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

[max_freakout]

You can say looking at a sunset is mystical and you can say taking 500 mics of acid is also mystical - but are they really similar?

This ^ clearly demonstrates the OSC-fallacy, the fallacy of trying to reduce and collapse mystical experience downwards into the Ordinary State of Consciousness.

There is a clear, obvious, massive difference between the ordinary mundane everyday state of consciousness, versus the profound magical mystical state of consciousness, it is the difference between tripping on a hefty dose of psychedelic versus NOT tripping on anything.

 

[max_freakout]

are you claiming you know some secret esoteric knowledge that everyone else doesn't?

No im claiming that every esoteric religionist has always understood that the religious stories refer to drug trips, not just me. The esoteric understanding of religion is heavily suppressed but it always exists throughout the history of religion.

 

[Vurtual]

Max: You're describing mystical religions, or religions that encourage direct personal connection with the divine rather than taking someone's word for it. There are many religions and traditions like this; some have their practical mystical methods hidden in esoterica for pragmatic reasons, others are more upfront about it. There's no real evidence any number of them have drug taking at their heart - correct me if i'm wrong.

@Ismene - it's all about the limits of language, but that's the point isn't it? Awe doesn't need language. Of course 500 mics of acid is more intense than a sunset (i did say a glimpse); it's probably worth about 10 mics though; and surely you can recognise what i mean - the feeling you get when you have awe for nature is the same feeling you can have about everything on acid. I'm inclined to the zen sort of view that 'enlightenment' is not some far away state, but is something we can all recognise from certain moments of our life; being enlightened in that sense just means training yourself to stay in that open state for longer; whether anyone permanently attains that state is another question. (and i don't know who dr ruth is and what relevance her genitals have)

EDIT: Max: "No im claiming that every esoteric religionist has always understood that the religious stories refer to drug trips, not just me. The esoteric understanding of religion is heavily suppressed but it always exists throughout the history of religion. " That seems like a massive claim which will require some good evidence; much more than you've given.

 

[max_freakout]

There's no real evidence any number of them have drug taking at their heart

Where religion lacks drugs, it lacks reliable and repeatable access to intense mystical altered state experiences. This is exoteric religion and is an entirely different thing from esoteric/mystical experiential religion, which is about personal, firsthand experience (and familiarity with) the intense altered states

 

[Doldrugs]

It matters a great deal if you want to have the experience yourself and see what these founding figures like Jesus, Mohammed and Buddha experienced, ie profound life-transforming mystical epiphany.

That has nothing to do with what we're debating. We're debating your claim that all religions were founded on the basis of psychedelic use and all documented mystical experiences were caused by psychedelic use. Do you care to respond to my point, or just deflect it?

No im claiming that every esoteric religionist has always understood that the religious stories refer to drug trips, not just me. The esoteric understanding of religion is heavily suppressed but it always exists throughout the history of religion.

Yes, you keep saying that. But you're not giving any convincing evidence. I'm not closed minded; I actually think the chances are good that at least some religions did begin because of psychedelics. But we're all just asking for evidence of your complete certainty. You're not giving any, and you're ignoring a lot of our challenges to your arguments.

 

[Vurtual]

Where religion lacks drugs, it lacks reliable and repeatable access to intense mystical altered state experiences. This is exoteric religion and is an entirely different thing from esoteric/mystical experiential religion, which is about personal, firsthand experience (and familiarity with) the intense altered states

That's not an answer to my point about there being no evidence; unless you mean the circular argument that if a religion has deep mystical experiences, you judge them as one of the 'esoteric' religions, and assume they must have used drugs, even if there's no evidence. (and what doldrugs said)

 

[ebola?]

The issue is not about any one person's brain, or small differences between individual brains. A human brain is a human brain. All human brains are essentially the same as each other in the sense that psychedelic drugs cause everyone to trip (except in vanishingly rare, deviant cases), and also meditating doesnt ever cause people to trip (except vanishingly rare, deviant cases)

No, it's not, and no, brains are not like that.
Our brains conduct a lot of the construction of their architecture, particularly in terms of intersynaptic connections, in dynamic response to engagement with our environment. In turn, there are many aspects of experience that appear to vary a bit. So some people can attain 'psychedelic' (let's say visually psychedelic) states through other means. It is more common for people to achieve mystical states distinct from psychedelia though. Sometimes people reach psychedelic-like states spontaneously via hypnagogic hallucination (this happened to me prior to having tried any psychoactive drug), meditation, etc.

The crucial issue is the general statistical efficacy of the various different methods (drugs versus no-drugs) for attaining trippy experiences for anyone with any brain.

No, it isn't. Those who are predisposed to spontaneous mystical experience will select themselves to attempt entry to intensive religious institutions (eg, those seeking monkdom). Of these, a number will have visual experiences. Some will specialize in attempting to make art out of that. But they will exert more generalized influence over theology (or at least they have at various historical points).

ebola

 

[max_freakout]

if a religion has deep mystical experiences, you judge them as one of the 'esoteric' religions

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.

 

[max_freakout]

Those who are predisposed to spontaneous mystical experience

Everybody is predisposed to mystical experience, because everybody has a brain that is hardwired to accept entheogenic molecules. But without the entheogenic molecules, mystical experiences are rare and fleeting, and inaccessible to almost everyone.

 

[Doldrugs]

Not gonna respond to ebola's points, then?

 

[ebola?]

Everybody is predisposed to mystical experience, because everybody has a brain that is hardwired to accept entheogenic molecules. But without the entheogenic molecules, mystical experiences are rare and fleeting, and inaccessible to almost everyone.

I'd replace "rare and fleeting" with "unreliable", and "inaccessible to almost everyone" to "inaccessible to most people". This is enough for religions to be founded and maintained, and for 'trippy art' to be produced.

But really, I think you're still overinferring from your own experience. What provides justification to deny someone's report of their experiences (when they lack a clear motive to lie)? Well, reports of mysticism derived non-pharmacologically are not exactly rare. This actually isn't a case where "scientific documentation" (as you mentioned earlier) is even appropriate, as we're not attempting to infer causation or population characteristics. We have relatively direct access to our own subjective life.

ebola

 

[max_freakout]

Regarding "evidence", the various authors i have previously mentioned in this thread, such as Dan Merkur, Benny Shanon and Mark Hoffman provide ample evidence

 

[One Thousand Words]

What one man sees as psychedelic art, thousands more see as fractals created by a Fibonacci sequence. Drugs did not influence these historic artists, mathematics and an eye for using colour did.

 

[max_freakout]

I'd replace "rare and fleeting" with "unreliable", and "inaccessible to almost everyone" to "inaccessible to most people". This is enough for religions to be founded and maintained, and for 'trippy art' to be produced.

By contrast the psychedelic drugs are precisely the opposite of rare and fleeting, unreliable, inaccessible etc. Drugs are an abundant source of reliable, easy, on-tap amazing profound mystical experiences, like a high dose LSD trip. So when you add drugs into the picture, a new form of religion emerges which is not the type you describe here ^ that is based on a few rare exceptional people's mystical experience, but is instead based on the easily available drug-induced psychedelic experience that is available to everybody, all the time. That is precisely the difference between exoteric and esoteric religion, and esoteric religion can only exist because of the drugs, which enable anybody who wants to, to experience the same state of consciousness that the rare exceptional people like Jesus and Mohammed (and the various other sages, prophets and mystics etc) experienced, ie direct, personal mystical experience. From the esoteric point of view, the religious stories are not literal historical events that happened to particular individuals, but rather general descriptions of mystical-state experience

But really, I think you're still overinferring from your own experience.

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.

 

[Ismene]

I'm inclined to the zen sort of view that 'enlightenment' is not some far away state, but is something we can all recognise from certain moments of our life; being enlightened in that sense just means training yourself to stay in that open state for longer

I suppose it depends whether you believe the "zen masters" and their claims. It's all very well saying if meditating doesn't work for you then you have to do it for another 30 years. Any charlatan can say that and there'll always be someone gullible enough to keep meditating until they die with no results after they've wasted 50 years.

 

[Doldrugs]

Regarding "evidence", the various authors i have previously mentioned in this thread, such as Dan Merkur, Benny Shanon and Mark Hoffman provide ample evidence

No, they provide unproven hypotheses that the broader scientific and anthropological community does not accept. Anyone can have a hypothesis and explain why they think it's true. These guys do not have enough evidence to give them a respectable theory. Though admittedly, the modern world's unscientific attitude toward psychedelics makes any research on them difficult. But anyone can go find a number of authors who disagree with the authors you're mentioning, and those people will have evidence at least as good if not better. The only difference (beside overall consensus) is that it doesn't "feel right" to you.

 

[max_freakout]

But anyone can go find a number of authors who disagree with the authors you're mentioning,

I very much doubt that but please prove me wrong. They are all well respected scholars, for example Benny Shanon is the head of the anthropology department at a major university. There arent that many good entheogen scholars, but the ones that do exist like Shanon and Merkur provide substantial evidence to support the entheogen theory of religion.

 

[TheLostSun]

i think this video covers alot about this topic....also imo not every human being has certain brain processors to achieve states of psychedelic enlightenment and see the interdimensional nature of the universe...but there are other means Fibonacci ,yoga ....sunlight...fasting ...diet...i known people who can eat 10mg of DOC and large does of 4acodmt, shrooms, and go to work tripping balls ...yet they have no spiritual revelations just alot of fun.... i also know others who off one hit or common dose get complex life shattering epiphany's relating to esoteric masonry geometry and reptilian entity contact ...and i might get some flack for this but i believe ancestral dna plays a role...



[video=youtube_share;kZHHQQViDuo]http://youtu.be/kZHHQQViDuo[/video]

 

[Doldrugs]

They are all well respected scholars, for example Benny Shanon is the head of the anthropology department at a major university.

Taken together, the botanical and anthropological data on the one hand, and the biblical descriptions as well as later Jewish hermeneutics on the other, are, I propose, suggestive of a biblical entheogenic connection. Admittedly, the smoking gun is not available to us. However, so many clues present themselves which, like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, seem to cohere into an intriguing unified whole. I leave it to the reader to pass his or her judgment.

The man himself states clearly that his ideas are an unproven hypothesis. They may have the ideas, but you're getting the certainty from yourself. How familiar are you with these writers you keep name dropping? Perhaps they don't back up your repeated assertion that "everyone in the know has always known that all religious experiences were due to the use of psychedelics" despite your claims that they do.

 

[max_freakout]

you're getting the certainty from yourself.

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

your repeated assertion that ".......all religious experiences were due to the use of psychedelics"

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.