Bardeaux
Bluelight Crew
Not specifically, but forbidden fruit = tree of knowledge etc etc
-
PD Moderators: Esperighanto | JackARoe |
Are mushrooms the forbidden fruit??
- Thread starter moke
- Start date
Not specifically, but forbidden fruit = tree of knowledge etc etc
Survived Abortion
Bluelighter
False. Are you seriously suggesting that if one could corroborate or prove one aspect of a story or myth, then the entire myth must be gospel truth? Nonsense.
If it turned out, hypothetically speaking, that the "forbidden fruit" alluded to was indeed psilocybin mushrooms, this in no way validates the stories and dogmas of the Bible as they are accepted and promoted by the cult of Rome.In fact our interpretations of those stories have to change (rather than elements of the stories themselves). The Bilble is a complex book made up of many books - spanning an 'old' and a 'new' testament - written by many different people at different times, some of which deal far more with dogmatic ideas and philosophies than others which attempt to tell fantastic stories from an innocent and humble viewpoint.
I think there's more than just "fables" to account for the use of psychoactive plants in humans, and their important role in precipitating spiritual awareness. I think you'll find the historical evidence points more in favour of entheogenic models of spiritual initiation than other modes.
Let's also look at how the 'accepted view' correlates with the current religious systems we have in place:
Let's take christianity as an example. The accepted view would have us beleive in an off-world male deity who conceived and fashioned the Earth to his liking, and created the anthopos to enjoy his paradise. However, after "his" children ate from the tree of knowledge, he expelled them from paradise and forced them in to a world in which every human child is born in to sin. This male father-god also speaks to a man called Moses and instructs him on how the human race shall behave, and teaches him to build a spectalurly advanced and magical device, in which he supposedly places scriptures of the "commandments" he recieved from that deity.
On the other hand, the entheogenic model - using mushrooms as an example as per this thread - would challenge any of the basic tennets of the interpretation of this story. For instance, everyone who has tripped hard enough on mushrooms or similar psychedelics will know that they have the power to catalyze the induction of greater wisdom about the nature of our own existence. If the 'tree of knowledge' was actually an entheogenic plant capable of greatly altering the perceptions of its consumer (and thus stimulating existential questioning), it is entirely believable that any such race or entity posing as a "god" would begin to lose face as the subordinate race (humans) began to realize their true potential. This could easily have been passed on in story form, if it were accepted that we 'woke up' because we ate from the 'tree of knowledge', and thus our slave-masters turned us out of paradise.
It is highly believable that Moses was actually tripping balls up a mountain, and due to his life amongst polital leaders (his pharoah foster family) his mindset was one of rules and regulations. Psychedelic trips are as great or small as our mind allows. It is also conceivable that under that influence, he achieved a state of cognitive awareness that allowed him to design and subsequently build a technologically advanced device, the direct knowledge of which he attributed to a deity.
In both these views, the accepted view, and the entheogenic view, the stories unfold in the same manner. The fact that visions or revelations may have been received via plants or fungi have no bearing on the fact that particular events actually occured, only that the importance of their origin was misconstrued and distorted by the power-hungry elite.
This would be important for various reasons. Even if the mushroom theory were not correct in all cases, it is important to consider because it empowers naive people with the understanding that the later dogmas and doctrines conceived by Roman leaders were never a part of the original "faith", and that they never needed to hand over their spiritual power to the preisthood in order to have the divine experiences which have been so grossly misrepresented over the centuries. Thus the paternalistic societal structure inherited from the demented rules of the original priest class - who peverted the spiritual teachings of the prophets and the 'mystery schools' for the benefit of their dominion of power - can be seen for what it is. And therefore, those of a spiritual inclination - who have been sold in to the belief that they are spiritually powerless unless they submit themselves unto those elite ones within the lines of apostolic succession - can reclaim their birthright to personal spirituality free of those very doctrines and dogmas you speak about.
willow11 said:
Are you saying that you can achieve "true gnosis" whilst 'sober', but that you cannot achieve it whilst tripping? This common arguement falls flat on it's face for one good reason:
There is actually nothing to differentiate the sober and the tripping mind. Psychedelics are molecules, just like every other molecule that we ingest. We are never really 'sober', that is just an illusiory concept. Humans, and other biological life forms are organisms of homeostasis, constantly seeking equilibrium within a dynamic universe. This means that every single molecule that enters and leaves our body, every exchange of energy, affects our consciousness on some level. We know that our awareness is affected by neurotransmitters, the exchanges of which are changing constantly. Biological organisms thus are always in a state of change, the flux of which manifests on a mental level as a constantly changing state of awareness'. It's just that psychedelic drugs increase the perturbation of that flux in particular ways.
A lot of spiritual purists say that you should reach enlightment sober. But this is a short-sighted fallacy; you cannot claim that you are enlightened whilst someone else is falsely enlightened. There is no "close to spiritual enlightnment" as oppose to "enlightenment", that is simply spiritual egotism. Most human beings can barely see what is right under their very noses, let alone the big picture of all that is. As part of the universe, we already know everything in one sense, we just can't remember most of the time because we are in survival mode as individual organisms.
Last edited:
boiledfruit
Bluelighter
Ya, Don't know why I said "could be in fact the forbidden fruit..
I know 4-PO-DMT and DMT arern't the same thing. But what other 4-xxx-DMT occur naturally in a plant like that? 5-MeO-DMT is found in frogs, but it's not poisonous to us and neither is psilocybin so I don't feel these chemicals are defence mechanisms. Maybe they are so smaller animals but they don't harm people at all. Maybe it's because our minds were hardwired to use these chemicals?
I know 4-PO-DMT and DMT arern't the same thing. But what other 4-xxx-DMT occur naturally in a plant like that? 5-MeO-DMT is found in frogs, but it's not poisonous to us and neither is psilocybin so I don't feel these chemicals are defence mechanisms. Maybe they are so smaller animals but they don't harm people at all. Maybe it's because our minds were hardwired to use these chemicals?
swilow
Bluelight Crew
False. Are you seriously suggesting that if one could corroborate or prove one aspect of a story or myth, then the entire myth must be gospel truth? Nonsense.
Well, no, I didn't intend to write someting as crudely blunt as what I did. The point I was trying to make was that if we are going to discuss whether the forbiddden fruit in genesis was psilocybin mushrooms, doesnt the almost certain non-reality of this creation story render the forbidden fruit/mushroom concept completely void? There seems little gain in determining the truth of one part of a story which is (generally) known to untrue.
I'm not denying that psychoactive plants may have played a role in nascent human spirituality. I just don't think its as important a role as others might. I mean, I would be interested to read some of this historical evidence...
What confuses me is that we have a lot of records telling us how ancient peoples lived, things like the food they ate, where they slept, how they governed their community, what the names of their gods are, how much tax they payed, and yet, even having knowledge of the most mundane to the most grandiose of these ancient lives, the evidence for psychedelic spirituality is relatively scarce. If psychedelics played such an important role in these lives (and mediated their spirituality, no less) there doesn't seem to be a lot of evidence.
You're extrapolating a lot there, even going as far as to determine Moses set and setting. Of course, it could be psychedelics or it could be schizophrenia. Neither possibilties are more likely then the other.
I'm not sure I'm understanding you here....?
No, I'm not about to make such a dualistic absolute. I just think that the insight and 'enlightenment' of mushrooms gets in the way of a deeper, lasting calmness, because we cease to try and reach a state of inner peace because we feel we can rely on an external mediator in the form of a fungus to reach 'enlightenment'. Its probably different for many people, but I doubt that an awakening experience, when induced by a drug with a half-life, can last because one cannot be on this drug ad infinitum.
From an objective view, yes, the tripping mind is indistinguishable from the non-tripping, but if you are the one whose mind is tripping, the subjective difference is astounding.
I agree that the duality of sober vs. non-sober is pretty meaningless, but that is semantics. There is a huge difference in the effect of, say, calcium when compared to, say, straight vodka. Sobriety could be loosely defined as the baseline congitive plateau wherein some people spend the majority of their time.
I do think there are differing levels of enlightenment, just as there are different levels of light, or differing saturations of colour.
Really, though, my point was that, when people take mushrooms (and most psychedelics) and achieve a state of (perhaps brief) nirvana, instead of becoming aware that it is the individuals mind that achieved this, humans start to enshrine the catalyst (the drug).
I also wonder why people want to link abrahamic religions to psychedelics. These religions are some of the most blood thristy forces in our world. I would hope that psychedelics may push us past these ridiculous beliefs...
I don't think so. I think, even today, the vast majority who took a high dose of mushrooms would find the experience very unpleasant and a "trip into insanity". And that's talking of people with a 21st century mindset - when you get back to religious lunatics 2000 years ago I think they'd, without exception, consider mushrooms "the work of the devil" and burn anyone who took them. Don't put your mindset onto ancient religious people with entirely different ideas about life.
Excellent point willow. These religions are based on the most deranged cruelty and hatred imaginable. If this is the best mushrooms can come up with then it's probably better if no-one ever takes them again.
Unless they take them with moclobemide of course...ahem...
ASquishyApple
Bluelighter
Oh yeah they are that's why you grow mushrooms on a tree of the knowledge of good and evil. I think you can get seeds for those trees online.
Oh and just because the crusades happened doesn't mean you should generalize the ideals of the crusades to the rest of "abrahamic religions"
Oh and just because the crusades happened doesn't mean you should generalize the ideals of the crusades to the rest of "abrahamic religions"
swilow
Bluelight Crew
^Abrahamic religions were violent way before the crusades. Christianity is probably the worst though.
Thorns Have Roses
Bluelight Crew
I profoundly disagree with associating such violence with religion, the vast majority of subscribers to any major world religion have not displayed any particular violence chalked up to their belief set, and many of the lessons contained in these religions directly contradict this behavior. It's this kind of gross reductionism contributes to the Islamaphobia rampant in Occidental societies today (though that's generally from people believing one abrahamic religion = violence rather than all, with a helping of xenophobia on the side).
swilow
Bluelight Crew
Think about the innumerable conflicts world wide that have been inspired by one of the abrahamic faiths. The long term wars in Bosnia/Croatia, the ridiculous segregation of protestants and catholics in northern Ireland, the inquisition, torture and immolation of heretics, violent jihad, etc. I understand what you mean by reudctionism, as the majority of followers of Abrahamic faiths are (and were) non-violent, but then again, so were the majority of Nazis in germany and I doubt anyone could try and say that nazism isn't, in and of itself, a disturbing political ideology which is genuinely violent. If there is a lot of violence in the world and the main moral code is derived from one particular religion or doctrine, its safe to say that this doctrine is either failing to protect humanity or has justification for violence written into its teachings.
But anyway, I'm not saying that christian people are inherently evil, just that their religion is.
Its a cliche to be anti-religion, but I think the world will be a whole better when all this segregation and dogma fades away, as it should and will.
Jesusgreen
Bluelight Crew
We shouldn't stray too far off the original topic
Just my 2 cents on the whole religion thing though, I think religion is often responsible for violence, but religion and belief are two very different things. Religion is the very structure and organisation that supports these beliefs, for example the catholic church - the inherent belief in a particular religion or viewpoint does not cause one to become violent or start wars (unless of course, that is their particular viewpoint), but religious organisations themselves tend to lead to a lot of conflict, and I personally think that if we were to see a world where people believed in their God/s or whatever they wanted to believe in, but without subscribing to large controlling organisations - things would be a lot better.
This is a very controversial topic though, and we should probably stick to the original post so as not to divert too far from the subject
Just my 2 cents on the whole religion thing though, I think religion is often responsible for violence, but religion and belief are two very different things. Religion is the very structure and organisation that supports these beliefs, for example the catholic church - the inherent belief in a particular religion or viewpoint does not cause one to become violent or start wars (unless of course, that is their particular viewpoint), but religious organisations themselves tend to lead to a lot of conflict, and I personally think that if we were to see a world where people believed in their God/s or whatever they wanted to believe in, but without subscribing to large controlling organisations - things would be a lot better.
This is a very controversial topic though, and we should probably stick to the original post so as not to divert too far from the subject
growit&smokeit
Bluelighter
I read a very interesting paper (http://shamanism.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/shanon_article_moses.pdf) on the possibility of moses's visions for example the burning bush being produced by an Ayahuasca like brew. In it he mentioned the forbidden fruit story as an example of drug use among the old testement jews. to me it is pretty obvious that it was some sort of entheogen.
applefritters
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2011
- Messages
- 97
no I believe that was an apple... And theres nothing magic or godly about mushrooms, they just happen to create a chemical as a biproduct of their life cycle that reacts with our brain in a unique way, its all science, everything we seethinkfeeldo is all caused by a whole lot of chemical reactions and electronic impulses inside our brains/bodies.
Survived Abortion
Bluelighter
willow11 said:
I mean historical evidence ranging from the word of mouth of secret societies, cave art, spiritual documents such as the Rig Veda and other sanskrit texts, the Bible, and many other spiritual documents, not to mention the long-standing history of shamanic use of psychedelics from Siberia to the Amazon.
willow11 said:
No, I was just giving an example that would fit within the context of this thread i.e. a narrative that involves both the story of Moses and the proposed idea that some of the divine visions received by characters in the Bible stories may have been catalyzed by psychedelic drugs.
I don't think anybody is specifically trying to link abrahamic religions with psychedelics as oppose to other organized belief systems. It's just that there are these anomalies in these stories, and some people are pondering over where the basis of those stories would have come from. We could be talking about any of the religions and spiritual histories.
Sorry, this is a crock of shit. 8( You often drop in to the "bad trip" threads to say that bad trips don't exist, yet here you are now saying that high-dose mushrooms will send most people who take them in to insanity. Obviously both viewpoints are absurd.
And regarding your assertion that people tripping on mushrooms 2000 years ago would have thought it was the devil and burned people at the stake - you are referring to events that took place during the dark ages. Way after the beginnings of christianity. This thread discusses aspects of stories that came from milennia before then. So I don't really understand what your point is. It seems you are saying that - because some people have negative experiences with psychedelics - they don't have the power to help one integrate insights and greater understandings from other states of perception. Which they do.
Psychoactive substances were the staple of the mystery schools of the levant. These ancient practices of divination using psychedelics go way back before the Roman era. Tripping was one of their main ways of seeking universal "knowledge" (as it were).
No, I say I've never had one, not that they don't exist. I've no doubt they exist and certain people are very vulnerable to them.
yet here you are now saying that high-dose mushrooms will send most people who take them in to insanity
No, I said most primitive, abrahamic religious people (as opposed to shamanic religions) who take a plant and start hearing voices are going to panic and fear it's the work of the devil. Just like the spanish christians thought when they came across the indians taking drugs in south america.
you are referring to events that took place during the dark ages
Didn't they crucify Jesus for claiming to be the son of God? That wasn't in the "dark ages" was it?
If they crucified Jesus then imagine what they'd do to someone who claimed "God is in this mushroom, he talks to me when I take it".
So I don't really understand what your point is.
My point is don't imprint your mindset on people living 2000 years ago. I know you enjoy tripping and think it's wonderful, I'm just suggesting that not every primitive religious lunatic living 2000 years ago is going to agree with you. Try going up to a fundamentalist Islamic group and telling them you can speak to Allah through the mushroom. See what happens to you. When you've picked all your teeth up, try imagining what they'd have done to you a thousand years ago.
Psychoactive substances were the staple of the mystery schools of the levant
No they wern't. That's just a theory. There's plenty of religious mystics who never touched a drug in their lives. You're assuming everyone has to take drugs to have a mystical experience because that's the only way you've ever had one. They don't. People can have mystical experiences playing a round of golf.
Tripping was one of their main ways of seeking universal "knowledge" (as it were).
No it wasn't. And before you start linking me to your so-called "evidence", yes, I've read all the Wasson books.
This wouldn't be that drawing Mckenna always gives of the man with "mushrooms" sprouting from his body would it? Have you ever seen the original drawing on the cave wall (rather than the "representation" done by his wife which he always prints?). They look fuck-all like mushrooms in the original.
spiritual documents such as the Rig Veda and other sanskrit texts, the Bible
And Nostradramus too?
You can read anything you want into the Bible. And yes, I've read "sacred mushroom and the cross". And I thought it was a load of bullshit. Good story tho.
long-standing history of shamanic use of psychedelics from Siberia to the Amazon.
I'm not sure whether this use was always "shamanic". As far as I can tell from the aztecs reports they tended to use mushrooms during their sacrificial ceremonies when they were cutting the throat of an infant. Often only the king and his cronies were allowed to trip. Whether there were any indians tripping for "spiritual purposes" is unclear.
As for the siberian use of amantia - as soon as vodka hit the siberians they dropped the amantia like hot shit. What does that tell you about their use of amantia - was it really "shamanic" or just the cheapest way they had of getting really, really fucked up?
Last edited:
Black Octagon MK 2
Bluelighter
Ah, this thread reminds me of the Bluelight of old, when the boards were full of provocative threads like this. These days it's all RC this, RC that...
I love mushrooms and psychedelics and general, and I like 'the idea' that the forbidden fruit tale was based on the first discovery of a naturally-occurring psychedelic. But can we know if this was the case? Of course not. And even if we did, who's to say that this 'apple' was a mushroom? It could have been anything. Hawaian baby woodrose seeds. An ayahuasca brew. Or even a poisoned apple
I love mushrooms and psychedelics and general, and I like 'the idea' that the forbidden fruit tale was based on the first discovery of a naturally-occurring psychedelic. But can we know if this was the case? Of course not. And even if we did, who's to say that this 'apple' was a mushroom? It could have been anything. Hawaian baby woodrose seeds. An ayahuasca brew. Or even a poisoned apple
Survived Abortion
Bluelighter
Ismene said:
What does the crucifiction of Jesus have to do with your ridiculous claim that people 2000 years ago would have been burned at the stake for taking mushrooms? Oh wait, I'll answer that for you: absolutely nothing. Clearly you know zero about that period in history. There's far more to it than what you saw on the history channel or were taught in sunday school.
Ismene said:
You're view of people living 2000 years ago is so blinkered it beggers belief. According to your logic, nobody would have gotten away with tripping and then sharing their insights during the pre-christian era, for fear of reprisal. I'm amazed at the stupidity of these assumptions. But then when you present such blatantly reductionist scenarios such as "Try going up to a fundamentalist Islamic group and telling them you can speak to Allah through the mushroom. See what happens to you" it's not suprising you don't get it.
Ismene said:
I'm not assuming anything. In fact, the only person making assumptins here is you, about my personal reading material:
Ismene said:
I don't need to prove anything to you. If you're too bone-headed to do the research and find these things out for yourself, that's your lookout. All the arrogance in the world doesn't make you correct. 8)
moke
Bluelighter
Here is a very interesting documentary that discusses the possible tie between ancient astro-theology and shamanism and how modern day christanty and other world regions evolved into what they are today.....claiming that modern day rituals like christmas and Easter may be rooted to what was seen in the skies years ago and ancient shaman mushroom inebriation rituals. Defintely a must see.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kyQOeiY11RA#!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kyQOeiY11RA#!
jesusmaker
Greenlighter
I'm pretty sure that shrooms are the tree of knowledge, and "GOD" doesn't/didn't want humans to begin to see the world in a new way where the user was in control of much more then he bargained for (had unlocked vast amounts of subconscious-tapped into a single god mind that was aware it was being watched at all times , hence the covering up (aliens not sure yet) . I think the correct method of this view this godly perspective is to practice strict egolessness :s, meditation, monk like state sort of things to achieve the knowledge that you cannot die you just live on in a new reality, everybody/everything is you, your looking for that moment of life that first state of OM. I mean if mushrooms can get you there but much needs to be learned on how to use them in shamanic like ways. Anyways either DMT, LSD-25, or just reaching that state where time neither stops nor goes and new dimensions appear on anything... is the tree of life or i hope so as i have taken 7.5 hits of cid only 90 mins ago
anyways just my thoughts so far... totally my opinion
love lots drop dots
anyways just my thoughts so far... totally my opinion
love lots drop dots