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

[max_freakout]

Evidence of use is not the same thing as evidence of a giant psychedelic conspiracy spanning millennia.

it's not any kind of 'conspiracy', it's just two different levels of interpretation of religious symbolism.

 

[Doldrugs]

it's not any kind of 'conspiracy', it's just two different levels of interpretation of religious symbolism.

An interpretation that you claim has been around as long as religion, but has no evidence attached to it. A secret cabal hiding their special secret for thousands of years.

 

[max_freakout]

An interpretation that you claim has been around as long as religion, but has no evidence attached to it. A secret cabal hiding their special secret for thousands of years.

there is abundant evidence for it all throughout religion, there are no secret cabals hiding anything, it is right out in the open to those people who are able to recognise it. Have a look at Ruck, Heinrich, Merkur to get an idea of some of the evidence we have

 

[Doldrugs]

Evidence is what I'm looking for, not baseless brainstorming from a very short and recent period of time. "It seems like..." is not useful. "We have proof of..." is. If this intentionally has been going on for thousands of years why is it only brought up by a handful of people very recently? Why are those theories not well accepted by basically anyone else?

 

[max_freakout]

If we are going to have any theory at all about the origin and meaning of religion then the entheogen theory is the most obvious and plausible. There is no other competing explanation for what religion is all about that is more plausible (or even anywhere near as plausible) than the entheogen theory.

Religion is description of religious experience, religious stories all depict people undergoing religious transformative experiences, and entheogens are the source of religious experiences. This explains the OP's observation that Eastern holy buildings look trippy.

 

[Vurtual]

The simple molecule that makes you trip does nothing without the complex system of the brain to trigger - people can also trip out by sitting in a salt tank - it's the brain/mind that the religion and the trip comes out of, which is why they're similar. I agree that there's an esoteric core in most religions - but i think in general this is just more advanced mystical methods for consciousness expansion; a sub-set of this may be psychedelic use, but it's clear it's not required.

Your argument that it must be from psychedelics because how efficacious and practical they are for reaching certain states is a value judgement - an experienced mystic may see it as a false economy if the inexperienced seeker is in and out so fast and with so many distracting flights of fancy that not much of importance is absorbed; and what's more the seeker may get cocky about how much they know and end up not much better off. The experienced mystic may have learned that the long term disciplined ways allow fuller integration of these mental states (i'm not agreeing with the mystic necessarily, just saying he might think that); now you could say the same about experienced psychonauts handling their trips better, but then the distinction between fast psychedelics and long winded non-drug methods is less obvious.

There are traditions that explicitly don't have a drug-based core, and have no secret inner sanctum (eg buddhism) - it's quite clear where the revelation came from (buddha sitting on his bum in the jungle (maybe having a cheeky chillum i suppose)) and it's laid out how to try and replicate it, and drugs are not involved, esoterically or exoterically - just lots of yoga. If salt tanks can make you trip, and meditation and things like that are a form of sensory deprivation, then psychedelic plants are not required for the mind-trip that is religion - even if the resulting mind trips may dffer in intensity the content would be similar as it's based on the same source material.

Shamans exist all round the world - some of them have access to tasty psychedelic plants and use them; others have no easy access drugs, but they do the same type of magic, just using endurance, ritual, 'magic' and maybe tobacco to make them trip out. I'm perfectly willing to accept some, or even lots of religion have a vestigial esoteric core that may have involved drugs (especially ones that are closer to shamanic heritage), just not that all religions are secretly about drugs.

 

[Doldrugs]

There's a lot of great explanations for religion that are much more plausible. For instance, a natural reaction to a confusing world with no obvious explanations. In addition, ancient man faced thirst, sleep deprivation, starvation, and terror on a much more regular basis than we do. These biological states (and other less natural, non-drug related states) can very easily account for mystical experiences. And on top of all that, the psychology of ancient man is one we can only guess at and never hope to understand.

I understand why you like the theory. I actually agree that it's possible, even plausible. But it's not the most likely. No actual evidence exists that demonstrates that. You believe it because you want to. Saying it's true doesn't make it so.

 

[ddrreeff]

There's a lot of great explanations for religion that are much more plausible. For instance, a natural reaction to a confusing world with no obvious explanations. In addition, ancient man faced thirst, sleep deprivation, starvation, and terror on a much more regular basis than we do.
.

Did they ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_affluent_society

 

[Ismene]

it's quite clear where the revelation came from (buddha sitting on his bum in the jungle (maybe having a cheeky chillum i suppose))

It's not that clear is it - whether or not Buddha even existed isn't clear. What we're certain about is he never wrote a word of what is attributed to him by god knows who several hundred years later. The most likely explanation for all religious stories and "mystical" results obtained is simply people telling lies.

Shamans exist all round the world

You can call them shamans if you like but that's giving them a little too much credit in my view. I'd just call them conmen. Plain and simple. If they come up with some bullshit about seeing God when they dance with one sock on there are always people gullible enough to either give them money or buy them a beer. Psychedelics don't need a shaman - that's the whole point - the drug is the key, not the creep dancing up and down beside you.

 

[Doldrugs]

Did they ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_affluent_society

That's an interesting theory that is not at all proven or widely accepted.

Even if it were true it doesn't explain away intentional sleep deprivation/hunger/thirst like humans have done in religious contexts forever (perhaps to emulate the states of mind religion originally arose from). Nor does it explain away the very real dangers of hunting and defense from both animals and other humans that could have induced powerful states of mind. Nor does it explain away man's need to make sense of a baffling world without science to guide him. Nor does it explain away the possibility of a very different psychology existing in early man.

 

[effingcustie]

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

Meditation.

End of thread.

 

[swilow]

Ismene, you have lost me with your disparaging of ole One Sock. Do you honestly think that Jesus wore a fuckin pair??

You sceptics.... Just give up your minds already.

 

[Ismene]

What do we know about Jesus tho willow - only what some bloke wrote about him hundreds of years later. It's nothing to do with the truth is it. There's a kid the other day who wrote a book about how he died and went to heaven when he had a near-death experience - he was coming out with all the mystical stuff - "I saw angels and God spoke to me on a glittering staircase".

He announced a couple of weeks ago that he "made it all up to get attention". That sums up all religious writing in one neat sentence.

 

[Vurtual]

Leaving aside the subjective internal unprovable stuff which we have to take his word for, the story of the buddha is very likely roughly true, and there's not much to disbelieve really, minus the more magic/mythic bits that got added over time; similarly with jesus - the idea that someone went to the trouble to make up the story and managed to spread it around as far as they did without anyone asking to see the made up bloke in question before following it seems a lot less likely than the bloke actually exisiting, doing some cool stuff (or some parlour tricks), and being the subject of lots of exaggerration. Even if it's not true, it's not important to the message - it's a practical program to follow - i'm sure gotama gilded the lily a bit (well the original story is posh boy gets all guilty becomes an itinerant and finds god), and that subsequent religious bigwigs have modified it over time to suit their own needs, as happens to all traditions.

As for the topic, imo religion is an emergent property of the brain; psychedelic trips are an emergent property of the same brain - the brain/mind is the connecting factor

 

[max_freakout]

Meditation.

End of thread

How does that explain the trippy art?

 

[max_freakout]

intentional sleep deprivation/hunger/thirst like humans have done in religious contexts forever (perhaps to emulate the states of mind religion originally arose from). Nor does it explain away the very real dangers of hunting and defense from both animals and other humans that could have induced powerful states of mind. Nor does it explain away man's need to make sense of a baffling world without science to guide him. Nor does it explain away the possibility of a very different psychology existing in early man.

These ^ kinds of farfetched, long-shot explanations for religion and religious experience have several problems that the entheogen theory doesnt have. The main problem is a total lack of evidence and scholarship, and also there is the problematic fact that things like sleep deprivation and thirst etc typically don't cause anything like psychedelic experiences in modern people, so it is difficult to explain why they would have caused such experiences 2000 years ago.

 

[effingcustie]

How does that explain the trippy art?

The point being, as has been mentioned a few times in this thread, though I'm surprised how few, that psychedelic substances are but one way of achieving the states of consciousness that go along with them. There were likely many people in India during the time this "trippy art" was produced that could go much deeper than 500 ug of LSD will take you just with their own minds.

Psychedelic drugs don't create an experience or state of consciousness, they just open a door to something that is always there. Humanity has been exploring this phenomenon with and without the aid of mind-expanding plants for thousands of years. It's really not that far fetched that someone who has been working at it their whole life would be able to achieve these states of consciousness without the aid of drugs. It's funny that people want a peer reviewed study in a scientific journal to confirm this or something. Try meditating daily for 5 years and see for yourself if your consciousness changes. Otherwise, don't act like you know one way or the other.


But all that said, I'm not necessarily arguing that the people producing this art weren't under the influence of cannabis, as it does certainly have a long history of use in these cultures, and it can be quite a powerful consciousness-shifting drug. I guess to me it's kind of beside the point though. Just like daily waking existence is going to be profoundly different for someone who has spent a lifetime (or possibly hundreds) exploring and working with their own consciousness compared to someone who has not, the same is true for the effects of taking a drug like cannabis, or whatever other drugs people in ancient India may or may not have taken. I do think the spiritual practices deeply engrained in the culture are more significant in explaining the 'trippy' nature of the artwork, whether or not they are linked to psychedelic substances, which we could argue about for eternity. Why do you think people like the Beatles and Ram Dass took more acid than most of us on this board can even imagine and THEN went to India seeking answers?

 

[max_freakout]

psychedelic substances are but one way of achieving the states of consciousness that go along with them.

The problem with these drug free so-called "alternatives" is that they don't work except in vanishingly rare and exceptional cases. The drug free "alternatives" are so hopelessly ineffective and inefficient that they become, in practise, ways of *avoiding* mystical altered state experiences rather than actually having the experiences. There is no other way besides drugs to repeatably and reliably explore the psychedelic state of consciousness.

There were likely many people in India during the time this "trippy art" was produced that could go much deeper than 500 ug of LSD will take you just with their own minds.

A much more plausible explanation is that these people were using drugs, rather than suggesting that there were people who had these miraculous abilities to trip on demand. India is full of conmen and liars trying to swindle your money, it is not full of exalted magical people who can trip without taking drugs.

Psychedelic drugs don't create an experience or state of consciousness

They make people trip, which is an altered state of consciousness. Without the drugs it is not possible to trip.

Humanity has been exploring this phenomenon with and without the aid of mind-expanding plants for thousands of years.

There is no evidence to support the idea that people are able to trip without drugs, it is just arbitrary evidence-free speculation. Whereas it has been scientifically established that drugs make people trip.

Try meditating daily for 5 years and see for yourself if your consciousness changes.

Ive been there and done that, in my youth i was very enthusiastic about meditating for many years, but it never once made me trip, which proves my point, only the drugs make people trip and see beautiful trippy patterns of the kind that are commonly seen in sacred art and architecture (per the OP)

 

[swilow]

What do we know about Jesus tho willow - only what some bloke wrote about him hundreds of years later. It's nothing to do with the truth is it. There's a kid the other day who wrote a book about how he died and went to heaven when he had a near-death experience - he was coming out with all the mystical stuff - "I saw angels and God spoke to me on a glittering staircase".

He announced a couple of weeks ago that he "made it all up to get attention". That sums up all religious writing in one neat sentence.

I also don't believe that jesus wore socks

 

[ebola?]

Ive been there and done that, in my youth i was very enthusiastic about meditating for many years, but it never once made me trip, which proves my point, only the drugs make people trip and see beautiful trippy patterns of the kind that are commonly seen in sacred art and architecture (per the OP)

Er...not everyone has the same brain as you?

ebola