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

[Doldrugs]

Yeah, that's not a very good study. One data point, no controls, no mitigation of bias...

 

[Ismene]

managed to spread it around as far as they did without anyone asking to see the made up bloke in question

I think you're trying to apply a 21st century mindset to primitive religious people. I'm not sure they'd demand evidence for anything - people didn't tend to think like that back then.

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.

I'm not convinced. It sounds like people in India who claim they can "fly" and then when you look at the video it's a bloke sat with his legs crossed doing bunnyhops. If that's flying then we can all fly. Just because they feel a little different in deep meditation doesn't mean it's the same state as 500 mics of acid.

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?

Because that was the fashion back then. It's like saying why did they all wear flares. Remember Lennon came back from India after 2 months dismissing it all as a fucking con.

 

[max_freakout]

not everyone has the same brain as you?

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)

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. Drugs are virtually 100% guaranteed to cause trippy experiences immediately, reliably and repeatably; whereas the drug free so-called "alternatives" (such as sitting meditating sober for years) are virtually guaranteed *not* to ever cause such experiences no matter how many fruitless years are wasted in trying to chase them via drug-free routes. This means that the drug free so-called "alternatives" end up being used as ways to *avoid* deep mystical experience, because of their sheer inefficiency.

 

[max_freakout]

Yeah, that's not a very good study. One data point, no controls, no mitigation of bias...

it wasnt a "study", it was just my response (based on my own personal experience) to the following comment:

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.

This ^ comment suggests that everyone would experience some kind of altered state if they spend 5 years meditating. But that is not the case, as my own experience proves, ie there is at least one person (me) who doesnt get any kind of psychedelic altered state experience even after years of meditating. And the evidence from other people's reports of their own meditation experience provides abundant support to this, people *never* trip from meditating, it just doesnt happen (except in vanishingly rare, dubious cases). Whereas with drugs, *everybody* trips and sees sacred patterns, reliably and repeatably so long as they take a sufficient dosage.

 

[swilow]

How does that explain the trippy art?

The thing is, can you be sure that your own particular psychedelic outlook isn't causing you to see non-psychedelic art as psychedelic? I know that I, at the point where I was really enamored of psychedelics and thought they were the absolute Answer, started seeing hidden or obfuscated references to the psychedelic state wherever I looked. Obviously, these things may have existed or it may have been the powerful bias I had that revealed them.

Given the fact you haven't mentioned any other techniques that you have employed to achieve an altered state (ie. drumming, dancing, chanting, breathing, sleep deprivation, starvation/thirst, extreme cold/heat) I'm not sure you can categorically deny these as causal factors.

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.

Again, I wonder if you have experienced that sort of things?

Remember, 2000 years ago, Earth was flat, stationary and very young. It is hard to do much but speculate about the values placed on human experiences in thatperiod of time.

Because that was the fashion back then. It's like saying why did they all wear flares. Remember Lennon came back from India after 2 months dismissing it all as a fucking con.

"I don't believe in magic
I don't believe in I-ching
I don't believe in Bible
I don't believe in Tarot
I don't believe in Hitler
I don't believe in Jesus
I don't believe in Kennedy
I don't believe in Buddha
I don't believe in Mantra
I don't believe in Gita
I don't believe in Yoga
I don't believe in Kings
I don't believe in Elvis
I don't believe in Zimmerman
I don't believe in Beatles
I just believe in me...and that reality".

I think the whole flare situation was shameful tbh. A shocking fashion but its abandonment was just harsh.

Max, I don't think you are explaining why psychedelic use would inspire a religion and why no world religion shows any evidence whatsoever that they have maintined their power and existence through psychedelic use up to and including the present. Perhaps yes, some of the early practitioners or creators of the religion may have been inspired by psychedelics, but you don't hear of any of the billions of christians that have ever existed actually using drugs. What role then did psychedelics play? According to you, they usually just confused the shit out of usually one dude (who believed he was divine or lead others to believe that- how is that not psychotic if we are applying modern standards to ancient people?) who then, in his madness, infected billions of susceptible believers into following, killing and dying for his psychedelically-induced psychosis? To me, if I hear of someone tripping and actively believing they are the son of god for a long period afterwards, I think they have lost the fucking plot. If people around them started agreeing, I could only make the same assumption. And the weirdest part is that you are saying that, 2000 years later, people are still marvelling at how a jewish acidhead saved them all... Is this the magic of psychedelics or something different?

If religious stories and teachings are allegorical in describing the psychedelic state, why are they so often violent, murderous, jealous, petty and shameful? If jesus is really a mushroom, why are his teachings so completely non-related to what most of us would describe as a mushroom experience?

The only explanation for this is that religion is not actually inspired by divinity or holy experiences, because 99% of Catholics don't take acid at church, but is actually inspired and fed by an innate human desire to follow something higher then themselves. We are social animals that require a hierarchy; god is the ultimate Alpha male. Far from being an expression of the human spirit and love and gentleness, most religions express something far baser IMO, and it is utterly detached from what I know of the psychedelic experience. Sure, religous phenomena might appear psychedelic, but look around and take note of how few pscyedelic users can connect with the heart of the teachings of organised religion. Doesn't this really seem to suggest no connection between world religion and psychedelics?

 

[max_freakout]

The thing is, can you be sure that your own particular psychedelic outlook isn't causing you to see non-psychedelic art as psychedelic?

Trippy, geometric patterns are among the most standard, commonplace effects of psychedelic drugs (not just me). Meditating or other drug-free practises typically never cause people to see beautiful geometric patterns, you need the drugs for that, which explains the observation in the OP about Eastern holy buildings. The style of the patterns in the photograph in the OP is distinctly, easily recognisable as psychedelic.

Given the fact you haven't mentioned any other techniques that you have employed to achieve an altered state (ie. drumming, dancing, chanting, breathing, sleep deprivation, starvation/thirst, extreme cold/heat) I'm not sure you can categorically deny these as causal factors.

in my youth I was obsessed with spirituality especially the 'Eastern' brand of spirituality (numerous tripes to India and Thailand etc.). During that period I tried everything, including everything you mention here ^ with the exception of extreme thirst (i never came across that). My own experience of these various drug-free practises, combined with studying vast amounts of other people's testimony about their experiences doing these kind of things, clearly demonstrates that they are not even remotely similar to the effects of psychedelic drugs. Psychedelic tripping is a whole other thing to drug-free spirituality, there is no basis of comparison between them.

I don't think you are explaining why psychedelic use would inspire a religion

Religions are inspired by religous experiences, - this is why every religious story depicts a person undergoing a religious experience. Psychedelic drugs commonly cause religious experiences, that is the explanation.

Psychedelic drugs ----> Religious experience ----> Religion

and why no world religion shows any evidence whatsoever that they have maintined their power and existence through psychedelic use up to and including the present.

On the contrary, there is a large body of evidence that establishes the link between religious inspiration and psychedelia, some of which has been mentioned in this thread. If you are unfamiliar with any of this evidence then I suggest you have a look at the books by Merkur, Hoffman, Shanon, Heinrich and Ruck which show this evidence.

According to you, they usually just confused the shit out of usually one dude (who believed he was divine or lead others to believe that- how is that not psychotic if we are applying modern standards to ancient people?) who then, in his madness, infected billions of susceptible believers into following, killing and dying for his psychedelically-induced psychosis?

This ^ is not “according to me”, I am not saying anything like this.

Entheogenic plants caused many people (not just one), over many centuries to tripout and experience religious revelation.

And the weirdest part is that you are saying that, 2000 years later, people are still marvelling at how a jewish acidhead saved them all...

Im not saying anything like this ^ either, please don't try to paraphrase me if you are unable to paraphrase accurately, stick to “quoting” me then you can't go wrong.

Exoteric christians believe in a man named Jesus who died for their sins 2000 years ago; esoteric christians interpret the stories about Jesus as allegorical description of their own psychedelic experiences.

If religious stories and teachings are allegorical in describing the psychedelic state, why are they so often violent, murderous, jealous, petty and shameful? If jesus is really a mushroom, why are his teachings so completely non-related to what most of us would describe as a mushroom experience?

Im not talking about “teachings”, im talking about the stories, the common feature of all religious stories is that they depict individuals undergoing religious experiences. For example the revelation of Mohammed, the enlightenment of Buddha, the transfiguration of Jesus etc etc.

 

[Vurtual]

You're too reductionist - it's all very well saying drugs may have influenced some religions, or that there are esoteric things in most traditions, but it's too big a leap to say all religions come from the same secret source and just sounds a bit 'von daniken' - this extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence (or just decent amount of normal evidence). Naming a handful of authors who aren't really accepted by most authorities on the subject, and who probably came to the evidence with a certain conclusion in mind isn't really worth much (quoting them showing the evidence in question would be better).

If people can hallucinate in salt tanks (or guantanamo), or hildegarde of bingen and many others can have detailed visions without drugs, the simplistic 'all religion comes from drugs' idea doesn't have to be true - what about people who have mystical experiences in more modern times - blake, whitman, thoreau - were they all visited by a secret cabal of drug monks beforehand and sworn to secrecy? As for geometric patterns, M C Escher never took any drugs as far as i know.

A related idea could be truer: 'all religions come ultimately from shamanism (via a couple of ancestors), which always involves getting out of your head, sometimes with drugs'. The obvious similarity between trips and religions is due to both drawing on the same subconscious pool of archetypes, and inherent understaning of geometry and pattern

 

[Doldrugs]

I feel like this conversation has run its course. He believes what he believes because he wants to and nothing will dissuade him. The evidence does not back up what he's saying but that doesn't matter. His belief is based on faith.

 

[max_freakout]

I feel like this conversation has run its course.

This conversation, and variations of it, comes up time after time after time on any discussion platform that involves psychedelic drugs such as this one; there are countless examples of it in previous BL psych-forum threads. People constantly wonder about the connection between religion and psychedelia again and again. Scientists have repeatedly examined the connection between psychedelic drugs and religious experience.

 

[max_freakout]

If people can hallucinate in salt tanks (or guantanamo), or hildegarde of bingen

Someone else's religious experience is only indirectly relevant to you, whereas your own personal religious experience is directly relevant to you. So Hildegarde of bingen's experience (whether she took drugs to achieve it or not) is less relevant than your own personal experience.

Without drugs, you cannot have your own personal religious experience reliably and repeatably. If you yourself sat in a salt tank it is very unlikely that you would have any kind of intense altered state (unless you took drugs first), but if you took a big dose of LSD or mushrooms, it is practically guaranteed that you would experience an intense altered state.

 

[Ismene]

I think we're crediting religion with way too much by accepting their stories came from actual mystical experiences. I'm sure most of the "mystical" experiences they claim are simply made up lies to impress the gullible. You say the "burning bush" or "Jesus walked on water" simply because it's magic and primitive people are likely to link magic to God. It's like most fakirs you find in India even today are adept at sleight of hand because if you make a card disappear in front of someone uneducated they'll be inclined to think you're holy.

 

[swilow]

Trippy, geometric patterns are among the most standard, commonplace effects of psychedelic drugs (not just me). Meditating or other drug-free practises typically never cause people to see beautiful geometric patterns, you need the drugs for that, which explains the observation in the OP about Eastern holy buildings. The style of the patterns in the photograph in the OP is distinctly, easily recognisable as psychedelic.

...especially to contemporary users of psychedelics?

in my youth I was obsessed with spirituality especially the 'Eastern' brand of spirituality (numerous tripes to India and Thailand etc.). During that period I tried everything, including everything you mention here ^ with the exception of extreme thirst (i never came across that). My own experience of these various drug-free practises, combined with studying vast amounts of other people's testimony about their experiences doing these kind of things, clearly demonstrates that they are not even remotely similar to the effects of psychedelic drugs. Psychedelic tripping is a whole other thing to drug-free spirituality, there is no basis of comparison between them.

Okay, that's interesting. It seems odd that you failed to mention these experiences earlier (though of course you may have somewhere) because it made your claims seem like just opinion. I would, however, still reiterate my point, that you can't really know the interpretive outlook of ancient peoples, so you cannot know what inspired them. But I would find it amazing if ancient peoples weren't moved to create art after/during tripping.

Religions are inspired by religous experiences, - this is why every religious story depicts a person undergoing a religious experience. Psychedelic drugs commonly cause religious experiences, that is the explanation.

Psychedelic drugs ----> Religious experience ----> Religion

But that's just conjecture. You are making a subjective judgment, based on your own experiences with psychedelics. I say that because, so far, you haven't been able to provide some actual concrete evidence of what is surely the longest, most extensive and best kept secret/s in human history.

This ^ is not “according to me”, I am not saying anything like this.

Entheogenic plants caused many people (not just one), over many centuries to tripout and experience religious revelation.

Im not saying anything like this ^ either, please don't try to paraphrase me if you are unable to paraphrase accurately, stick to “quoting” me then you can't go wrong.

Okay, sorry- I did take some liberty with my paraphrasing I just can't find an inner logic in the ideas you and others have in this matter...

On the contrary, there is a large body of evidence that establishes the link between religious inspiration and psychedelia, some of which has been mentioned in this thread. If you are unfamiliar with any of this evidence then I suggest you have a look at the books by Merkur, Hoffman, Shanon, Heinrich and Ruck which show this evidence.

There is no evidence that modern Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists or Hindu's are using psychedelics on a wide scale. That was my point. This suggests that religious feeling does not need psychedelics to be maintained for thousands of years, and sort of implies that they are not a requirement and do not play a role in most religions.

Exoteric christians believe in a man named Jesus who died for their sins 2000 years ago; esoteric christians interpret the stories about Jesus as allegorical description of their own psychedelic experiences.

So now the entheogenic theory is just another interpretation of the bible? That seems to be at odds with previous statements.

Im not talking about “teachings”, im talking about the stories, the common feature of all religious stories is that they depict individuals undergoing religious experiences. For example the revelation of Mohammed, the enlightenment of Buddha, the transfiguration of Jesus etc etc.

How can you seperate the teachings from the stories though? in the religions you have mentioned, they are often one and the same. And have you ever had a psychedelic trip which inspired you to the conclusions that Mohammed came to? How do such repressive religions come from the euphoric freedom of a psychedelic trip? If psychedelics can cause an individual's delusions to take over the entire world, then these things should absolutely be illegal.

I feel like this conversation has run its course. He believes what he believes because he wants to and nothing will dissuade him. The evidence does not back up what he's saying but that doesn't matter. His belief is based on faith.

I'm not sure that anyone is really trying to dissuade him as much as ask him to provide some evidence. I wonder if that is because there isn't all that much to provide...

I think we've all done pretty well to be respectful through this debate so it would be good if it continued

 

[Vurtual]

Someone else's religious experience is only indirectly relevant to you, whereas your own personal religious experience is directly relevant to you. So Hildegarde of bingen's experience (whether she took drugs to achieve it or not) is less relevant than your own personal experience. Without drugs, you cannot have your own personal religious experience reliably and repeatably. If you yourself sat in a salt tank it is very unlikely that you would have any kind of intense altered state (unless you took drugs first), but if you took a big dose of LSD or mushrooms, it is practically guaranteed that you would experience an intense altered state.

But those mystics had their own personal experience didn't they; and any 'proper' mystical religions allow/encrouage any member to access the same states. If you accept that it's possible for people to access these states without drugs, albeit with more difficulty, then your idea of all religion necessarily being about psychedelics is no longer tenable - and when we apply occam's razor, there's not much left over.

Sure you can argue that 'religion' is better when it involves psychedelics as anyone can access it but that's a value judgement (and none of these religions that you suggest were drug based were handing doses out to the masses were they). Even so, taking psychedelics is not for most people; a slightly wider demographic per head of population than a mystical religion maybe, but not that much wider; and even narrower for repeated use - still for the initiated ultimately.

 

[max_freakout]

it's possible for people to access these states without drugs, albeit with more difficulty.

It is not merely "more difficult" to trip without taking drugs, rather it is virtually impossible for almost everyone to trip without taking drugs. The rarity of the exceptions shows that there is no method other than drug-taking that guarantees reliable and repeatable access to the psychedelic altered state. For this reason the drug-free exoteric version of religion is not based on personal experience (because personal experience becomes inaccessible without drugs), but is instead based on second-hand reports of other people's experiences (such as that of Jesus, or Mohammed, buddha etc.). By contrast the psychedelic esoteric version of religion originates from people's personal experiences of intense mystical altered states that are only practically accessible via the drug route.

Exoteric religion = based on other people's mystical experience
Esoteric religion = based on personal mystical experience

you can argue that 'religion' is better when it involves psychedelics

I dont think anyone would argue this ^, the concept of "better or worse" is an empty value-judgement and is irrelevant to this discussion.

Drug based religion isnt necessarily "better" or "worse" than its drug free counterpart, but it has an entirely different basis (ie based on personal experience instead of second hand reports of other people's experience.

 

[Vurtual]

I disagree, it's not virtually impossible at all - yes, the methods are often only effective over many years of discipline, but that's what religious mystics famously do isn't it. All 'mystical' religions are based on personal experience - that's the point, direct experience of the divine - no drugs are needed - if there's just one case of a mystical religion who's members access divine mindstates without drugs, your all-encompassing theory has to be changed (eg any zen mystic or christian saint/monk who had celestial visions after contemplation/meditation, or dervish who dizzied himself to a vision of god (ok chillums may be involved in the last one, but no 'classic' psychs)).

And most cases of esoteric practices/knowledge which we know about don't refer to drugs, just more sophisticated versions of the religion than the laypeople get, with secret meanings of parables explained etc; or are you claiming you know some secret esoteric knowledge that everyone else doesn't? Where's the proof of any of these esoteric practices being about drugs - and you can't just say because they seem trippy cos that's chicken and egg; and consciousness is the reptile/fish egg in this analogy.

People do trip out in salt tanks; sure they trip out more and easier if they drop some acid first, but sensory deprivation (and therefore meditation etc) is enough in itself. Don't forget serotonin agonists and dissociatives are both in a sense a form of molecular sensory deprivation in that they block up input channels letting internal signals feedback (and to state it again, it's the internal signals that are the trip, not the arbitrary method by which they're intensified).

What about all the psychotic people who think they're the messiah - have they also been initiated into the secret drug-monk cult? There's an argument that religious revelation is just a psychosis who's time has come - this seems to fit with many religions (i'd like to disagree with willow about islam - just looking at the verses of the quran (not later commentaries) and adding a bit of context, islam is mostly about peace love feminism and social justice as far as i could tell - how it got twisted after mohammed is the usual religious story).

 

[Doldrugs]

It doesn't matter if these methods cause mystical experiences consistently for everyone. It only matters that they did at least once for the few who began religions. And plenty of those religious stories are likely just made up. Most of them sound less like psychedelic trips and more like the attempt of a prescientific, prerational culture to explain the world around them.

 

[Ismene]

I disagree, it's not virtually impossible at all - yes, the methods are often only effective over many years of discipline, but that's what religious mystics famously do isn't it. All 'mystical' religions are based on personal experience - that's the point, direct experience of the divine - no drugs are needed - if there's just one case of a mystical religion who's members access divine mindstates without drugs, your all-encompassing theory has to be changed

Depends on what they mean by "direct experience of the divine" doesn't it. And whether the state they allegedly reach would be recognisable by any user of psychedelics. Hindu mystics often claimed to be able to fly - in reality they cross their legs and do bunnyhops. That wouldn't be recognised as flight by anybody but a member of that religion.

 

[Vurtual]

You're talking about the natural law party aren't you (TM (tm)), not all hindus, who are a very diverse bunch and not one unified religion - they certainly don't all do the bum-jumping. By direct experience of the divine i mean the numinous experiences i've had through psychedelics, and what several people i know have by their own account (which i trust) achieved by 'conventional' methods (yoga); though i'm using the term divine metaphorically/nonspecifically. I also think this 'divine' feeling can be glimpsed by anyone in everyday life at certain times - eg feeling awe at nature in sunsets or natural landscapes, feeling joy in everyday life/play, seeing the joy of children, feeling connected to the planet/environment, doing nice stuff for people, feeling unconditional love.

 

[Ismene]

I remember the guy in Autobiography of a Yogi claiming there were yogis who had lived 150 years and never rotted after they died and stuff tho - similar kinds of nonsense to flying.

Arn't we just struggling with the limitations of language? There's only so many words to describe that feeling isn't there. 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?

It's like Dr Ruths pussy - I'm sure there's something down there that pee comes out of but you wouldn't recognise it.

 

[max_freakout]

It doesn't matter if these methods cause mystical experiences consistently for everyone. It only matters that they did at least once for the few who began religions.

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.

Exoteric (scriptural) religionists, who lack personal religious experience because they never tripped, have to rely on second hand information for their understanding of religion. By contrast esoteric (experiential) religionists who have tripped balls and seen the divine truth in do not have to rely on anyone's secondhand account because they have actually had the experience that religion is all about.

Exoteric and esoteric are two fundamentally different ways of relating to religion. Exoteric religiosity is an indirect relation to religion, because it is mediated by scripture; esoteric religiosity is a direct relation to religion, unmediated by scripture (raw, direct, personal firsthand experience of the intense psychedelic altered state of consciousness)