as a way to avoid real mystical experience (to hold it off forever), not as a way to actually trigger it. And there are good reasons why people might want to avoid intense tripping.

Exoteric religion is people who want to avoid real mystical experience, esoteric religion is for people who want to have direct personal mystical experience.

 

[Ismene]

^^

I'm not sure they're that easy to access on drugs tho max - my granny probably wouldn't have a mystical experience on acid. I don't know too many people who enjoy psychedelics. Even today there's only a very, very small percentage of drug users who prefer psychedelics to things like E, booze and coke. Obviously that would be an even smaller percentage back in the day when no-one had the faintest idea whether they damaged you or sent you insane.

 

[swilow]

There are no "secret methods" besides drugs, so if religion doesnt involve drugs, then it doesnt involve personal mystical-state experience, and therefore it is merely exoteric relgion based on secondhand testimony from the few rare special people who can trip without drugs, instead of direct personal mystical experience. Drugs are the only method that provides reliable, repeatable access to the intense mystical altered state.

Without drugs, religionists have to rely on the experiences and testimony of the rare few people who are supposedly able to trip without taking drugs. The drug-free so-called "alternative" methods like meditating or yoga etc do not allow most people to access the intense mystical state. You can meditate for decades and experience nothing that remotely compares to a strong psychedelic trip. In particular, drug-free methods do not allow people to experience loss of control and ego death.




With psychedelics, "spiritual" or mystical/relgious experiences are very common and easy to access. Without drugs, such experiences are rare and fleeting, and inaccessible to almost everyone. Drug-free methods like meditation are an entirely different thing from drugs, there is no real basis for comparison between them. Drugs make people trip reliably repeatably, meditating does not make people trip reliably and repeatably. Because of this, drug free meditation ends up serving as a way to avoid real mystical experience (to hold it off forever), not as a way to actually trigger it. And there are good reasons why people might want to avoid intense tripping.

Exoteric religion is people who want to avoid real mystical experience, esoteric religion is for people who want to have direct personal mystical experience.

If you are saying that the only way to trip is through psychedelics, I would agree. The same way that water is the only substance to quench thirst.

If you are saying that you can only experience a mystical state through psychedelics, I disagree. We are talking of a qualitative difference only.

You never really adressed a point I raise which is that the absence of widespread use of psychedelics by modern religions, and the huge percentage of people that are self-described as religious, suggests that psychedelics are not at all important in experiencing spirituality. The vast amount of people who attend church, have communion with god and don't take drugs vastly outweighs those who do.

Religions are not always a result of divine experience. They could be an offshoot of our innate desire for social hierarchy. It is only recently in human history that much of the world shrugged off the yoke of monarchism; god is the ultimate, final king. We can see a rejection of this structure globally.

 

[Ismene]

The same way that water is the only substance to quench thirst.
.

Gatorade?

 

[max_freakout]

my granny probably wouldn't have a mystical experience on acid.

Why not? Give her some acid and see how she describes her experience. People very commonly experience intense mystical experiences on acid, in contrast to drug free techniques that only rarely cause such experiences.

I don't know too many people who enjoy psychedelics. Even today there's only a very, very small percentage of drug users who prefer psychedelics to things like E, booze and coke. Obviously that would be an even smaller percentage back in the day when no-one had the faintest idea whether they damaged you or sent you insane.

Here you are talking about recreational drug use, but that is a separate issue from psychedelic mysticism. Religious use of psychedelics isnt for fun or recreation, but rather for intense mystical experiences. Mystical experiences can be deeply unpleasant and traumatising, and the religious stories commonly depict them as being extremely unpleasant, Mohammed attempted suicide, Buddha was attacked by demons, Abraham was commanded to kill his own son, etc, these are not fun, enjoyable experiences.

So the proportion of people who "enjoy" psychedelics is irrelevant to psychedelic religion, the relevant point is the proportion of people who "trip" on psychedelics.

 

[max_freakout]

You never really adressed a point I raise which is that the absence of widespread use of psychedelics by modern religions, and the huge percentage of people that are self-described as religious, suggests that psychedelics are not at all important in experiencing spirituality.

I have addressed this ^ point several times. It all comes down to two fundamentally different ways of interpreting what religion is all about, the exoteric and esoteric levels of interpretation. What you describe here ^ is exoteric religion, ie people who describe themselves as religious (more specifically, they identify themselves as members of a single particular religion), and the basis of their religion is scripture (such as the bible), which predominantly consists of stories about prophets/mystics (such as Jesus and Mohammed) undergoing transformative mystical experiences.

The esoteric interpretation of religion is a very different thing to the exoteric interpretation, because its basis is not in scriptural representations of mystical experience, but rather in personal, direct, firsthand experience of transformative mystical revelation. From the esoteric point of view, it makes little sense to identify as a member of one particular religion to the exclusion of all the others, because all religions are seen to be essentially the same, equivalent to each other as symbolic representations of psychedelic experiences, in particular ego death/control loss.

Esoteric religion relies on drugs because for most people, extreme intense mystical altered states are impossible to have (especially reliably and repeatably) without taking drugs.

The vast amount of people who attend church, have communion with god and don't take drugs vastly outweighs those who do.

This ^ is another way of saying that in the modern era, exoteric religionists vastly outnumber esoteric religionists. Most people are unable to recognise the allusions to psychedelia in religious symbolism because they are not familiar with the mental dynamics of psychedelic experiencing.

For example, most Catholics in the modern era interpret the 'bread and wine' of the holy communion as literal bread and wine because they are unaware of the esoteric interpretation of bread and wine as psychedelic food and drink (such as mushrooms and ayahuasca).

Religions are not always a result of divine experience.

All religions universally originate from and centre around symbolic depictions of mystical/religious/divine experiences, such as the enlightenment of the Buddha, revelation of Mohammed, ressurection of Jesus etc. Every religion starts off with a profound life-changing mystical experience, and all religious stories depict people undergoing such experiences.

 

[Erikmen]

It can be too many things. Only you and will really experience what can be or not. It´s very individual although it looks like the opposite.

 

[Ismene]

Religious use of psychedelics isnt for fun or recreation, but rather for intense mystical experiences. Mystical experiences can be deeply unpleasant and traumatising, and the religious stories commonly depict them as being extremely unpleasant, Mohammed attempted suicide, Buddha was attacked by demons, Abraham was commanded to kill his own son, etc, these are not fun, enjoyable experiences.

So the proportion of people who "enjoy" psychedelics is irrelevant to psychedelic religion, the relevant point is the proportion of people who "trip" on psychedelics.

I dunno max - I don't think most people would have any kind of mystical experience on psychedelics. They'd just find it scary, unpleasant and unenjoyable and probably just think "stuff swirls around". I think there's only a very small minority of people who could find it mystical. And if it was a nightmarish experience every time I doubt whether you could form a religion on the back of it.