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

[max_freakout]

{Hoffman} tries to argue that because Lecther doesn't think mushrooms were behind Jesus, he must be wrong because there's religious use of mushrooms in Mexico.

This ^ is false, Hoffman never makes such a meaningless argument. Hoffman's theory about Jesus as mythic entheogen-metaphor is entirely unconnected from the observation that there is open religious use of mushrooms in Mexico.

The biggest mistake that Letcher makes in 'Shroom' is his misunderstanding of entheogen based esoteric religion, in particular he commits the 'mono-plant fallacy' by implicitly assuming that mushrooms are the only entheogenic plant (even the title of the book reflects this error). Letcher almost completely ignores the other entheogenic plants and the various religious groups that use them as their holy sacrament.

Letcher seems to think that mushrooms are the only entheogen, and his whole argument throughout the book is based on that oversimplistic mistake. His argument rests on a lack of knowledge about what entheogenic religion consists of.

 

[max_freakout]

Maybe, maybe not

As any experienced tripper knows, it is a universally recognised feature of psychedelic tripping that it can be extremely unpleasant and traumatic (the 'bad trip' experience), Sabina and the Mexican mushroom users were fully aware of that (as Wasson clearly indicated in his writing about his experiences in Mexico). Participating in a mushroom ceremony in Mexico (or any entheogen ceremony anywhere) can be an intensely unpleasant and frightening experience. Anybody with sufficient experience of intense tripping is aware that it isnt all pleasure and casual recreational enjoyment, there is a very serious side to the psychedelic trip experience. No entheogen writers have ever characterised psychedelic experiencing as being purely pleasurable and hedonistic, including Wasson.

Furthermore the difficult challenging aspect of tripping (loss of control in the altered state) also tends to be the more mentally transformative aspect, and for this reason psychedelic mysticism (such as the Mexican mushroom religion) is not about hedonistic recreational pleasure, and religious symbolism generally focuses on the unpleasant aspect of mystical experiencing.

 

[max_freakout]

your previous implication that we couldn't do mysticism or invent religions without drugs

Without drugs there is no repeatable reliable route of access to the intense mystical altered state of consciousness, so if religion does not involve drug use, then it cannot be based on personal firsthand experience of (and familiarity with) the altered state and must instead rely on secondhand reports of the experiences of the rare few people who are supposedly able to trip without taking drugs, but that is exoteric (non-mystical) religion. That is why mysticism (ie religion based on personal experience of the mystical state) is not possible without drugs.

With drugs, everybody (not just the rare special few "mystics") is able to trip repeatedly and see for themselves what intense mystical experiencing is like. Without drugs, intense mystical experiencing is off-limits to almost everybody (especially phenomena such as bad-trip/control-loss and ego death which religious symbolism predominantly focuses on).

 

[Ismene]

This ^ is false, Hoffman never makes such a meaningless argument. Hoffman's theory about Jesus as mythic entheogen-metaphor is entirely unconnected from the observation that there is open religious use of mushrooms in Mexico.

But why is it that all religions based on drugs are completely obviously based on drugs? And all the religions that arn't based on drugs you have to go through a thousand assumptions to reach drugs? The peyote religion - you eat a peyote. The mushroom religion - you eat a mushroom. The ayahuasca religion - you drink ayahuasca. It's pretty simple. Why did all these other religions go to such trouble hiding the drug use?

As any experienced tripper knows, it is a universally recognised feature of psychedelic tripping that it can be extremely unpleasant and traumatic (the 'bad trip' experience), Sabina and the Mexican mushroom users were fully aware of that (as Wasson clearly indicated in his writing about his experiences in Mexico). .

Yeah that's probably why mushrooms arn't even popular in Mesoamerica. Maria Sabina was the only person in the entire area who used mushrooms and she was outcast because of it. Most of the mexicans Wasson mentioned mushrooms to thought they made you insane and wouldn't touch them with a bargepole. As I said, it's a very, very small minority of people who find tripping fun. It is today and I've no doubt it was an even smaller minority back in the day.

 

[Erikmen]

This ^ is false, Hoffman never makes such a meaningless argument. Hoffman's theory about Jesus as mythic entheogen-metaphor is entirely unconnected from the observation that there is open religious use of mushrooms in Mexico.

The biggest mistake that Letcher makes in 'Shroom' is his misunderstanding of entheogen based esoteric religion, in particular he commits the 'mono-plant fallacy' by implicitly assuming that mushrooms are the only entheogenic plant (even the title of the book reflects this error). Letcher almost completely ignores the other entheogenic plants and the various religious groups that use them as their holy sacrament.

Letcher seems to think that mushrooms are the only entheogen, and his whole argument throughout the book is based on that oversimplistic mistake. His argument rests on a lack of knowledge about what entheogenic religion consists of.

Well, this is clearly not true..

 

[Ismene]

I think Lecthers point is more that it's a strange coincidence that every religion based on drugs seems to be in Mesoamerica - where peyote, mushrooms and ayahuasca are more plentiful than anywhere else. Sure there's bwiti and a couple of others but nowhere near as much as there is in mesoamerica.

 

[max_freakout]

why is it that all religions based on drugs are completely obviously based on drugs? And all the religions that arn't based on drugs you have to go through a thousand assumptions to reach drugs? The peyote religion - you eat a peyote. The mushroom religion - you eat a mushroom. The ayahuasca religion - you drink ayahuasca. It's pretty simple.

This ^ is an interesting point. What you refer to here ^ as “religions” aren't really religions in the same way that Buddhism or Christianity are religions, so it is probably more accurate to call them “religious practises”, ie the peyote religion is the people in a specific place who eat peyote as a religious (spiritual) practise.
Contrast that to actual religions like Christianity that have a distinct orthodoxy and a fixed body of mythology. Then there is cross-over cases like Santo Daime which is an organised religion which focuses on drinking ayahuasca. But note that Santo Daime is essentially just Christianity ('Santo' means 'Saint' in Portugese - a christian term), morphed into an ayahuasca drinking sect, the symbolism of Santo Daime is distinctly christian, they have merely replaced the wine of the christian eucharist with ayahuasca.

Similarly with Maria Sabina and her mushroom eating practises, they can hardly be called her “religion” given that she was a committed Catholic who worshipped Jesus.

Why did all these other religions go to such trouble hiding the drug use?

They didnt go to any trouble hiding anything, entheogenic mysticism has never really been hidden, it is plainly visible as the core essence of every religion. But it is only recognisable to people who are aware of the mental dynamics of the altered state (people who have tripped). Most people haven't tripped, so they are unable to recognise the esoteric interpretation of religion.

Jesus said: “Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear. The {entheogenic} secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding” (Mark 4:8/9)

That isn't hidden, it's taken from the words of the bible that are easily available for anyone to look at, here Jesus is talking about the exoteric/esoteric interpretive distinction, he is saying very clearly that the words of the scripture contain a meaning that only people with the right “ears” (ie the entheogenic interpretive lense) will be able to recognise and understand, everybody else will only see the words, not their (entheogenic) meaning.
Exoteric clueless outsiders can read the words of the scripture, but they cannot understand what those words are really about, because they lack awareness of the mystical altered state that occurs after the ingestion of entheogens.
To an esoteric psychedelic insider, all religious symbols are plainly obvious to recognise as allusions to taking drugs and tripping out, nothing is “hidden”, Jesus isn't a particular person, rather Jesus is an anthropomorphism of the mental dynamics that result from ingesting entheogens.

 

[perpetualdawn]

Jesus said: “Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear. The {entheogenic} secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding” (Mark 4:8/9)

Oh max.. if you go through religious texts, and insert {entheogenic} at will, and replace "bowl of rice" or "glass of wine" with "magic mushrooms", and read between the lines for occult references to drugs, you will definitely see it wherever you want to!

By saying you can only see it if you're privy to the esoteric psychedelic insider club, it sounds like the Emperor's New Clothes. I know you think you're the boy pointing at the Emperor saying he's got no clothes on, but I think you need to consider that it's actually the other way around - you're seeing clothes, and trying to convince everyone that they're there, when really there are none. And what's more, there's absolutely no need for them.

There is a strong possibility that at least once in ancient prehistory, someone ate a magic mushroom and had a spiritual experience. They could have told someone about it, and some roots of proto-religion could have sprouted out of it. There is also a very strong possibility that at some point in ancient prehistory, someone sat under a tree and stilled their mind, or fasted in the blazing sun and got in touch with god, or whatever, and had a spiritual experience without the use of an entheogen. They probably told people about it too, and seeded some roots of proto-religion. There's just no point in insisting that religion is based on drugs, it's a silly and unnecessary explanation. If you want to see that pattern everywhere, your mind will show that to you, but if you take a critical view, you'll notice that the evidence is thin at best (with regards to Christianity and Buddhism, just because the discussion seems to have focused a bit on these as the case study), and that there's just no need for entheogens as an explanation.

I see a lot of correlation between PDs and spiritual perspectives/religious experience, but it's not causal. I've spent enough time (in the past, not so much any more) with sober meditation to see how that is a path to spiritual growth and insight. I've spent a lot of time tripping and seen how tripping can be a shortcut to these realms as well.

When you hear about people having religious experiences in a sun-dance ceremony, or after a life of dedication to allah and a pilgrimage to mecca, or after years and years of practice in meditation, how can you say that these experiences aren't genuine? If you can admit that it's possible to have these experiences without drugs, then why wouldn't our ancient ancestors have had meaningful religious experiences without drugs, and why wouldn't they have passed the information along?

 

[max_freakout]

if you go through religious texts, and insert {entheogenic} at will, and replace "bowl of rice" or "glass of wine" with "magic mushrooms", and read between the lines for occult references to drugs, you will definitely see it wherever you want to!

This ^ is precisely the observation at the core of esoteric religion, expressed clearly and explicitly. Every religious scripture contains abundant references to "holy food" "manna from heaven" "sacred elixir" "soma of the Gods" "ambrosia of the immortals" "magic wine" "magic rice" "food that causes visions" "food that restores sight" etc etc etc.

The entheogenic interpretive lense provides the key to understand these references. As Jesus said "let him who has the right ears understand the meaning of the scripture"

I've spent enough time (in the past, not so much any more) with sober meditation to see how that is a path to spiritual growth and insight. I've spent a lot of time tripping and seen how tripping can be a shortcut to these realms as well.

I think the crucial point (relating to esoteric vs exoteric religion) is that sober meditation is *not* a path to the psychedelic experience. At no point anywhere on the typical sober meditation path does the meditator ever have a psychedelic trip (unless they take drugs). It is virtually impossible for almost everyone to experience the intense psychedelic state of consciousness without ingesting entheogens.

Sober meditation is a sheer waste of time, utterly redundant, *if* your aim is to have a psychedelic trip. By contrast drugs are a super-easy direct reliable repeatable way to have a psychedelic trip whenever you want to.

When you hear about people having religious experiences in a sun-dance ceremony, or after a life of dedication to allah and a pilgrimage to mecca, or after years and years of practice in meditation, how can you say that these experiences aren't genuine?

Im not saying this ^.
The "genuineness" of the experiences is judged by the subjective mental content of the experience, not by how the experience was caused (drugs or otherwise).
So if a person does a sun-dance ceremony and has a genuine mystical experience, that is just as "genuine" of a mystical experience as a person who takes drugs and has a mystical experience.

What really matters is the subjective mental content of the experience, the religious stories are primarily allegorical descriptions of the mental content of mystical experience, not the means of causing such experiences.

However many of the major religions do specify that their figurehead prophet ate some kind of 'holy food' immediately prior to their mystical transformation. For example Buddha eats the magic ricemilk, Jesus eats the passover meal at the last supper, and Mohammed is said to have eaten Esphand (Syrian rue) before his first angelic revelation.

If you can admit that it's possible to have these experiences without drugs, then why wouldn't our ancient ancestors have had meaningful religious experiences without drugs, and why wouldn't they have passed the information along?

They may well have done, just as people today pass on information about their altered state experiences.

(with regards to Christianity and Buddhism, just because the discussion seems to have focused a bit on these as the case study)

Entheogen esotericism applies equivalently to every religion. Every religious story is allegory for altered state experience. Every religion begins with a person tripping out.

 

[swilow]

^you cannot know that max.

 

[Doldrugs]

We've all tripped but somehow we're not agreeing with you that all religions are about drugs.

 

[perpetualdawn]

^ we must be doing it wrong

 

[Ismene]

Contrast that to actual religions like Christianity that have a distinct orthodoxy and a fixed body of mythology. Then there is cross-over cases like Santo Daime which is an organised religion which focuses on drinking ayahuasca. But note that Santo Daime is essentially just Christianity ('Santo' means 'Saint' in Portugese - a christian term), morphed into an ayahuasca drinking sect, the symbolism of Santo Daime is distinctly christian, they have merely replaced the wine of the christian eucharist with ayahuasca.

It's a pointer to how powerful non-based religions are tho max - you have people who are totally happy taking drugs and then here comes a religion that certainly by the 15th century had nothing whatsoever to do with drugs and they believe in that as much if not more than the mushrooms. That tells you that people don't need a drug experience to worship orthodox religion.

They didnt go to any trouble hiding anything, entheogenic mysticism has never really been hidden, it is plainly visible as the core essence of every religion.

By when? It was obviously totally hidden by the 15th century because the catholics in south america slaughtered anyone who took drugs in a religious context. How many years back are you going?

 

[max_freakout]

It's a pointer to how powerful non-based religions are tho max - you have people who are totally happy taking drugs and then here comes a religion that certainly by the 15th century had nothing whatsoever to do with drugs and they believe in that as much if not more than the mushrooms. That tells you that people don't need a drug experience to worship orthodox religion.

Exoteric drug-free religion does have a powerful momentum, there are always many people who would avoid real personal mystical experience by avoiding drugs, but instead seek inert placebo substitutes (such as the fake 'bread and wine' of the exoteric christian eucharist, or sober meditation of exoteric buddhism).

So people definitely don't need to take drugs to follow a religion, but the drug free exoteric version of religion is an entirely distinct thing from the drug based esoteric version of religion. Both versions of religion have always existed alongside each other, right throughout the history of religion from its origins right up to the present day (including the 15th century).

By when? It was obviously totally hidden by the 15th century because the catholics in south america slaughtered anyone who took drugs in a religious context. How many years back are you going?

Esoteric religion has never really been 'hidden', although it has been suppressed by drug prohibition. There have always been a core of esoteric insiders who understood the true meaning of the scriptures, because the scriptures are easily recognisable as drug-allusions to anyone who is familiar with psychedelic experiencing. The history of religion is the history of the dynamic relationship between these two different interpretations of religion

 

[swilow]

Both versions of religion have always existed alongside each other, right throughout the history of religion from its origins right up to the present day.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever of Christians (for example) taking psychedelics between 100AD and 1930? I cannot think of one story relating such a practise. It would amaze me if this secret is so well kept as to have left not trace in history books...

 

[max_freakout]

all religions are about drugs.

This ^ isnt accurate, religions are about intense mystical altered state experiences, not drugs. Ruck and Heinrich make a similar mistake in interpreting religious symbolism as being references to physical drugs.

 

[max_freakout]

Do you have any evidence whatsoever of Christians (for example) taking psychedelics between 100AD and 1930?

See Merkur's book 'the psychedelic sacrament'

I cannot think of one story relating such a practise. It would amaze me if this secret so well as to have left not trace in history books...

it was never kept a secret, there are traces of it right throughout the history of religion.

 

[swilow]

^Dude, I am not going to read an entire book to find some evidence for you. Can you not like link to it or quote some of these passages or just paraphrase some of this evidence?

 

[max_freakout]

^Dude, I am not going to read an entire book to find some evidence for you. Can you not like link to it or quote some of these passages?

you don't need to find any evidence "for me", if you want to see the evidence of judeo-christian drug use for yourself, that book by Merkur is a good place to start. There are a number of other books that are similar but id recommend you start with that one as it is clear and accessible and it covers christian history.

 

[Doldrugs]

You're stating something absurd as irrefutable fact, and refusing to provide any proof other than "read an entire book." When I actually found quotes from one of the authors you claimed proved your points, it was counter to your claims. Are you afraid of providing quotes because none of them actually back you up? Or because you're not as familiar with these sources as you claim?