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

[swilow]

^I'm still a bit confused but thats probably the weed I think its a stretch to say that the window is shaped like a liberty cap and not shaped thusly for architectural, "load-bearing" reasons. Its a bit like seeing the man-in-the-moon I think...

 

[max_freakout]

The stained glass window at Rosslyn is in the shape of a liberty cap.

It is less relevant and interesting to spot images of actual entheogens (such as mushrooms) in religious symbolism

what is far more interesting is identifying references to trip *experiences* in religious symbolism, the experience of psychedelic tripping has a much greater degree of religious/mystical/spiritual significance than the physical drugs, the only important thing about the drugs is the basic fact that they make people trip, it is the phenomenal content of the trip experience that makes it special and pertinent to religion.

 

[Doldrugs]

Islam bans every intoxicant.

 

[Bagseed]

where do you get that information? as far as I know only alcohol is "haram", and that's what I got told by religous muslims in India.

 

[max_freakout]

Islam has the same issue as Buddhism regarding alcohol, in that it is the only "intoxicant" that is explicitly named in the holy scripture. But it is not banned/proscribed, it is just advised against.

There is no negative mention of any other drug besides alcohol in the quran, and muslims hold Esphand (Syrian Rue) as a very holy plant, which was eaten by Muhammed shortly before his angelic revelation

claiming that islam "bans every drug" is just blind projection of the modern drugwar mentality. Islam just like every religion has its essence and origin in psychedelic experiencing.

 

[Doldrugs]

My understanding was the Quran banned all "intoxicants," but I can't read Arabic so I'm not sure what the actual word used means.

 

[perpetualdawn]

do you have any specific criticisms of anything i have said?

Yes, my criticism is that you're stating opinions that directly contradict how these religions frame themselves, without providing any evidence, and state your opinion as if it were fact. If you're going to say that "Christianity and Buddhism are based on drugs and tripping", you need to try to provide some evidence to support your case. Otherwise it just sound like you're spouting "revelations" that came to you last time you got really high.

 

[max_freakout]

my criticism is that you're stating opinions that directly contradict how these religions frame themselves, without providing any evidence

The entheogenic explanation of religion follows from the idea that religions are based in religious experiences, which is a fairly common way that religion is "framed".

All religious stories depict people having religious/mystical/spiritual experiences. So religions 'frame themselves' as being centred around these knds of experience. Every religious story and artwork depicts people (such as the prophets and sages etc) undergoing religious experiences. Holy food and drink is commonly depicted in religious stories.

If you're going to say that "Christianity and Buddhism are based on drugs and tripping", you need to try to provide some evidence to support your case.

There is a vast abundance of evidence that demonstrates this point, such as thousands of stories in the various religious scriptures, and thousands of religious artworks. It requires a general familiarity with the psychedelic altered state to be able to recognise the similarity between tripping and religious experience as it is presented in the religious stories. This is the reason why the word "entheogen" was coined in the first place, because of the recognition of the role that these drugs play in religion.

 

[perpetualdawn]

OK great, some things we can agree on: there are religious stories that clearly depict people having religious/mystical/spiritual experiences. I'm definitely not going to say "All" here, because there are reams of religious stories about fairly mundane stuff, but I can agree that the ones about religious/mystical/spiritual experiences are fairly important.

Now the problem is that you're opining that these religious/mystical/spiritual experiences are based on psychedelic drugs. You need to prove that if you're going to go around shouting that as fact. Your statements directly contradict what scholars, clergy or practitioners of these religions say.

 

[Ismene]

The stained glass window at Rosslyn is in the shape of a liberty cap. Most arched windows aren't exactly the same shape as a liberty cap.

Didn't we just go through this with the last peice of artwork you thought was a liberty cap? The one that's actually a depiction of adam and even clothing themselves with parts of the fig tree?

Just because something looks similar doesn't always mean it is a liberty cap.

 

[Ismene]

Islam has the same issue as Buddhism regarding alcohol, in that it is the only "intoxicant" that is explicitly named in the holy scripture. But it is not banned/proscribed, it is just advised against.

In Saudi arabia I believe they "advise you against" alcohol by giving you 100 lashes.

 

[Doldrugs]

You're taking a widely agreed on premise (mystical experiences happen in religious stories) and leaping to a conclusion that said premise does not inherently support and that the highest authorities on those religions would disagree with (drugs caused those experiences). There's a pretty enormous gap between those two thoughts. That gap needs actual evidence to fill it up.

The concept is interesting and definitely has some logic behind it. It's possible it's true. But right now, there is exactly ZERO evidence to support it. So presenting it as fact is completely incorrect. With the facts we have right now, it is equally possible that these experiences were the result of sleep deprivation, hunger or thirst, the human brain somehow working differently thousands of years ago, mental illness, outright lies, metaphor, simple story telling, etc.

 

[max_freakout]

you're opining that these religious/mystical/spiritual experiences are based on psychedelic drugs.

Psychedelic drugs are the most obvious explanation for religious/mystical/spiitual experiences, because they are the only reliable and repeatable means of exploring these kinds of experiences (see for example the recent psilocybin study from Johns Hopkins). Any alternative explanation that doesnt include psychedelic drugs has to come up with strained and artificial reasons for why you or i cannot have these experiences for ourselves. We have seen some of these reasons recently in this thread, like you have to be a monk and meditate for decades, or you have to be one of the tiny number of designated 'mystics'. Psychedelic drugs are egalitarian, in stark contrast to any other potential explanation of religious origins

There is no better way to explain how the founders of the religions (Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed etc) were able to access such powerful experiences, all these characters are depicted eating and drinking the holy food and drink, then experiencing transformative religious experience. It is glaringly obvious what the 'holy food and drink' is, the entheogenic sacrament. The only food and drink that makes you trip out and experience mystical revelation when you consume it is the entheogens.

 

[max_freakout]

the highest authorities on those religions would disagree with (drugs caused those experiences)

The highest authorities on religions are the prophets like Jesus, Mohammed and Buddha etc. who are all entheogen-mystics.

You speak on their behalf when you talk about what they "would disagree with"

Jesus said the only way to heaven was to eat the holy flesh of god

 

[Ismene]

Any alternative explanation that doesnt include psychedelic drugs has to come up with strained and artificial reasons for why you or i cannot have these experiences for ourselves

Isn't the simplest explanation that they didn't experience a psychedelic experience? That they just had a dream or were delusional or lied? I mean you have no end of indian fakirs even to this day claiming they can levitate and do all kinds of magical things. It's all bollocks. If you writing a book a thousand years ago and trying to make your religion appealing to people wouldn't you claim shit like "Follow my religion and you'll have a great experience and see my God".

 

[Doldrugs]

Just because you say it's true doesn't mean it is, max. Provide proof other than "it's obvious" and "it's the most likely explanation." No, and no.

 

[max_freakout]

but right now, there is exactly ZERO evidence to support it.

There is a vast abundance of evidence, but evidence is never separated from the interpretive lens that you use to view it. The entheogenic interpretive lens is the best one, it provides the most natural explanation of how people are able to access religious experiences.

 

[max_freakout]

Just because you say it's true doesn't mean it is, max. Provide proof other than "it's obvious" and "it's the most likely explanation." No, and no.

truth and falsity, right or wrong, correct or incorrect etc arent relevant to this issue, because we can never possibly know either way.

The entheogen theory is one way of interpreting what religion is all about. There is also the various drug-free explanations of what religion is about. The crucial question is which from among the various alternatives provides the best explanation of religion.

 

[max_freakout]

indian fakirs even to this day claiming they can levitate and do all kinds of magical things.

they can impress you with all their fake wizardry, but they could never cause you to have a mystical/religious/spiritual experience (not unless they spike your drink)

Psychedelic experiences are internal (mental), whereas magic of this kind is purely external. Religious experience isnt about external magic tricks, rather it is about deep internal experiences of a profound revelatory and transformative nature

 

[Doldrugs]

I don't think we have the same definition of evidence.