I've just read Supernatural by Graham Hancock, a highly enjoyable and thought-provoking exploration of altered states of consciousness brought about by the ingestion of psychoactive chemicals. Previously, I had read only one other book by Hancock, Fingerprints of the Gods. I enjoyed it for his lively writing style and boundless speculation, but I wasn't convinced by his arguments. Supernatural, however, is for the most part more firmly grounded, and I felt it to be a superior effort.
Hancock begins with a discussion of prehistoric cave paintings, which, he argues, can best be understood as a visual record of the shamans' hallucinatory experiences. To drive home this point, he compares the cave imagery with accounts of vision quests by contemporary shamans. He also went to the considerable trouble of ingesting some of these potions himself, usually under the watchful eye of an experienced shaman, and he reports seeing much of the same imagery. He recounts Rick Strassman's controlled experiments in which volunteers were injected with the psychotropic chemical DMT, which had effects similar to those of the concoctions consumed by the shamans. He goes on to relate these hallucinatory experiences to the considerable body of folklore pertaining to "little people" -- sprites, pixies, fairies, gnomes, leprechauns, and so forth -- and to the modern phenomenon of "alien abduction," which has much in common with the older legends.
In short, he makes a plausible case that altered states of consciousness -- often the result of ingesting psychedelic plants, but also occurring in other contexts -- can bring up images and narratives that remain strikingly consistent despite wide differences in culture. Snakes, for instance, show up repeatedly in these experiences, as do smallish nonhuman creatures with oddly shaped heads, whether they are construed as fairy folk or as extraterrestrial "grays."
Now, I've previously speculated that so-called alien abductions may be a subset of out-of-body experiences (an idea that, of course, is not original with me), so I have no problem with the idea that these bizarre adventures are, in some sense, hallucinatory. By "hallucinatory," I don't mean that the experience is necessarily unreal, but that it involves -- or may involve -- perceptions of another plane of reality, one that is ordinarily opaque to us but which can be accessed via a dramatic shift in consciousness. Hancock himself inclines in this direction.
What struck me about many of these experiences, as recounted by Hancock, by so-called alien abductees, by DMT research subjects, and by shamans, is how scary and nightmarish they tend to be. There are frequent encounters with bizarre, nonhuman beings who rarely project love, compassion, or empathy; more commonly, these beings are perceived as either coldly indifferent or actively hostile to human welfare. Cave paintings sometimes feature the motif of the "wounded man," apparently a shaman whose body has been pierced by multiple spears. This imagery is reflected in the hallucinogenic experiences themselves, which not infrequently subject the experiencer to torture, surgery, and vivisection. Both alien abductees and shamans report being cut open so their captors can insert small objects into their bodies. Other nightmarish elements of these experiences involve being beset by numerous inhuman creatures, being subjected to sexual congress with them, being carried off to a cave, laboratory, spaceship, etc., as well as the strange recurring motif of hybrid babies with human and nonhuman characteristics. Often these "changeling" babies are described as grotesque.
There is also repetitive imagery of humanoid figures with animal features, as seen in some prehistoric cave art. People who ingest psychoactive substances are prone to seeing creatures that are part human, part animal -- a man with the head of a bison, for instance. In some cases, the experiencer believes that he himself has been transformed temporarily into an animal or a half-human, half-animal hybrid.
When reading these accounts, I was reminded of similarly bizarre episodes described by Robert A. Monroe, who learned to initiate out-of-body experiences at will and eventually set up an institute to study the phenomenon. As I've written elsewhere, some of Monroe's alleged adventures are so fantastic and disturbing that they seem more like vivid nightmares than any kind of spiritual experience. I would characterize much of the material recounted by Hancock in Supernatural the same way. Though he talks about the important spiritual insights that practitioners of these extradimensional travels can attain, I didn't see much in the way of valuable life lessons in the experiences he describes. The only lesson would seem to be that reality is a deeply strange and deeply terrifying place, largely hostile to human beings and not very conducive to spiritual growth. The shamans themselves insist that their ancestors learned to use psychotropic plants by following recipes given to them by spirits during these vision quests. Even if this is true, it does not necessarily establish that the "spirits" meant well, or that the psychotropic plants are beneficial.
While I was thinking about this today, I happen to read an article by NDE researcher Michael Sabom about the religious implications of near-death experiences. The article, "Response to Gracia Fay Ellwood's 'Religious Experience, Religious Worldviews, and Near-Death Studies'," is included in the NDE papers uploaded by Markus Hesse at this location.
Sabom, a committed Christian, draws a sharp distinction between spontaneous and deliberately initiated paranormal experiences. He believes that the former can give us insights into deep spiritual truths, while the latter are largely the realm of deceptive and malign entities. Thus he counsels against deliberate involvement with the paranormal. To some extent, this opinion simply reflects the view common among conservative Christians that mediums and psychics are trafficking with the devil, and perhaps it can be dismissed as a mere prejudice. Sabom, however, develops his argument somewhat further by giving specific examples of cases in which harmful effects arose from dabbling with the paranormal. And in fact, many such examples can be supplied. Included in his case histories is the above-mentioned Robert Monroe, whose OBEs were sometimes terrifying. Also included is author Whitley Strieber, who described the disorientation and helplessness he felt in his "abduction" experiences.
One case Sabom doesn't mention is that of Joe Fisher, author of The Siren Call of Hungry Ghosts, whose involvement with a medium led him to believe he'd been targeted by malicious supernatural entities. Fisher became convinced that these demonic creatures were ruining his life. Although the circumstances of his death are ambiguous, it is widely believed that he committed suicide.
With such disturbing cases in mind, perhaps we should not be too quick to reject the idea that there is a qualitative distinction to be drawn between spontaneous and intentionally induced paranormal experiences. And yet any such hard-and-fast distinction would surely be too restrictive. There are, after all, many cases of a deliberately induced altered state of consciousness that have yielded powerful evidence for life after death, as well as uplifting spiritual messages. The trance mediumship of Leonora Piper or Gladys Osborne Leonard shows little sign of malign influences.
How, then, do we explain these different varieties of spiritual experiences? On the one hand, we have shamanic vision quests, alien abductions, DMT trips, deliberately induced OBEs, and the like, which frequently include nightmarish and grossly distorted, sometimes animalistic imagery, along with painful and traumatic experiences. On the other hand, we have NDEs, trance mediumship, deep meditation, spontaneous OBEs, and the like, which for the most part (and with some undeniable exceptions) consist of nonthreatening imagery and uplifting experiences or lessons.
I'm not sure there's any easy answer to this question. But possibly -- just possibly -- the way in which we arrive at an altered state of consciousness determines whether our resulting experience will be predominantly positive or negative. Possibly the ingestion of psychotropic drugs, which are used as a kind of shortcut to enlightenment, is counterproductive, and is more likely to lead us astray, by bringing on an experience that is troubling, not comforting; hellish, not heavenly; irrational, not lucid; traumatic, not blissful.
Perhaps there is no shortcut, and our attempt to find one only leads us down a blind alley or, worse, into a dark cellar. And perhaps people who've experienced so-called alien abductions or frightening OBEs have learned (even if unconsciously) the wrong way of altering their state of consciousness. To put it in spiritualistic terms, we might say that instead of "raising their vibrations," maybe they are "lowering their vibrations." Instead of "going toward the light," maybe they are going away from it.
If so, then there may be some merit to the idea that deliberately induced paranormal experiences are dangerous. No, not all of them, but those that are induced in the wrong way.
Reading Supernatural, I couldn't help thinking of the Garden of Eden. In this biblical story, Adam and Eve live unspoiled lives of simplicity and innocence. But then a snake enters the picture. (Remember that snakes figure prominently in the imagery of hallucinogenic experiences.) The snake offers Eve an apple. (Remember that ingestion of new and unknown substances is what brought about the hallucinogenic experiences.) Eve and then Adam eat the apple, and their eyes are opened to a new way of looking at the world. (Remember that shamans and others who experiment with these psychotropic substances believe they have gained important new insights.) But their newfound enlightenment doesn't benefit them. They are cast out from the garden (remember that gardens are among the most prominent "heavenly" locals in NDEs) and sentenced to a lifetime of pain and drudgery terminating in death.
There are many ways of interpreting this famous -- and famously ambiguous -- story. It may simply be an attack on the goddess religions that competed with early Judaism; the snake was a favorite symbol of these faiths. But suppose the origin of the story lies elsewhere. Suppose it reflects an intuition that the shamanic vision quests made possible by chemically altered states of consciousness can be dangerous. Suppose it is a warning against meddling with otherdimensional beings who, like the snake, can be highly seductive but do not have our best interests at heart.
Graham Hancock believes that ingestion of psychotropic substances expanded the consciousness of our prehistoric forebears and allowed them to begin the long march toward culture and civilization. He believes that these otherworldly journeys still have much to teach us, and that we should be opening the doors of perception to learn from the extradimensional beings who inhabit this other plane of reality.
Maybe so. Then again, maybe some doors shouldn't be opened.
"Perhaps there is no shortcut, and our attempt to find one only leads us down a blind alley or, worse, into a dark cellar"
I learned that same lesson almost a year ago after some creepy experiences with lucid dreaming. When I was 17 years old I suffered a lot of spontain sleep paralysis episodes almost every night for more than a month, and after I managed to get over that strange fear that normally acompains the episodes I was able to induce myself to have an Out-of-body-like Experience and from there move freely and consciously in my dreams, it was so damn easy to do that I just had to fell asleep any time of the day and with a very little effort it would happen. But one day I just got blocked and I couldn`t have another of these amazing OBE`s and after some frustated attempts to get again into that state of consciousness I decided to consult a book about lucid dreaming and even though I achieved some very vivid dreams that I was able to fully recall after I waked up, it was incredibly difficult to get a real sensation of control during these dreams or to even make a simple "reality check" because they were so nonsensical and ramdon compared to my previous experiences, but still they where pretty awesome.
And one day it happened the inevitable, I had a series of nightmares where I died, and during lucid dreams the pain, the cold and the fear feels horribly real. It may sound exagerated but I couldn`t sleep well for almost a week after that, I was so scared of dreaming again that I the point I decided to abandon the whole lucid dreaming thing to never try it again but even after one year I still recall my many dreams very vividly and I have had other scary experiences. The most strange of all is something I have called a "failed OBE", it starts like a normal out of body experience but the very moment I try to raise from my bed I just SPLIT, and I suddenly feel like I am in different places at the same time, for example I could be watching my own body from a corner in my room like 2 meters away from my bed but at the same time I feel like I am just a few centimeters behind my own head and when I talk I hear my voice coming from the rigth side, sounds confusing but I can`t really explain it well in words more even less in english.
I am seriously not messing up with my mind in this way again just for fun.
Posted by: Ade | April 21, 2010 at 09:40 PM
You're description of a "failed OBE" actually sounds very similar to what I've heard described by those who have smoked salvia, Ade, as well as sounding similar to what some people have experienced when wearing Michael Persinger's God Helmet.
Anyway, psychedelics and their effects on consciousness are definitely an interesting area of study. Assuming the brain as a filter model of consciousness is accurate, chemicals like DMT could be seen as simply changing the "frequency" of our conscious experience and showing us a reality that we are normally incapable of perceiving. As I've suggested before, even what we see as ordinary consensus reality is really just a product of the chemical cocktail that makes up our brains, molded by natural selection in such a way that makes survival in this physical plane easier. It's easy to pass off the psychedelic experience as hallucinatory and entirely subjective, but I think these types of experiences can also be seen as evidence that reality is much more deep and complex then we are normally capable of perceiving.
Regarding Sabom's idea, we should remember that hellish NDEs, while uncommon, can still happen, and that psychedelic experiences, say the type brought on by smoking DMT, can just as likely bring on feelings of joy and spiritual ecstasy as it can frightening feelings.
Posted by: Sam | April 21, 2010 at 10:10 PM
Ok, you did mention that NDEs can result in unpleasant experiences, but the truth is psychedelic experiences, with some exceptions, usually turn out to be extremely positive and can also help lead to spiritual growth.
Posted by: Sam | April 21, 2010 at 10:13 PM
"psychedelic experiences, with some exceptions, usually turn out to be extremely positive'
That's not the impression I got from Hancock's overview of the evidence, or from his descriptions of his own personal experiments. The shamanic vision quests often involved nightmarish experiences of being vivisected and tortured, and many of the DMT-induced experiences were similar to "alien abduction" scenarios, which are usually traumatic.
"chemicals like DMT could be seen as simply changing the 'frequency' of our conscious experience and showing us a reality that we are normally incapable of perceiving"
I know. I said as much in the fourth paragraph of my post. The transmission theory is a major theme of Hancock's book, and an idea considered by Rick Strassman (the DMT expert) also. But maybe some levels (or frequencies) of reality aren't safe to explore. Maybe drugs are more likely to put us in contact with lower realms, where we will have bad experiences.
Sometimes we assume that any nonphysical realm, being "spiritual," must be superior to this universe. But maybe not. Just as Ouija boards are said to open the door to low-level entities that can cause us grief, maybe experimenting with psychoactive chemicals is more likely to put us in a bad place than in a good one.
Food for thought, anyway ...
Posted by: Michael Prescott | April 21, 2010 at 11:37 PM
Perhaps part of the answer to this difference lies in ourselves. Assuming for argument's sake that there is an afterlife of some descriptions it seems to me that from some accounts of this world, our perception of it, once 'there', is susceptible to our own state of mind and personality.
Is it possible that landing there in a disturbed frame of mind, unprepared and unexpectedly, or under the influence of substances or other forces alters our perception of that new reality as it does our present?
I am put in mind of a journey between airports in India at night when I worked there. It was a journey I usually made when I was expected and there were people there to meet me and take me to my destination safely. On one occasion due to circumstances out of my control I had to make the transfer under my own steam, late at night and in thick fog. Because of the change in situation there was no chaperone. It was quite a frightening and uncertain experience and travelling on an unfamiliar public transport system, when tired and stressed was intimidating, and, to be frank scary. I was convinced I was going to be robbed or worse. All in my mind of course but nonetheless scary.
Perhaps our state of mind and intentions when we enter this other world, if such it is, plays an important role in our subsequent experience, at least initially, or at least in how we interpret that experience.
Just a thought.
Posted by: Paul | April 22, 2010 at 12:02 AM
All the mediums I've met or read who I consider credible, make it very clear that one can encounter lowlife in Spirit - they seem to emphasise the astral plane - and that one should always take precautions (white light visualisations, requiring spirits to say whether they acknowledge Christ, for instance). My own Reiki teacher, who's an empath rather than a medium, has told me about some nasty things that happened to her when she was a teenager fooling around with a Ouija board. (I wouldn't go near one of those things; whether it's mind games or really something of the lower spiritual levels getting in, I think they're dangerous.) Similarly I wouldn't try lucid dreaming. I've heard too much about it - like Ade's experience - to want to take chances like that. I'm more than happy to do my travelling to Spirit in a purely unconscious state and remember it when I wake up, if I'm lucky. I'm never there without my soulmate, who is old enough and wise enough to offer protection if I needed it - not that we're in any regions where it would be needed. The astral sounds like the dodgy neighbourhood of Spirit, to me!
Posted by: Louise | April 22, 2010 at 12:40 AM
I guess I have a bit to contribute to this one.
- Because of specific incidents in my family, I will never intentionally have an OBE. A family member experienced very traumatic episodes sparked by OBE experimentation at an early age, involving otherworldly creatures and 'grays'. Several times I've awoken to find a sensation that I'm hovering above my body. I don't even fool around with it, I just 'snap' right back in without wasting any time.
- They appear at the bedside, create awareness while sleep paralysis is in effect, and proceed to examine you, and mess with you.
- A separate eyewitness had the same experience in the same location (without knowledge of the history of grays appearing in the house). She described them as "almost too cliche to be real". Think of a Doctor Who rubbery alien come-to-life.
- Had eyewitnesses also, from the nearby area, who had seen them with their waking eyes.
And now for the theories concerning this, and the rest of your article.
- Theory one is that they are an embedded aspect of our minds, and every individual is programmed to experience the same hallucination. This explains the consistency across many different people and cultures. A primitive, evolutionary quark gives us an intense fear of certain things: such as the snakes from spirit-journeys, and these insect-like creatures (greys) (potentially modeled after a prehistoric threat). A psychotropic drug somehow activates this strange part of our minds.
If this is entirely physical, it lends some weight to the difference between real and imagined spiritual experiences. Or, if NDEs are a deep part of our brains being tapped into, then why are no snakes and bug-eyed aliens present in NDE accounts?
- Theory two: These are trans-dimensional visitors. Astral of nature, they live on the other-side, have capabilities of occasionally penetrating space-time in our own reality. They are drawn to humans with OBE potential, as they are the ones who are able to bridge the gap between both worlds, so they simply "tune into" individuals who are either OBE'ing, or use mind-expanding drugs.
The problem with this theory is abductions sometimes involve PHYSICAL prodding. IE: people get opened up.
Let's analyze this through my lens-filter of spiritualism for a moment.
In the astral state, there's no real body in existence. You're more of a thought-form. During NDEs, when individuals describe themselves in this plane, they sometimes say they are a spec of light, or their flesh is made of light or is formless.
Eventually, there comes arrival in a more solid plane. From this point, mediums tell us we become physical again, although we cannot be corrupted. So, we have bones, organs, and blood flow, yet it all serves other purposes, and you cannot destroy yourself. Lower planes, however, the spiritual body is perhaps more vulnerable.
Why do I bring all of this up? Because nowhere is it possible for some creature to come along and dissect you in the other-side. It's frankly physically impossible. You cannot be corrupted, and your near-Earth sleep-state isn't even tangible enough to be interacted with. It's only possible if the operations are illusions. In which case, their only purpose is to torment you (not a nice thought either).
This leads me to theory 3.
Theory 3: Greys and similar boogeymen can appear in the physical, or non-physical, at will.
Spent a little time researching the effects of abductions, with doctors discovering objects of unidentifiable (alien) metal in abductees skin. A sort of biological metal that prevents infection. Not earth-made.
Couple that with eyewitness accounts of physically seeing the greys, etc.
What you have here is a very mysterious phenomenon: is it possible for a lifeform to exist simultaneously in both dimensions, with full capabilities to experiment on individuals, physically tamper with them, and also retreat to safety into a non-physical environment?
Or, to appear in an astral plane, and then from this staging point, materialize on Earth? Given what physical mediums allegedly accomplish, is this such a stretch?
In fact, if physical mediumship is true, which I believe it is, literally anything from the 'netherworld' has the potential to materialize in the flesh.
This is why true spiritual mediumship is a full-time job for some people. They must train themselves for years, working with their guides, to perfect their communication with only those whom they want to communicate with.
It seems like you don't want to cross-channels with some of the denizens of the dark.
Posted by: Cyrus | April 22, 2010 at 12:55 AM
I've been told that how you approach situations has an affect on what you experience. I tend to be pretty trusting and maybe a little naive. So maybe that explains what I encounter. It could be why I seem to have ghosts that look after me, like my Grandma. A parapsychologist I've worked with has referred to Al and Arthur as spirit guides or controls. I don't know what they are, but they do try to help.
As a child I had terrible nightmares. I had really bad ones about aliens and would hide in my closet at night because I was so afraid. My grandmother, who was still alive back then, told me to imagine my bedroom full of light that nothing bad could touch. She used to tell me to practise "making light". I thought it was just a game to ease my fears.
It worked really well though. The bad dreams stopped because when they happened, I would chase the bad monsters and aliens away with light. To this day, when I'm frightened the light just pours out of me. Two days ago when someone dropped a toolbox behind me in the hall at school, I got scared for just a second, I started creating light without even thinking, and the florescent light above my head went out. That makes me wonder if my imaginary lights are more real than make believe.
Posted by: Sandy | April 22, 2010 at 07:07 AM
"Spent a little time researching the effects of abductions, with doctors discovering objects of unidentifiable (alien) metal in abductees skin. A sort of biological metal that prevents infection. Not earth-made."
Is there any good evidence for this? From what little reading I've done about alien abductions, I have the impression that some of the more flamboyant researchers, like Budd Hopkins, are not very reliable. See this article:
http://alturl.com/g3he
I would hesitate to take their claims at face value.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | April 22, 2010 at 09:23 AM
About Michael Sabom, obviously I do not demonize him or any of his actions. I have his works in high regard. But recently, on the "going along with the blood flow" thread, I criticized one specific phrase that he uttered in a Discovery Channel documentary. I ended up sending an email to him on that, in an open letter that I make available in the link below:
http://www.criticandokardec.com.br/open_letter_to_dr_michael_sabom.htm
Best Wishes,
Julio
_____
Posted by: Julio Siqueira | April 22, 2010 at 09:26 AM
I love that new Garden of Eden interpretation, Michael. Brilliant.
Posted by: Ben | April 22, 2010 at 10:52 AM
That's not the impression I got from Hancock's overview of the evidence, or from his descriptions of his own personal experiments. The shamanic vision quests often involved nightmarish experiences of being vivisected and tortured, and many of the DMT-induced experiences were similar to "alien abduction" scenarios, which are usually traumatic.
http://www.erowid.org/experiences/subs/exp_Ayahuasca.shtml
Here's a great database where you can read many user-submitted reports of their experiences with different substances. This vault in particular deals with ayahuasca experiences. As you can see from the reports, nightmarish experiences are not uncommon, but positive experiences seem to be reported just as often.
Posted by: Sam | April 22, 2010 at 12:25 PM
Sam said: "psychedelic experiences, with some exceptions, usually turn out to be extremely positive'
Michael said: "That's not the impression I got from Hancock's overview of the evidence, or from his descriptions of his own personal experiments."
Michael, you're right that Hancock's experiences in the book are not generally of the clear-cut ecstatic variety. (It's been a while since I read it, so I'm not really sure about the ratio of dark to light.) But a quick look back at the book reminds me that he does say this, on page 11 of the hardcover edition:
"What was miraculous nonetheless was the dramatic turnaround in my mood that I benefitted from after my ibogaine session. . . . I hadn't expected ibogaine to make a difference, but it did. From the moment I woke up with my strength recovered I knew that it had flipped some sort of switch in me because I was no longer able to see anything in the world in the same negative and nihilistic way as I had before."
Sounds positive to me! Certainly, in its effects.
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | April 22, 2010 at 12:59 PM
You're right, Bruce. He did say that. I guess I was more focused on the scary and disturbing content of many (most?) of the experiences reported in the book.
Sam, I'll look at the database. Thanks for posting the link.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | April 22, 2010 at 01:12 PM
Michael - an interesting perspective on how reality is manifested comes from John Michael Greer (The Archdruid) in his book "Circles of Power". There's a preview available on books.google although the url is too long to post here.
The book is basically a manual on the Golden Dawn system of magic. I have it at home, and although I don't practice the system (or any other form of magic) I think the way the first half of the book describes how "reality" manifests itself from spiritual unity to physical reality (and the strange entities you may find at each level) is fascinating. The second half is probably for practitioners only, though.
Posted by: IntenselyRelaxed | April 22, 2010 at 02:02 PM
I never took any drugs or tried to induce a paranormal experience, but I had some scary experiences that just happened. And most people who are abducted by aliens did nothing to induce the experience. So this theory seems very wrong. I would definitely not take the Christian perspective seriously -- it was all about competing religions.
I think it is really wrong and unfair to assume shamanic or primitive religions were inferior. Do you really think that American Indians were having primarily evil experiences in their vision quests? I do not.
I think that the universe is a terrifying place, from our perspective. We are insulated and protected during our time on earth. I don't know why reported NDEs have been mostly positive. Maybe the challenging ordeal comes later on? Maybe the bad NDEs are under-reported or forgotten?
Maybe it's true that drug-induced experiences are more nightmarish. I don't know anything about that. But it's also possible that using hallucinogens for spiritual purposes requires a kind of expertise that modern humans have lost. Maybe there are ways to navigate safely in the other worlds.
There is a very long-standing animosity between Judeo-Christianity and the older pagan religions. These were political rivalries and it is a mistake to believe the propaganda.
Yes it seems on the surface that we modern humans have freed ourselves from the demonic worlds. But just look at the world we created. Has the devil ever done a better job of creating chaos on earth? Sure, we swept evil out of sight. Great.
The ancients and primitives had all kinds of magic and rituals to navigate and placate these terrifying realms and entities. They sacrificed their own children. Yes the were scared, with good reason. We aren't scared, we're just numb and dumb.
Posted by: realpc | April 22, 2010 at 05:00 PM
Interesting comment on sweeping evil out of sight, realpc - wasn't it Jung who said something along those lines, about humans having messed themselves up with this black/white division of evil and good, and trying to repress the evil so much? Not sure if I've got that straight, but I think that's what he said.
Posted by: Louise | April 22, 2010 at 05:27 PM
Yes Louise, Jung said a lot of wise things regarding the shadow. We moderns have struggled so hard to make ourselves feel safe and superior. In the process we have put ourselves in the gravest danger.
Posted by: realpc | April 23, 2010 at 04:39 AM
That was a very well written and interesting post, Michael.
I remember being very impressed by Huxley's "The Doors of Perception" (regarding his experiments with mescaline) when in high school in the 1970's. The idea of a drug being able to let you see the unfiltered "real" world seemed very exciting for a few days. But I now interpret that excitement mainly as part of the impressionability of the teenage mind. I was personally never tempted to try a mind altering drug, but I could understand those were interested in the experience intellectually and spiritually, like Huxley.
But as you grow up, and you see the damage different illicit drugs have on people, the idea that any natural or artificial chemical that has a hallucinatory effect can really be beneficial in the long run dwindles pretty rapidly. I mean, once you know people who start dabbling in drugs, they rarely give you the impression that the experience has been a positive thing in their life. (I don't even like what marijuana does to people - I half suspect it actually changes personality in a way that is not really understood yet.)
That said, it is interesting the way the hallucinatory imagery from certain drugs is so constant from person to person. But still, my scepticism about drugs generally makes me doubt that there is anything spiritual, or of genuine expanded consciousness, going on. It just seems more likely that the "normal" human mind will usually interpret certain signal patterns induced by certain chemicals in the brain in a way, or in a quasi narrative, that most other minds will as well. This is a curious fact, and perhaps could be used as support for a Jungian collective unconscious being "real", but the level of spiritual insight that it can bring seems very doubtful.
I would also add that I say this as a believer in the paranormal; not a pure materialist.
Posted by: steve from brisbane | April 23, 2010 at 06:38 AM
"It just seems more likely that the "normal" human mind will usually interpret certain signal patterns induced by certain chemicals in the brain in a way, or in a quasi narrative, that most other minds will as well."
That's the materialist myth. But these experiences are not created by chemicals. Hallucinogenic drugs disable the brain's normal blocking mechanisms, making the experience of other planes possible.
Posted by: realpc | April 23, 2010 at 07:51 AM
I suppose I have quite a bit to contribute to this discussion, having first had spontaneous OBEs, then having developed the ability to produce them at will and also having used peyote and psilocybe mushrooms in large doses on a number of occassions over the years.
BTW, I never had an OBE as a result - meaning while under the influence of - psychedelics. I have had amazing synchronicities, precognitions, realizations, etc as well as been simply awed at the sense of experiencing 'creation' first hand, touching infinity, etc
My sense is that much of the NDE literature and some of the OBE literature suffers from deliberate selection bias. IMO, the hellish or otherwise unpleasant experiences don't get published often because they don't sell books and/or fit with the writer's/publisher's beliefs system.
Also, let's face it, a lot of life is ugly. It should be no surprise that people who open themselves to the human soul via drugs or OBEs or whatever, are going to be as sensitive to the ugliness as they are to the beautiful. Someone who is prepared - I mean real training - physically and mentally can handle this. Someone who thrusts themselves into this realm chaotically and for the wrong reasons, can get hurt. This stuff is not a joke and think all of these here's how books on the topic are a slick disgrace.......well, that's what happens in America, money always trumps common sense and decency.
Getting back to psychedelics; there is a lot of positive to be gained from them. However, I would warn anyone thinking about using them for enlightenment that there is much danger associated with this style of use.
Real enlightenment results from living a proper life.
The drugs can enhance (temporarily) what you have already built in your soul; and give you a vision of the next level up; IF YOU HAVE ALREADY DONE THE WORK. If you haven't built the foundation in pure sobriety through hard work and discipline and mindfulness and balance the drugs will, at best, produce a madness; perhaps an interesting, madness, but madness all the same. Worse, the drugs can create deceptive delusions and, worse still, a more lasting insanity.
Posted by: Erich | April 23, 2010 at 02:20 PM
I agree Erich. This universe is a deeply treacherous place. People in all times and places have always known that, and developed ways to deal with it. Until here and now. Now we have modern science deceiving itself, and us, into thinking humans are in control.
Posted by: realpc | April 23, 2010 at 03:04 PM
realpc,
One thing that I have "seen" while under the influence of pyschedelics and, to a much lesser degree during OBEs, is that are are forces, gods?, angel like beings? that exist on a "higher" plane than us and that influence our lives; both individually and collectively. These powers (for lack of a better name) are sentient and they are not entirely benevolent. I wouldn't go so far as to say they are malevolent either. It's more like we are cattle to them. Sometimes maybe more like play things.
Sometimes I see these forces as being creations of the collective human mind, as in jungian archetypes come alive, but mostly I have come to accept the opposite; that they existed before us and may have even had a hand in our creation as living souls.
The ancients seemed to have an appreciation for this. Take a look at the Greek pantheon and all of the activities on Mt Olympus. Or the Hinu dieties and their interjections in human affairs, or Native American spiritual beings......
It is only the modern western feel good instant ego gratification mentality that fantasizes about everyone having a happy helpful gaurdian angel available to them or entering forever into a loving forgiving light upon death. Not that these beings and experiences can't or don't exist. It's just that there are other alternatives that, again, in my opinion, are at least as likely to occur.
Posted by: Erich | April 23, 2010 at 03:35 PM
MP,
I have spent some time with a Native American medicine man - the real deal - on the reservation. We were friends and we drank beer and fished and worked horses, but also I did ask some questions of him.
In answer to some of the questions you pose in your post, you have to understand some things. A medicine man - or shaman as you call it - deals with healing sickness, both physical and spiritual, right here on this earth. In traditional societies, sickness is seen as the result of a soul (or mind) out of balance. I agree with this perspective to a large extent.
As far as I can see, there are definitely malevolent forces on earth that cause us to be out of balance; whether these be from within the individual or external to the individual. And being out of mental balance always leads to accidents or illness or family strife. In the case of a whole community, it can lead to civil strife, war, starvation........
Thus, in order to heal the shaman first has to identify and then get down with the sickness, down with the evil. That's where he/she does their work. The work often involves taking the sickness - the evil - into themselves before expelling it. They must familiarize themselves with these forces, dance with them, (know thy enemy) and overcome them and tame them. As a result, shamanic imagery often involves the animalistic, the terrifying, the horrendous...........
This is not some priest hearing a confession and telling you to burn a candle a say five hail Marys and promising a lofty and glorious kingdom to come, some day, if you just keep the faith, if you know what I mean.
That is the difference. The shaman deals with real life spritual issues in the here and now and the priests of our culture promise a dogmatic beautiful fantasy world in the next life. The associated images reflect this difference.
Another thing to know is that psychedelics can totally blast the ego to bits. This is the terror. After the ego is destroyed it must be re-assembled for return. This is where the images of being cut open, having things inserted into the body, etc come from. You come back different (e.g. with an extra bone, or a gem stone imbedded, etc). These are ways of talking about death and rebirth and wisdom gained.
Also, to change course a little, I have never seen a snake, gnome, troll, pixy, fairy or Roswell type alien in any of my drug induced experiences nor have any of the people I know (and this is a number of very experienced individuals) who have used plant psychedelics in large doses (there are more of us out there than you'd think). When descriptions of these sorts of things started to crop up in popular literature I asked these people.
I am suspicious of these stories and I think they are mostly fabricated for the purpose of furthering some theoreticians' agenda.
Posted by: Erich | April 23, 2010 at 05:01 PM
"It is only the modern western feel good instant ego gratification mentality that fantasizes about everyone having a happy helpful gaurdian angel available to them or entering forever into a loving forgiving light upon death. Not that these beings and experiences can't or don't exist. It's just that there are other alternatives that, again, in my opinion, are at least as likely to occur."
Erich,
Yes I agree with all that you said in all your comments. There is so much that most people in are culture are unaware of, having been taught a sanitized version of Christianity, or else having learned to worship scientific progress. And those who can't accept either alternative become New Agers who deny the reality of evil. The only large group in our culture who acknowledge evil, and are aware of our desperate need for salvation and protection, are the born again Christians.
I think the supernatural beings you mentioned are as real as we are, and are probably much more real than we are. Modern physics says there are higher order dimensions, and that idea fits perfectly with the existence of higher, or other, planes of existence.
There were shamans, or medicine men, in all known primitive cultures and their beliefs and practices were similar. They learned how to enter worlds over or under this one, and they would find the supernatural causes of illness, bad luck and strife.
Several different perspectives converge to convince me that what you are saying, and what I have been saying for years, are probably more accurate than what the materialists or the New Agers believe.
One of these perspectives is certain ideas from contemporary physics, about higher order dimensions, quantum weirdness, etc. Another is the fact that belief in gods, ghosts, good and evil spirits, angels, demons, etc., is nearly universal in all human cultures.
And another is our own direct personal experiences.
And what reasons do we have for doubting our direct experiences, and the experiences of millions of others? We have only the wishful thinking of materialism and New Age-ism. With all the differences between these two, they both have their denial in common.
Science has proven there are no ghosts. Has it really?
I do think that we can find help on the higher levels, as people have done in all times and places. I do think that our prayers are heard and, often in strange ways, answered.
But I also think we are dangerously naive and ignorant about these things. Going to church on Sunday is not enough. What is enough? Having complete faith in Jesus Christ? I don't know, and I think that our culture as a whole doesn't know.
We don't have a medicine to ask advice. Or if we do he's a New Ager who doesn't really get it.
I very rarely run into anyone like you, in life or online, who is aware of these things. Everyone, just about, thinks we have evolved and become vastly superior to the ancients and primitives. I think it's in some ways the opposite. We are vastly inferior in our understanding of reality.
I have had the experience of losing my ego. That was the experience that taught me once and for all how pathetically ignorant we really are.
One time a born-again Christian friend told me that New Agers think of god as a big happy face in the sky. And that is so true. I used to think I was a New Ager, until I realized how fluffy and insubstantial New Age thinking had become.
It's a terrible shame that fundamentalist Christianity is now associated only with anti-abortion fanaticism and homophobia. Really really too bad, because the fundamentalists know things that the culture in general has forgotten.
I had a conversation with someone who called himself a Wiccan, or neo-Pagan, or something like that. He believed there were matriarchal goddess-worshiping cultures that were peaceful and loving. He said that we could create that kind of utopia on earth, if only the greedy violent people would stop interfering.
I told him yeah sure, but those "peaceful" goddess-worshipers were cutting the hearts out of their first born children and eating them. And the only reason you think they were peaceful is because they got beat into the dust by their neighbors who knew how to make better spears.
Posted by: realpc | April 23, 2010 at 08:34 PM
Here's an amusing supporting quote I came across yesterday in The Jacques Barzun Reader, quoting James Agate (drama critic):
Posted by: Roger Knights | April 24, 2010 at 12:50 AM
“And those who can't accept either alternative become New Agers who deny the reality of evil.”
Evil is not a reality but it is a phenomenon. All evil has as its origin ignorance. The Buddha, Socrates, and Plato taught this. Of course others have taught this aspect of evil also.
For evil to be a reality there would have to be some aspect of infinite that is evil. This cannot be if we understand the necessity of perfection for infinite to be infinite.
Do we disbelieve the Buddha or Socrates or Plato or do we just call them new agers.
To understand this aspect of evil one must come to know what the Buddha realized. Most Buddhists do not know what the Buddha realized as to the origin of our suffering.
“We don't have a medicine to ask advice. Or if we do he's a New Ager who doesn't really get it.”
For his time Jesus was as new age as you could find. Come to think of it even today if we truly understood what he taught he would be considered a new ager. If he came back he would be run out of town by most of the very people that claim to be his followers.
“One time a born-again Christian friend told me that New Agers think of god as a big happy face in the sky. And that is so true.”
While doing my research into different religions I never found one so called New Ager that thought of god as a happy face in the sky. I wonder how many Jews 2000 years ago thought of Jesus as a new ager. His teachings were and are very controversial then and today.
Posted by: william | April 24, 2010 at 03:11 AM
William,
Jesus cast out demons on more than one occassion. Jesus also went out into the wilderness on a vision quest wherein he was tempted by the devil.
I am not a christian, but if I was I would not ignore some of the NT stories in favor of others.
If there are demons and a devil then there is evil that can enter into and harm human beings on earth and, perhaps, in the afterlife.
The Buddhists also speak of demons.
Staying on topic, the image of a heard of demon possessed swine jumping off a cliff or satan teasing Jesus in the wilderness should be as terrifying/awful as anything coming out of psychedelic shamanism, but, again, we don't see this aspect of the christian faith in images. I think this is what realpc is saying.
Posted by: Erich | April 24, 2010 at 05:42 AM
Right Erich. Jesus was no New Ager. New Age used to mean something rational, but it has devolved into fluffy utopianism. Evil is not an illusion based on ignorance. Evil is a matter of perspective. From the perspective of an ant on the sidewalk, my foot is evil. My foot doesn't notice or care about the ant.
We have become so confused by our interpretations of Buddhism and Christianity. Buddhism and Christianity are confusing to begin with. And then we confuse them even more.
Most people now days seem to think Christianity is all about being a "nice" person. But no one even knows how to define "nice."
We see the "nice" enlightened person up there on his pedestal, certain of his superiority and his invulnerability. He assures us there are no ghosts, no "evil" spirits. He "knows" that evil is merely an illusion based in ignorance.
And lucky him -- he is not ignorant and therefore evil can't touch him. And he can't do evil acts. Then he goes out and steps on an ant.
Posted by: realpc | April 24, 2010 at 07:56 AM
Speaking of which, I just got done doing some reading on the DMT experiments and visions of gnomes, aliens, etc.
Now that I have read more qualitative data, I think my statement implying that these are mostly fraudulent claims to further theoretical positions was overblown. Instead, I think these people may be talking about the same entities I mentioned in a comment above, but the undescribable is being talked about in terms common to modern people who a using familiar terms from fairy tales and sci-fi movies.
So, I am backing off on my harsh statement. Yet, it is important to keep in mind that people do use familiar terms to talk about that for which there are no words. These things should not be taken too literally.
Posted by: Erich | April 24, 2010 at 08:30 AM
”Evil is not an illusion based on ignorance.”
Where did I state that evil was an illusion? Evil is a phenomenon and therefore it exists as a temporal and transient experience (appearance). Judge not by appearances are profound teachings. You are confusing “evil spirits” with what is reality. Reality cannot be defined but we can realize some of its attributes such as infinite love, compassion and divine intelligence.
Evil is not a reality for evil to be a reality then some aspect of infinite would have to be evil and this cannot be because evil has its origin in ignorance and there is no ignorance in infinite reality only perfect awareness.
“We have become so confused by our interpretations of Buddhism and Christianity. Buddhism and Christianity are confusing to begin with. And then we confuse them even more.”
Who is we? Do your research but you must seek deeply and if you do you will find that the Buddha realized that the origin of suffering is ignorance. All sin and evil acts have their home in ignorance better stated in the unawareness of their reality. Now if you don’t seek deeply you will find that most monks teach that the Buddha realized that the origin of suffering is attachment, craving, and grasping, which are symptoms of ignorance.
Now some Buddhists and I must say not the Dalai Lama think that the origin of suffering is desire. This not correct it is not desire that is the origin of our suffering but misguided desire. The special on Buddhism on public television they asked the Dalai Lama the cause of suffering and he nailed it. He also stated correctly that without desire meaning a longing for knowledge we would not advance as a soul.
This was one of my interesting discoveries with Buddhism; most Buddhist including most Buddhist monks confuse symptoms with origins, as does most of the world.
“He assures us there are no ghosts, no "evil" spirits.”
If you are referring to me as nice it is not about being nice that I make these statements but they come from my research and of course a realization and a few discoveries and a lot of help from the other side. And to set the record straight I never said there were no ghosts or evil spirits you implied that because you have yet to think deeply about the perfection of infinite reality. Infinite reality is very seldom discussed in religion or even with the paranormal folks. We in the world judge by appearances, which is phenomena, this is why the world thinks evil exists as a reality.
Must go deep into the attributes of infinite to find its perfection as being mandatory for infinite to be infinite. And in the reality of infinite there is no evil. There is Isness and Isness has no evil within it. If you think that evil exists as a reality then you are still feeling separate from this Isness most call God. The ego is very deceptive and will convince moment by moment we are separate from and not expressions of this Isness.
Think of it this way at the core of our being which is Isness there is no evil. Now ask yourself why ignorance even exists? The answer to that question will reveal much to you. One thing it will reveal is that evil is not a reality but a phenomenon.
We humans do this all the time when someone states something outside of our paradigm we immediately reject it without doing our research or meditation or asking for clarification. It is the nature of the human experience and even the soul’s experience in these lower dimensions.
Posted by: william | April 24, 2010 at 11:00 AM
"If you think that evil exists as a reality then you are still feeling separate from this Isness most call God. The ego is very deceptive and will convince moment by moment we are separate from and not expressions of this Isness."
Yes all that's true. But we need an ego to live in this world, and therefore we experience ourselves as separate. We experience conflict because each of us has our needs to fill, and our needs conflict with the needs of others, and so on.
We live in this world, even though we are expressions of the infinite. Buddhism and Christianity are world-rejecting religions. You can be a monk but you can't be successful in this world if you are a real Buddhist or Christian.
The Buddha and Jesus both said this world sucks and we are getting out as soon as possible.
Posted by: realpc | April 24, 2010 at 12:04 PM
I've now read a fair number of the stories posted on the link Sam provided. For those who don't remember, it's a link to a site that collects personal testimony about taking ayahuasca, a psychedelic potion made from a tropical plant.
Some of the drug-takers did indeed see elves, fairies, and aliens. In the stories I read there was no mention of snakes.
A fair number of the drug-takers found the experience valuable, though it is not always clear why. I was surprised by the number of accounts that described the experience as terrifying, nightmarish, and hellish, yet ended with the person saying he intended to take ayahuasca again.
It's hard to escape the conclusion that some of these people have a substance abuse problem. One of them remarked in passing that he normally drinks five beers at a sitting so he "can feel the alcohol." Many of them smoke pot - in some cases they smoked it right after taking the ayahuasca potion.
The physical effects of ayahuasca can be awful. I've never read so many descriptions of vomiting - vomiting into buckets, into toilets, into trash cans. Explosive diarrhea is another common side effect. One person recommended wearing adult diapers while experimenting with the drug.
A college-age girl had an allergic reaction and had to be rushed to the hospital by EMTs. Her breathing stopped, but they were able to revive her. One particularly stupid and reckless person went out driving while under the influence of ayahuasca and undoubtedly endangered himself and others.
The more negative accounts often involve the drug-taker hugging the ground and moaning for hours, obsessed by feelings of doom and hopelessness, while tormented by constant vertiginous sensations and scary imagery. He loses all sense of time, feels the agony will never end, and just wants to die.
Even the so-called "good trips" often include markedly unpleasant physical and mental experiences. And it is not clear what kind of "enlightenment" proceeds from even the best experiences. Some people claim the drug cleared up a variety of emotional problems for them and made them feel more centered and more alive. But others say the drug *caused* emotional problems. One person said that after taking ayahuasca, he suffered severe depression and chronic panic attacks, a condition that was still ongoing when he wrote his account 14 months later.
Though ayahuasca may help certain people, it seems to me that the hazards outweigh the possible benefits. Personally, I would stay as far away from this drug (or any psychedelic drug) as possible. There are other ways of raising your consciousness. Meditation works, and you don't even need adult diapers!
Posted by: Michael Prescott | April 24, 2010 at 12:23 PM
I agree with you, realpc. and that is what I was saying about the difference between the shamanic images and the selected pleasant NDE images.
Buddhism and christianity are pie-in-the-sky, earthly life rejecting, utopian religions. Whereas shamanism is about spirituality while propagating life on earth....it's, well, earthy. It's all about jaguars and snakes and soaring eagles and dark impulses as well as tribal catharsis and success and ecstactic experience.
Whose afraid of the big bad wolf?
Maybe some people think they are above and beyond earthly life (I once did myself, fool that I am). Maybe some are above it allI don't know. I have never personally met a person who convinced that he'she really had transcended our fleshy world completely, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
Most of us are not on the monk's path. For us, there is evil for the reason RealPC mentions.
Posted by: Erich | April 24, 2010 at 12:24 PM
MP, I agree that those accounts read like a bunch of reckless drugies.
That style of use is, indeed, hazardous. It gives responsible use a bad name.
Posted by: Erich | April 24, 2010 at 12:27 PM
“The Buddha and Jesus both said this world sucks and we are getting out as soon as possible.”
The Buddha lived and taught for 45 years after his realization out of compassion for others suffering. Jesus teachings were so profound they put him to death as they would today if he returned and taught the same teachings.
Ask yourself what would the teachings of Jesus be about our materialistic culture, our 720 military bases around the world, about rich men getting into heaven, etc. the religious leaders in a flash would reject him.
The world is a schoolhouse and imperfect so were would you go to school if the world was not imperfect. We learn light from darkness. The Adam and Eve story hints at that but few in the world see the reality of yea shall be as gods knowing good from evil. What tree did they eat from and why did they need to eat from that tree to be as gods?
The earth experience has profound meaning or it would not exist. Isness does not make mistakes but if we judge by appearances it sure looks like physical life is a mistake.
“Buddhism and Christianity are pie-in-the-sky, earthly life rejecting, utopian religions”
Their teachings are anything but pie in the sky earthly life rejecting religions. Both have their place in teaching us the divine implications of our lives. Their teachings have been misunderstood to a great degree.
Almost all followers of Buddhist and the teachings of Jesus have misunderstood and often misrepresented their teachings.
Posted by: william | April 24, 2010 at 12:54 PM
I forgot to reply to this:
"most people who are abducted by aliens did nothing to induce the experience. So this theory seems very wrong." - realpc
DMT is produced naturally by the body in minute quantities, so it is at least possible that so-called abduction experiences are triggered by DMT. There's no proof of this, but the similarity of some DMT-evoked imagery to the imagery of abduction scenarios suggests a possible link.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | April 24, 2010 at 02:58 PM
OK. I've mostly been sitting on the sidelines during this discussion of psychedelics. But I can't any longer. Why? Because we need to talk about the one person whose work with these substances simply can't be dismissed, perhaps even by you Michael. :o) And that person is Stanislav Grof.
Michael, please, please, read one of his books: perhaps the Holotropic Mind, or the Adventure of Self Discovery, or best of all—The Cosmic Game.
In his works you'll find a beautiful balance:
• between experiences that are painful, and those that are ecstatic.
• between the psychological and the spiritual
You may not agree with him, but Grof explains why psychedelics often produce painful experiences. And why those experiences can be healing.
And you'll come to a clearer understanding of how these substances can, and are being used, by knowledgeable practitioners to further spiritual and, I would say—scientific—understanding.
I've read perhaps hundreds of books on metaphysical topics. The Cosmic Game, for me, is the clearest exposition of how it all works.
The book is not about psychedelics. It IS about altered states of consciousness. Grof has a deep understanding of how altered states have been achieved and used by civilizations of all periods and in all parts of the world. It gathers the insights of those experiences and uses them to grapple most elegantly with the "problems" of pain and evil, and why they simply have to be present, in some measure, to create a universe that provides interest, meaning, and rich opportunities for ecstatic self-discovery.
Michael, if you read the Cosmic Game and still question the spiritual value of the sorts of states engendered by psychedelics, I'll eat my hat.
And it's dirty (my hat, that is.)
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | April 24, 2010 at 02:59 PM
William, I am sure both Jesus and Buddha would not have anything good to say about 720 military bases.
But the fact remains, despite Jesus and Buddha, we have 720 military bases and the service men and women that are stationed at them (including my son and daughter) are sometimes called to go to war; hopefully - though unfortunately not always - to defend some down trodden people that are being murdered and otherwise oppressed by some maniac aggressor or to defend our own society which, though far from ideal, is a heck of a lot better than those that have threatened it (esp WW2, for example).
I think it's asking a lot of people to accept being thrown into concentration camps and machine gunned as a "lesson" in life's schoolhouse. Most people would simply see what was happening as being evil. Period. In fact, I think it would be crule and arrogant to suggest otherwise to them.
This thing, this aphorism, "It's all a lesson", "It's all a part of God's plan"......I just can't relate. It's faith based utopianism to me. Maybe sometimes stuff just happens. Maybe sometimes we are just pawns in some higher forces' game.
This is a difference between shamanism and what I argue is utopian religion. The utopian says, "accept the suffering. It's lesson from God" and the shaman says, "let's see what powers are at play here and let's see if we can re-align so that things can be better".
Furthermore, recognizing the realities of life on earth, the shaman provides spiritual preparedness for the warrior for battle and then a cleaning of his soul post battle.
Jesus and Buddha can talk all they want to about the golden rule and peace and love, desire causing suffering, etc, etc, but I think that anyone who wouldn't pick up a weapon to defend a woman or a child is a fool and a coward.
Maybe it is the dharma of some to sit on the mountain top and contemplate while the world of men does its thing. Maybe it is the dharma of others to preach lofty ideals. I am certain that it is the dharma of others to spill blood in defense of the weak, the innocent and the decent.
Posted by: Erich | April 24, 2010 at 03:02 PM
Bruse, yes. Grof. That is what I am talking about. I have talked to the man and I have great respect for his work.
Posted by: Erich | April 24, 2010 at 03:05 PM
"Ask yourself what would the teachings of Jesus be about our materialistic culture, our 720 military bases around the world, about rich men getting into heaven, etc."
Jesus didn't teach anything about how to survive and thrive in this world. He was not interested in this world. He knew there was something beyond this world that he wanted for himself and his followers. Fine, I can sympathize with that. But don't pretend his teachings can be applied to this world. They cannot. We have military bases because if we didn't someone else would. We have terrible weapons because smart people invented them.
William, you complain that everyone who disagrees with your interpretation of Buddhism and Christianity is ignorant or hasn't thought as deeply as you. But maybe you just need to believe you understand things that no one understands. Maybe we're right and you're wrong, or maybe we're all wrong, or maybe we're all right in different ways.
Posted by: realpc | April 24, 2010 at 04:35 PM
"There's no proof of this, but the similarity of some DMT-evoked imagery to the imagery of abduction scenarios suggests a possible link. "
Or maybe they were really abducted.
Posted by: realpc | April 24, 2010 at 04:37 PM
"Jesus and Buddha can talk all they want to about the golden rule and peace and love, desire causing suffering, etc, etc, but I think that anyone who wouldn't pick up a weapon to defend a woman or a child is a fool and a coward.
Maybe it is the dharma of some to sit on the mountain top and contemplate while the world of men does its thing. Maybe it is the dharma of others to preach lofty ideals. I am certain that it is the dharma of others to spill blood in defense of the weak, the innocent and the decent."
Amen to all that Erich. The older religions accepted this life as it is and tried to deal with it. If we want to have a good experience here on earth we must be able to defend ourselves.
Jesus did not defend himself. He did not teach self defense. Yet self defense, and self love, is just as important as compassion. What good is your compassion if you allow yourself to be destroyed?
Modern Christianity is not what Jesus taught. Because what Jesus taught is not practical. We can take parts of it -- the importance of faith in God, of treating others as fairly as possible, for example.
But to be a person in this world you must defend yourself. And your nation must defend itself. Our wars are terrible mainly because humans are clever and naturally apply their cleverness to creating better weapons than the other guys.
Einstein wanted the atom bomb developed to defeat Hitler. No one can blame him for that. Afterwards he became a pacifist. But what could a pacifist have done to stop Hitler? Nothing. And there always have been and always will be Hitlers.
Posted by: realpc | April 24, 2010 at 04:48 PM
MP and all,
I apologize for posting so many comments. I have been putting up fencing for a new pasture all day and posting comments on breaks as I have been thinking about the topic. As the fence project finished my thoughts gelled and I'd like to present my definitive thought on the questions poese by our host.
I have been following this blog for some time now. Whenever the nature of life after death is discussed it is typically described as being much like this life, albeit more expansive to dergrees. Zerdini states that his experiences with mediumship describe a spirit world where everything we know in this life is present.
The key point is that survival post mortem is discussed as pertaining to the maintenance of the individual personality and its beliefs and thoughts and habits.
I am sure that this is true in most cases. I don't doubt what Zerdini and others say about this. I have seen some of this first hand myself.
Psychedelic shamanism is not like that at all. It is an entirely different thing; almost the antithesis. I don't think there is really a comparison to be made.
Psychedelics are about the dissolution of the ego. That is what a powerful dose of psychedelics does. It destroys the individual identity and propels what awareness remains into the abyss of infinity. Quickly and without mercy. One's habits, beliefs and attitudes are challenged, forcefully at times. At other times they are examined objectively and become the subject matter for much hilarity.
For this reason psychedelics can be very very frightening to some; worse so than death, apparently. For the same reason psychedelics can be very healing. It's a double edge sword.
Zerdini type images of the afterlife (which, again, I don't doubt are real) seem very boring and very unenlightening to me. There's some guy, who in life, worked as a fisherman and liked whiskey sours and there he is in the spirit realm drinking whiskey and catching fish. The guy is still locked into the same old ho hum mind set.
Now, take an intelligent, educated, mature and prepared individual and give him a powerful psychedelic. Under the influence he is propelled beyond the bounds of his own thoughts and beliefs. There is no stopping it. He is wide awake and cannot hide (you can't "sleep off" a psychedelic). He directly experiences something beyond his every day ho hum thought forms. He experiences something even beyond his most sophisticated and biggest thoughts. Afterward, he is able to remember something of what he experienced and is, thus, open to the possibility of real internal change and, if sufficiently possessed of energy and mental stability, can begin to strive for those new vistas that he has seen. Grof, I think, would agree with this. It is why he and I like psychedelics.
In sum, the NDE experience (and probably death itself) is just the same old person shedding his/her physical body and moving into a new realm of existance. The psychedelic experience is a shedding of the personality itself.
So, is the psychedelic experience somehow "bad" or "wrong" or "evil"?
I think not, if used by the right people, under the right circumstances, for the right reasons, in the right spirit.
It's funny that the question regarding the potential evil of psychedelics was asked because there are many people (myself included) who cannot see where the god that condemned Adam and Eve and the snake brings any enlightenment whatsoever.
The Ten Commandments are no big deal. Any mid-level civil servant tasked with increasing societal cohesion and tranquility could have come up with those. Other than that the OT offers little more than a "we are the chosen people" version of Jewish history. At best, I could care less, personally. Sometimes I think the OT is evil because it's tennants are causing war to this very day.
Then a few thousand years later we get Jesus. Cool guy, but I don't see where his message is so unique or geniuse. It is basic common sense and decency practiced by good folks all over the globe in all times and expresses the very same sentiments that are often endgendered by psychedelics and/or several other religions.
So what is this "true enlightenment" that is being lost through use of psychedelics? What are we talking about? Maybe someone can, well, enlighten me.....define the terms, please.
Are we trying to say that true enlightment only brings bliss and peace? Where does come from? Why do we accept it? How do we know it is true? Why would it be true?
Even Jesus said that following his path would cause personal strife, turn brother against brother, lead to torture and physical death.
Posted by: Erich | April 24, 2010 at 08:08 PM
Well said, Erich.
Posted by: Sam | April 24, 2010 at 08:40 PM
and a final point from me, psilocybe mushrooms do not cause vomitting or diarhea. Peyote does does cause vomitting (only) in some people in the initial onset of the experience, but not in all (I never experienced even nausea myself). LSD has neither of these effects.
I suppose that if some juvenile idiots were to eat junk food, drink a bunch of beer and ingest who knows what other drugs pior to or during the ingestion of psychedelic plants, that some physical illness would occur.
And who knows if these dolts in that database were even mixing the right things in the right ways.
I don't know anything about ayahuasca other than what I've read. It seems that even in the absence of stupid behavior unpleasant physical side effects are sometimes caused by the MAO inhibiting additives; not the DMT.
There are ample readily available published positive accounts of responsible psychedelic use that we shouldn't allow the antics of some young and dangerously silly dope heads determine our opinion on the topic.
Posted by: Erich | April 24, 2010 at 08:48 PM
"I have been putting up fencing for a new pasture all day"
An ironic backdrop for this discussion. For me, the essence of psychedelics is that they somehow eliminate all barriers and divisions.
"psilocybe mushrooms do not cause vomitting "
After my first 7 or 8 experiences I would have agreed with you. After my next several, I had a different opinion entirely. So (for the time being, at least) I'm an abstainer. But a fond, fond, rememberer.
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | April 24, 2010 at 10:01 PM
Thanks for the recommendation, Bruce. I've just bought a digital copy of The Holotropic Mind. I chose that one because it was the only one of Grof's books available for my Sony Reader. I've gotten addicted to ebooks and really resist buying physical books if I can avoid it!
Posted by: Michael Prescott | April 24, 2010 at 10:30 PM
"There are ample readily available published positive accounts of responsible psychedelic use that we shouldn't allow the antics of some young and dangerously silly dope heads determine our opinion on the topic."
Well, that was the database that was recommended to me, so it's the one I looked at.
"Other than that the OT offers little more than a 'we are the chosen people' version of Jewish history."
I think you drastically underestimate the Hebrew prophets - Isaiah, Amos, Hosea, et al. - whose message was truly revolutionary in its day. Edith Hamilton's "Spokesmen for God" makes this case very well.
"a few thousand years later we get Jesus. Cool guy, but I don't see where his message is so unique or genius. It is basic common sense and decency"
A little historical context is required here. Look at the prevailing moral standards of the Roman Empire. It was an era of casual brutality and the naked, unashamed pursuit of power. The prevailing ethic (outside Judaism) was that the strong should take everything, and the weak deserve to suffer. We might think of it as a kind of proto-Darwinian ethic - survival of the cruelest. In the Roman world of AD 30, nothing could have been more startling or revolutionary than Jesus' teachings, or less connected to prevailing ideas of "common sense."
Some of Jesus' teaching seems like common sense today (even if it is still only inconsistently practiced) simply because of the immense cultural influence of Christianity. Though there were some strains of pagan thought (notably Stoicism) that promoted a kinder and gentler ethic, it took the success of Christianity to end practices like killing unwanted infants by exposure, feeding victims to wild animals for entertainment, forcing slaves to fight to the death in the arena, etc.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | April 24, 2010 at 10:50 PM
FYI, here's a nice little review of Hamilton's book:
http://tinyurl.com/29hq3u9
Posted by: Michael Prescott | April 24, 2010 at 10:54 PM
"I've just bought a digital copy of The Holotropic Mind."
I'm so pleased—you're in for a treat! I remember my excitement when I read Grof for the first time and envy you that experience. I look forward to hearing what you have to say.
"I've gotten addicted to ebooks and really resist buying physical books if I can avoid it!"
I enjoy reading books on my iPod Touch, but only ones that I don't think I'll be taking notes on, because it's not good for that. My favorite books are plastered, inside the front and back covers, with notes and quotations to help me find my way back to memorable passages.
Can you do that, somehow, with your Sony Reader?
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | April 24, 2010 at 11:56 PM
During normal consciousness, I am aware of what is around me via a series of physical processes. The light hits the eye, the signal is sent to the brain, the signal is processed… These physical systems act as filters to the experience.
In the OBE experience I was freed of the material 'filters' of my perception.
In the LSD experience I was fascinated by the material 'filters' of my perception.
These are very different experiences.
The psychedelics altered the experience by altering the filters. So for example, the color green might appear luminescent. The color orange might have a sound associated with it. Sometimes people will see afterimages more clearly than usual (trailers). Change a few filters and a kaleidoscope of effects might be achieved.
In the OBE experience the awareness of the physical is stripped of these filters, The experience is similar to the normal, but by all accounts is at least 'somewhat indescribable.'
I'm no better about describing.
Posted by: sonic | April 25, 2010 at 12:27 AM
“But don't pretend his teachings can be applied to this world.”
You proved my point his teachings would not be applied to this world if he returned to this world with the same teachings. He taught these teachings during the time of roman occupation.
The idea that if we don’t have military bases then someone else would is interesting reasoning. Kind of like if I don’t cheat someone out of their money someone else would. Do you have any idea how many people in the world rationalize their behavior with such reasoning?
“But maybe you just need to believe you understand things that no one understands.”
Personally I think we humans understand very little including myself about the underlying reality of phenomena.
Understanding is very rare at this stage of the human evolutionary process, most of what we dialog on is knowledge not understanding. Understanding comes to us through a revelation that leads to a realization. Understanding is in the same room as a knowing beyond knowing. Knowledge is knowing about something. World of difference between understanding and knowledge.
As far as ignorant if we were not ignorant we would not exist as a perceived separate expression of Isness. Think about whom you would be without any ignorance and had perfect awareness of reality.
The ego hates the idea of its ignorance it would much rather be called sinful even evil but not ignorant. Why is that?
It is a natural part of the journey of the soul in human form to view Ignorance as a negative without realizing that without some level of Ignorance there is no soul just Isness that most call God. We owe our existence to our ignorance, which is simply our level of unawareness.
Without our imperfections we would not be distinguishable from the Infinite. Our imperfections define us as unique individualized expressions of Infinite as does our knowledge.
“And there always have been and always will be Hitlers.”
Hitler had a willing following and that was the message of Jesus and Buddha and others don’t be a willing following of the Hitler’s of the world.
Posted by: william | April 25, 2010 at 12:35 AM
that was the message of Jesus and Buddha and others don’t be a willing following of the Hitler’s of the world.
Assuming that such a person (Jesus) actually existed he is alleged to have said:
"And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men."
Posted by: Zerdini | April 25, 2010 at 02:21 AM
Erich: Zerdini type images of the afterlife (which, again, I don't doubt are real) seem very boring and very unenlightening to me. There's some guy, who in life, worked as a fisherman and liked whiskey sours and there he is in the spirit realm drinking whiskey and catching fish. The guy is still locked into the same old ho hum mind set.
Where did I suggest that sort of scenario?
The spirit realms (which are infinite and beyond comprehension) contain all types of individuals.
What I tried to convey is that death does not automatically and instantly confer enlightenment. We are the same one minute after passing as we were one minute before. It is all perfectly natural and normal.
The idea of psychedelic-induced enlightenment sounds boring and unnecessary to me.
Posted by: Zerdini | April 25, 2010 at 02:33 AM
I'd like to make a couple of comments. One, the whiskey-drinking fisherman image and "ho hum mindset" seems an unnecessary put-down of the earthly life and its satisfactions, to me. Why should someone not continue simple pleasures in Spirit? And who is to say one won't develop, learn, grow, at one's own pace, over there? It's not like cramming for an exam. There's all of time and more.
Two, all the New Agers I know - and I guess plenty of people would call me one, since I do Reiki and have been to a few mediums - are a very long way from being dismissive or foofy about the subject of evil. They're very well aware of the potential dangers of spirits, be they human, formerly human, or never human. It's more a case of also knowing that there are protective spirits out there who are more than willing to help if they're asked, of taking care and not doing stupid things (like playing with Ouija boards).
Sure, I don't doubt there are people who are daft enough to think it's all safe and nobody can get hurt, but that's true of many things. I'd just like to knock the "New Ager = gormless idiot" image that's coming through in some of these posts.
As for psychedelics - I wouldn't touch them. Ever.
Posted by: Louise | April 25, 2010 at 04:55 AM
"I've just bought a digital copy of The Holotropic Mind."
---------------------------------------
"I'm so pleased—you're in for a treat! I remember my excitement when I read Grof for the first time and envy you that experience. I look forward to hearing what you have to say." - Bruce
--------------------------------------------
I bought a used copy of The Holotropic Mind by Grof a few weeks ago but haven't read it yet. I'm presently reading a book called "God in Real Life" by Kevin Todeschi. It's about different people's experiences with the divine. It is pretty good. I'd give it at least a B+. It's not as life altering as The Holographic Universe was when I first read it but it's got some interesting stories that I haven't read before.
A lot of books I read seem to be rehashing of the same stories over and over again. A few months ago I read The Art of Dying by Dr. Peter Fenwick and it was excellent. It's got quite a few death bed visions in it which I really enjoy.
So thank you for the heads up about The Holotropic Mind by Grof. I'm just about finished with "God in Real Life" so after I finish this book I'll read The Holotropic Mind. I'm sure I'll enjoy it because I'm a huge holographic universe fan and Talbot's book is my Bible.
Posted by: Art | April 25, 2010 at 05:09 AM
Zerdini, I apologize if I have misrepresented your statements concerning the conditions and activities in the afterlife. I wasn't my intention to do so. Rather, I was using your name as sort of an amalgamation of perspectives because I think you are knowledgeable and vocal on the topic. I shouldn't have done that.
That being said, you have stated that whatever we have in this life exists on the other side as well and have offered some mundane examples. So I got the impression that you would totally disagree with the fisherman and whiskey scenario.
Louise, no put down intended, though I see how you could interpret it that way. I'm no spiritual snob and I enjoy fish and whiskey myself. I was attempting to present an obvious dischotomy. The personality can survive death with all of its habits in tact. However, the psychedelic experience can - almost forces - an examination and house cleaning. See Timothy Leary's early Harvard experiments wherein he used psilocybine to reduce recidivism among convicted criminals via the ego cleaning effect of the drug.
Yes, people advance at their pace. The psychedelic experience is not for those given by nature to advancing at a slow pace.
Posted by: Erich | April 25, 2010 at 05:41 AM
"....that you would totally disagree with the fisherman and whiskey scenario."
arggghhhh.....should read ".....would NOT totally disagree...."
Posted by: Erich | April 25, 2010 at 05:43 AM
Zerdini, I apologize if I have misrepresented your statements concerning the conditions and activities in the afterlife. I wasn't my intention to do so. Rather, I was using your name as sort of an amalgamation of perspectives because I think you are knowledgeable and vocal on the topic. I shouldn't have done that.
That being said, you have stated that whatever we have in this life exists on the other side as well and have offered some mundane examples. So I got the impression that you would totally disagree with the fisherman and whiskey scenario.
Louise, no put down intended, though I see how you could interpret it that way. I'm no spiritual snob and I enjoy fish and whiskey myself. I was attempting to present an obvious dischotomy. The personality can survive death with all of its habits in tact. However, the psychedelic experience can - almost forces - an examination and house cleaning. See Timothy Leary's early Harvard experiments wherein he used psilocybine to reduce recidivism among convicted criminals via the ego cleaning effect of the drug.
Yes, people advance at their pace. The psychedelic experience is not for those given by nature to advancing at a slow pace.
Posted by: Erich | April 25, 2010 at 05:47 AM
weird, double post. I don't think I did anything to cause that.
anyhow, this Tim Leary link contains some good links re; beneficial aspects of psychedelics, including the successful Concord prison experiment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Leary
Leary does seem to have gone off the deep end later on; which is too bad because his early work was tarnished by that.
Posted by: Erich | April 25, 2010 at 05:51 AM
[A little historical context is required here. Look at the prevailing moral standards of the Roman Empire. It was an era of casual brutality and the naked, unashamed pursuit of power. The prevailing ethic (outside Judaism) was that the strong should take everything, and the weak deserve to suffer. We might think of it as a kind of proto-Darwinian ethic - survival of the cruelest. In the Roman world of AD 30, nothing could have been more startling or revolutionary than Jesus' teachings, or less connected to prevailing ideas of "common sense."]
That is not fair or unbiased. Basic morality has been found in all human cultures. And so has cruelty. Every human culture -- and every animal culture for that matter -- has something like the ten commandments. It was not original. It's just that it survived in written form. You can't assume that pagans in general were any less moral than the Hebrews or Israelites. Yahweh instructed Moses to lead the Hebrews to steal other people's land.
Of course it was survival of the strongest; it always has been. The teachings of Jesus are about giving up, about accepting defeat in this world and aiming at something eternal.
The old and new testaments did NOT introduce morality and compassion into this world! People, and social animals, have always been compassionate toward members of their group.
Christianity may have made us feel more guilt, but it has not made us treat each other any better. Because we can't treat each other better -- we already do our best, within the limits of reality.
In short, it is a TOTAL MYTH that we are morally superior to the ancients or primitives. Cruelty is, and has always been, a part of our nature, and so is compassion. Depending on what is called for by the social context, we express one or the other.
The difference between us and the primitives is that now our social groups are enormous and our culture is extremely complex. There is just as much hatred now as ever, probably more. And the hatred does not come from ignorance. It comes from the essential nature dichotomy of love vs. hatred. You can't have one without the other.
Christianity is NOT about being nice. That is a fallacy. Christianity is about freeing your spirit from earthly attachments, resentments, guilt and passions, so you can ascend to something higher. Just like Buddhism.
Buddhism and Christianity came about at around the same time. I think it was because civilization was becoming overly complex and dangerous and a lot of people wanted to opt out.
Posted by: realpc | April 25, 2010 at 07:33 AM
This is a great thread on a great site- thanks Michael and all.
There is risk in everything, including playing it safe. In the right set and setting, with a basically healthy body and mind, psychedelics are an amazing tool- they really do give a glimpse beyond our usual parameters and ego boundaries. Even John Hopkins University has said as much in studies, re. mushrooms anyway. The potential benefits greatly outweigh the risks if done properly by the right person, in the right set and setting.
Having said that, I way overdid it as a kid- I had no guidance, no container- and my friends and I did hundreds of trips that way. Yet, even so, I know of no real damage done amongst us.
If we find a way to facilitate these experiences relatively safely, we must do so. Why? Because at this juncture, human evolution is so desperately needed that the benefits greatly outweigh the risks. Greatly! The anti-structural nature of psychedelics is both it's great power and at times great danger- but mostly to ego, and mostly to that aspect of ego that needs to let go, loosen up a bit.
When their use is put into a healthy container, with the intention to deepen one's awareness and ability to love, they become a tool that we marginalize at our own peril, IMO. Really, every healthy person owes it to themselves to take mushrooms on a beautiful day in nature in a safe place with someone they love who's grounded and has had the experience. OMG!
Google the Johns Hopkins study!
Posted by: Tharpa | April 25, 2010 at 07:37 AM
“The teachings of Jesus are about giving up, about accepting defeat in this world and aiming at something eternal.”
Isn’t it interesting I see it as completely different. The teachings of Jesus and to some extent Buddha are not about giving up but seeing the world in a whole new light. Be in the world but not of the world is not giving up but seeing the underlying reality of the phenomena that we take as reality.
I was thinking about your comments this morning about evil being a reality. Maybe this will make sense maybe not. If sin and evil were a reality and not just temporal phenomena then it would exist in these higher dimensions a soul passes through on its upward journey to greater levels of understanding reality. All sin and evil have their origin in ignorance; the less the ignorance the less the sins and evil.
Now ask yourself what is the origin of this ignorance? What is the meaning of its existence? Finding the answer will change your view of sin and evil.
Christianity may have made us feel more guilt, but it has not made us treat each other any better”
This is a most interesting comment as indeed most religions make us feel more guilt. Humans take to guilt like a duck takes to water. Why is that? This statement even gets more difficult to have knowledge of than the evil as phenomena idea. Guilt is self-confirmatory to the ego. It is a gold mine for the religious institutions. Teach guilt and people will line up to attend your services and even pay money to be made to feel guilty. Not all people of course.
“Christianity is NOT about being nice. That is a fallacy. Christianity is about freeing your spirit from earthly attachments, resentments, guilt and passions, so you can ascend to something higher. Just like Buddhism.”
This in my mind is a most correct statement. I would say soul not spirit but never the less from my point of view the earth experience is needed to advance in love and intelligence. Kindergarten so to speak. Now those attachments, resentments, and guilt have as their underlying reality an unawareness of reality. A synonym for unawareness is ignorance.
“Cruelty is, and has always been, a part of our nature, and so is compassion.”
Compassion is rare very rare on the human level almost nonexistent. Now there is sympathy and empathy, which are prerequisites to compassion. Compassion is based in understanding not a feeling for someone. At the human level we have little understanding of the underlying reality of phenomena therefore compassion is rare. If one is able to travel through these higher dimensions they will experience compassion and come to realize compassion is almost nonexistent on the dimension of earth.
“There is just as much hatred now as ever, probably more. And the hatred does not come from ignorance. It comes from the essential nature dichotomy of love vs. hatred. You can't have one without the other.”
All hatred has as its origin ignorance no exceptions. The relative phenomenal world is about variation not dualistic contrary to popular teachings. A soul can have one without the other in these higher dimensions where there is a greater level of love and compassion. If one hates others they do not move on to these higher dimensions. They stay put so to speak until they work through their hatred. They overcome their ignorance. Maybe this link will help.
http://www.gurusoftware.com/GuruNet/Creation/Related.htm
Posted by: william | April 25, 2010 at 08:43 AM
Ask yourself realpc, which came first ignorance or man? When we find an answer to that question it will reveal to us the origin of our ignorance indeed the necessity of our ignorance as a necessary “process” of developing every soul unique as infinite expressions of this infinite Isness that most call God.
Hint: quote from the link in previous post: “Ignorance Born of Creation
Ignorance has its root in the very process of the creation of the universe. When Supermind began the process of dividing the Spirit through the division of the Force to create distinct forms and entities, Ignorance took root.”
This link touches on the very origin of ignorance but misses the initial process of how unique souls are manifested. But as close as I can find in a book or on the net.
Must we take responsibility for our ignorance? The ego sure wants to. Why is that that the ego is so determined to take responsibility for our ignorance? What is the ego’s agenda? These are questions that I find few people in the world ask.
With all the strive and suffering in the world one would think we would ask the origin of that sin, evil, suffering and human struggles. Well the Buddha did and what did he discover? Even Socrates and Plato taught that the origin of sin and evil was ignorance. Why have their teachings not been accepted for over 2000 years?
Posted by: william | April 25, 2010 at 09:25 AM
As a psychologist practicing for over 30 years I have found much misunderstanding and fear in our cultures response to altered states of consciousness. Altered states go back into mankinds' deep past and were used by shamans, priests, mystics, spiritual adepts, and avatars as a way to describe realities that lay behind and beyond this reality. Drumming, breathing techniques, fasting, meditation, and plants have all been used to access these states. Plant knowledge(and now in the West synthetic psychedelics) are an extremely powerful tool for exploration. These plants are sometimes called Entheogens and as the name indicates shouldn't be trifled with.
Christopher Bache, a professor at Youngstown State University, has written an excellent book on the judicious use of LSD therapy while in Switzerland. He describes his own experience of working through the karmic path of the human race and explored both heavenly, blissful,cosmic unity states as well as numerous hell realms that he entered. He saw the hell realms as manifestations of both the deep Shadow sides of conscious reality both individually and as collective human karma. The hell realms were absolutely essential in his journey. They allowed him to shine the light of Awareness on the dark shadow elements(Jungian use here) of his and own and the collective unconscious. The book is titled Steps to a Deep Ecology of Mind: Dark Night, Early Dawn with a foreward by Stan Grov.
Plant and synthetic conscious altering substances require a deep reverence for wisdom and learning, a solid ego structure to help contain extremely powerful life changing experiences and perceptions, a good teacher/mentor who is at or above the level of consciousness of the person ingesting these substances, proper set and setting, and only using other substances recommended by the teacher/mentor. These are not party drugs to be taken on a whim by poorly individuated egos and mentally fragile subjects ! They should be taken with sacramental reverence and the firm knowledge that although they be a bumpy ride, a great deal of what lies beyond the narrow perception of everyday life and the creative power of our own consciousness can be revealed. What we bring back to this reality after the experience relies directly upon the individual's level of awareness and psycho-spiritual vocabulary. Psychedelics do not cleanse our shadows. That takes individual work but they can act as pointers toward where the work must go by showing us their power and influence in the human psyche.
The "Dark Night of the Soul" is always a part of the journey awaiting the spiritual awakening of the individual and ultimately the collective consciousness. Until we face these forces in ourselves, we'll continue to live in the ego fear-based separate psyche that creates apparent evil events.
Posted by: rick49 | April 25, 2010 at 09:46 AM
rick49, Yes. Exactly. Well said.
This topic interests me greatly and I continue to think about this discussion we are having while I do farm chores.
I am beginning to see a lot of prejudice against mind altering drugs here. We have this weird taboo against them in our society. Weirder still because DMT is everywhere; including in our own bodies. Psilocybine (of the mushrooms) is basically DMT with a few minor molecular tweaks.
None of the traditional spiritualists here have yet answered my question as to why they think "enlightment" is only about beauty, love, peace, etc and not about indifferent entities that some have seen while on psychedelics.
I as far as I have seen, no one has even produced a working definition of "enlightenment". I'm sure it must mean different things to different people and I become a little concerned when people start saying that their version of enlightenment is superior to anothers. That almost sounds "unenligtened" to me.
There are some here that are beginning to sound very dogmatic about what constitutes "spirituality" and "enlightenment".
I also agree with what Tharpa said.
We enhance our natural abilities through use of tools every day.
are tools for exploration of awareness and they are unequaled in this regard.
Meditation is fine, but it simply will not take you where the psychedelics do unless, perhaps, you practice diligently for years; even then, meditation fails to produce the kind of results that the plants do.
Posted by: Erich | April 25, 2010 at 11:14 AM
"Can you do that, somehow, with your Sony Reader?"
I have an older version of the Reader. Its only capability in that regard is to set bookmarks. You can't write notes.
There are newer models out now, which may allow you to annotate. I haven't looked at them, but I think one of them has a touchscreen, which might imply some kind of virtual keyboard.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | April 25, 2010 at 11:32 AM
"Basic morality has been found in all human cultures. And so has cruelty. Every human culture -- and every animal culture for that matter -- has something like the ten commandments."
I'm focused more on the writings of the Hebrew prophets than the Ten Commandments. Amos, Hosea, Isaiah and some of the other prophets did have a radically new and challenging message which shaped our modern conception of morality.
The Ten Commandments are a relatively simplistic and superficial code by comparison. There are parallels to the Ten Commandments in the Code of Hammurabi and no doubt in other ancient documents, but I don't know of any parallels to the insights of Isaiah and company, except possibly the writings of Confucius and Lao Tzu. (I don't know enough about Asian religion and philosophy to say.)
No doubt there have been people who tried to be nice and decent in any society, but the *prevailing* ethic in pagan Rome was the worship of masculine strength and power. That's why Gibbon admired the pagans so much; he admired their frank reverence for power, and he disdained Christianity's supposedly effeminate influence. Nietzsche felt the same way, preferring the old pagan virtues (as he saw them) to the supposed softness and weakness of Christianity.
The message "Turn the other cheek" would have been utterly alien to most Romans, whose ethic was just the opposite: If you're hit, hit back twice as hard. They demonstrated this ethic in their subjugation of other peoples. As Virgil boasted, Rome's destiny was to "war down the proud."
Bruno Heller, one of the creators of HBO's series "Rome," had this to say in an interview: "Certain things are repressed in our culture, like the open enjoyment of others' pain, the desire to make people submit to your will, the guilt-free use of slaves ... This was all quite normal to the Romans."
Indeed it was, and it reflects a different conception of morality than the one inculcated by the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | April 25, 2010 at 11:54 AM
Yes Christianity is a completely different conception of morality. As I said, Jesus taught his followers not to defend themselves or their possessions. He taught them not to care about their families, or about being successful or respected in this life. Being rewarded in this life means not being rewarded in the next, according to Jesus.
So yes that was completely different. But different is not necessarily better. You imply that it's wrong to admire worldly success, and masculine strength and power. I don't think it's wrong. I think that is a natural part of life, although it does need to be balanced by feminine nurturing and empathy.
But we, and all social animals, have always needed our warriors to defend us. Because every group must maintain its space. Just as an electron repels other electrons, to maintain its space, so the universe doesn't collapse on itself.
We are so conditioned to see masculine power as cruel and immoral. But it is NOT cruel or immoral when contained within its proper context.
Cultures can become sick and depraved. Or you may hear about the sick and depraved aspects of a culture. But it is wrong to see us as morally superior. It is just wrong. We are more prone to guilt and hypocrisy, but I do not believe we are better.
It is deeply ingrained in our nature to feel superior in some way to someone. We are always looking for signs that we are superior to other animals, to other civilizations, to other ideological groups. We are not superior; we are just different.
Posted by: realpc | April 25, 2010 at 01:07 PM
Thanks Erich,
We appear to be like minded on the subject. I ingested LSD 3 times in the early 1970's and even as a young man, not quite individuated at the time, I found the experiences to be of utmost importance and mind opening from the standpoint of my own psycho-spiritual path. Yes,fear and anxiety were part of my experiences, but I was able through the guidance of my teacher, to see through these experiences as manifestations of the "primal knot" of fear and ego based belief systems transparently stacked up upon my psyche from childbirth and my own small self's fear of letting them go. These were valuable experiences and continue to unfold and shape my ability to interpret subsequent hardships and losses that accumulate through life 40 years hence. I consider my transpersonal psychedelic experiences as important guides for me and just as cleansing and therapeutic as 10 years worth of intense psychotherapy. I journaled those experiences at the time and even now when I read them they are like seeds fermenting and still growing as they provide provide new insights into my more mature spiritual awareness today.
As for the definition of Enlightenment...well that's been bandied about and romanticized for decades here in the West and appears to be somewhat distorted in the East too. My sense, in my own path, is that there is "no self" to enlighten. It is instead the gradual act of "self emptying" as in the Greek word kenosis and Sanskrit sunyatta. It's the "via negativa" of the "not this, not that" or "netti, netti" path. One cannot "do" Enlightenment. One must, through time and intention, empty oneself of all the beliefs, stories, concepts, and fantasies about life as taught through our families and culture and even abut the idea of being on a spiritual path. One then rests in the pleroma of empty-fullness of a Transegoic Being of "no ego, no story" awareness.
Entheogens are in the end only experiences but they are valuable experiences in that they reduce the student to a state of witnessing awareness that can blast away prior belief systems and concepts that inhibit growth potential and free up shadow material allowing for increased psychic energy and peace. How a person reaches a state of relative "no self", relatively free of concepts and illusions shared by most of mankind is highly individual and can only occur by a combination of intention and grace. Everyday life presents opportunities to learn, some small and covert, others large and obvious. Entheogens, like any altered experience, do not cause Enlightenment but can certainly blast open the tranparently encased belief systems and concepts that must be eliminated by introducing the infinite creative power of consciousness and the infinite realms and fields in which it manifests.
Posted by: rick49 | April 25, 2010 at 01:11 PM
MP, I have always thought that Modern USA is much like ancient Rome.
The Bush years reinforced that belief with our senseless colonial adventure into Iraq, general militarism (always present though from the destruction of the native inhabitants of this country to the "banana wars" in latin America to Vietnam), open power grabs by the wealthy on Wall St and in tax structure policy and so on and so forth.
Then there is the recent ploliferation and increased general acceptance of pornograghy, the gratuitous violence and sex in movies and other media outlets, rampant hedonistic consumerism and sky rocketing obesity rates.......where should I stop?
And the USA is one of the more progressive societies in the world.
I'm sorry, but I have to totally disagree that the OT or NT has made any difference in morality whatsoever in societies that have been exposed to them.
To the extent that the USA is progressive and "kinder and gentler" than Rome, I think the positive can be attributed to input of philospers like Locke, Hobbes and, especially, Adam Smith and the Free Masons with their ideology of liberty, fraternity and equality (many of the founding fathers were Free Masons. I am a member too; so I am not buying into conspiracy theory or that sort of thing).
I would also say that the only reason the USA is not as utterly and obviously imperialistic as Rome is that through military technological parity there are other players in the world that keep us in check.
Also the model of imperialism has changed in modern times to a more subtle form that has dominance acted out via briefcases belonging to international corpoations instead of bloody swords (most of the time).
In fact, upon the decline of the Soviet Union, there was a powerful and influencial cabal in Washington know as the "neocons" who advocated siezing the opportunity to assert US dominance all over the globe, by military presence when necessary.
Again, I am sorry, but I am unmoved by Hosea, et al. Just basic common sense morality that the prophet claims came straight from god ("thus saith the Lord"). I point to modern divorce rates. I suspect that they are higher than anything in the "pagan" world.
Posted by: Erich | April 25, 2010 at 01:25 PM
rick49, and thank you. We remain in complete agreement.
Posted by: Erich | April 25, 2010 at 01:30 PM
"But it is wrong to see us as morally superior. It is just wrong. We are more prone to guilt and hypocrisy, but I do not believe we are better."
Well, we don't practice slavery ... attend entertainments that involve slaves fighting to the death ... enjoy the spectacle of people being fed to wild animals ... leave babies in trash heaps to die of exposure ... or punish certain criminals by tying them up in a sack with a dog, a snake, a rooster, and an ape, and throwing the sack into the sea.
One of the amusements dreamed up by the Romans involved putting bucket-like helmets on slaves or criminals. The helmet covered the whole head and had no eyeholes, so the victim was blinded. Pairs of these men were chained together and sent into the arena with swords. They would flail wildly, hacking at each other while stumbling around, until both of them died from blood loss. The crowd roared with laughter. It was a great show.
When Nero wanted to punish Christians on trumped-up charges of starting a fire in Rome, he had them crucified, then covered in pitch and set afire (alive) to serve as lamps. Even some of his fellow Romans thought he might possibly have gone a little too far ... It just wasn't in good taste, you know.
I think we have made some progress since those days.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | April 25, 2010 at 01:35 PM
Rick49, would you be Rick Strassman by any chance? (Author of DMT: The Spirit Molecule, the book mentioned in Michael's current post, and possibly in other discussions here, too.) Your age, point of view, and depth of knowledge seem about right.
If so, welcome! The Spirit Molecule is a marvelous book. And if not, welcome, anyway! (Maybe you should get in touch with Dr. Strassman. :o) )
Thanks for bringing up Christopher Bache, one of my favorite authors. I'm glad, though, that Michael will be reading The Holotropic Mind before Dark Night, Early Dawn (perhaps), because Grof's view takes in a huge cross-section of experiencers, whereas Bache focuses on his own unique story.
Michael and others here might be interested to know that Bache has also written what I consider to be one of the very best books on reincarnation: Lifecycles. It's an absolutely beautifully written look at the field, deeply original and insightful.
And, in its own way, Dark Night early Dawn, continues that exploration. Rather than go to the trouble of re-wording it, here's a note I wrote to myself on the inside cover of the book during my second or third reading:
"When I think of this book, I usually remember it for its wonderful accounts of psychedelic exploration. But I'm just now being reminded of Bache's powerful, unique, arguments on reincarnation. In describing the true-yet-skewed nature of Stevenson's research, he puts reincarnation into a much larger context. Bache's work not only shatters the reigning materialist paradigm, it explodes the more conventional views on reincarnation."
Like Grof, much of Bache's work is a love song not to psychedelics, but to non-ordinary states in general. Speaking of these states of consciousness, he says: "History reminds us that those who were not willing to look through Galileo's telescope were not in a position to judge his evidence."
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | April 25, 2010 at 02:32 PM
By the way, I am not suggesting that everyone should use psychedelics. I am, however, passionately pro-choice.
I like to tell others of my own experiences, and to suggest books, like Grof's, that offer healthy models for this type of adventure. (I particularly like the third paragraph in rick49's post.) And then, let them decide whether or not this type of self-exploration seems right at this point in their lives.
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | April 25, 2010 at 02:52 PM
"In describing the true-yet-skewed nature of Stevenson's research, he puts reincarnation into a much larger context. Bache's work not only shatters the reigning materialist paradigm, it explodes the more conventional views on reincarnation." - Bruce
--------------------------------------------
Heh heh heh! Now your talking! I thought Grof's research sort of did the same thing. People on hallucinogens feeling like they were long dead prehistoric reptiles. Same basic idea.
Posted by: Art | April 25, 2010 at 03:12 PM
MP,
"Well, we don't practice slavery ".
This christian nation did for a couple hundred years have a substantial slave population and, until very recently, a quasi slave practice under Jim Crow.
"One of the amusements dreamed up by the Romans involved putting bucket-like helmets on slaves or criminals......."
It's still there just barely under the surface. Look at what US personnel did at Abu Graib and in other incidents.
Also, a lot of the need (if you can call it that) for human cruelty as a spectator sport has been taken up by virtual venues like movies.
Regardless, I still don't think you can attribute the change in morality to the Bible. There are plenty of other cultures that don't read the Bible - China comes to mind - that have gradually become more humane. So I think something else is causing the progression.
Posted by: Erich | April 25, 2010 at 03:24 PM
Bruce,
I'm not Rick Strassman. I suppose that our ages are similar. As far as depth of knowledge, well my small self is flattered. I have read Strassman's Spirit Molecule some time ago and was greatly encouraged to see that psychedelic substances were again being studied in more or less mainstream psychology again in America. I hope that Srassman, Bache and others continue to study altered states, much as John Lilly did 35 years ago. The inner universe of the mind is immense, infinite, and must be studied properly. I'm afraid Timothy Leary, in the end, did no favor to the legitimate study of psychedelics. Psychedelic plants and synthetics have unfortunately been lumped in with opiates, amphetemines and other harsh and addictive mind altering substances. Leary silly publicity seeking antics only fed the fear and paranoia of our legal system and culture police. This effectively killed any efforts to study psychedelics in medical and academic settings. Thank goodness that seems to be changing.Strassman's work is an excellent new beginning.
Myself, alas I am ending my career and am currently in full time private practice in rural central Pennsylvania. I live much more a life of a contemplative. The hurly burly of my career working and teaching in schools, clinics, psychiatric hospitals and drug and alcohol rehabilitation facilitiesis coming to an end. I'm enjoying my last few years in practice working with people lost in separation and alienation from themselves, others and this planet. The only pathological emotion that I really help them focus upon is their own Fear. Thanks though Bruce. You brought a smile to my face today. And thanks for the connection Eric. There's something to be said for mending fences as a contemplative practice.
Posted by: rick49 | April 25, 2010 at 03:38 PM
Modern Americans love to watch violence as much as any depraved ancient culture. Most men do, anyway. We have violent movies and sports, instead of public executions and gladiator fights. I think this is because most men are natural warriors but their need to fight is suppressed. War has become technological and specialized, like so many things, and the old skills are mostly not used.
We are a feminized society, and we call that moral superiority. It really isn't. We just have become distanced from the blood and guts of natural life. We don't fight -- our world is hanging in a precarious balance. The missiles are aimed and waiting.
We don't have to kill our food anymore. We are horrified at blood. We are wimpified and feminized, as we huddle under the menacing protection of mega bombs.
And we congratulate ourselves on this wonderful progress.
We are so drenched in our culture's mythology, we feel safe and superior.
As Erich pointed out, slavery ended centuries after Christ. And Jesus never said a word against slavery.
Posted by: realpc | April 25, 2010 at 03:50 PM
"I'm not Rick Strassman."
Well, so much for Bruce Siegel, super-sleuth.
"I'm enjoying my last few years in practice working with people lost in separation and alienation from themselves, others and this planet. The only pathological emotion that I really help them focus upon is their own Fear."
Sounds like beautiful work! Do you have a website, or have you written anything that I could read?
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | April 25, 2010 at 04:06 PM
RealPC said:
"We are a feminized society, and we call that moral superiority. It really isn't. We just have become distanced from the blood and guts of natural life. We don't fight -- our world is hanging in a precarious balance. The missiles are aimed and waiting."
We are a feminized society? I think not. The masculine principle is about doing: accomplishment, reaching goals, competing, winning, breaking through to freedom of some kind. (This is the principle, separate from men or women). Think of a phallus- it has to get up, it has a point. The masculine is anything with a point.
The feminine principle is about being: relationship, the radiance of space, awareness itself. Pleasure. Beauty. Union.
Obviously, everything is a mix of being and doing; men and women both. The body we're in just gives one influence, so don't mix this up with men and women!
But our world, IMO, needs more of the feminine principle and I feel we are way more masculinine than feminized! The return of the Feminine, the Goddess, is sorely, desperately needed right now, so we can find a balance.
Which is why psychedelics, with their predisposition away from agency/control and towards feeling/chaos/beauty, can be very good medicine indeed for many, as long as the chaos is mediated by good structure and care!
You can also see why they are taboo, in a culture that worships the masculine.
Posted by: Tharpa | April 25, 2010 at 06:43 PM
"Modern Americans love to watch violence as much as any depraved ancient culture. Most men do, anyway. We have violent movies and sports, instead of public executions and gladiator fights."
There's a difference between fake violence in movies and real violence in the arena. And there's a difference between the clash of heavily padded and helmeted football players in a stadium and a fight to the death between slaves.
You seem to feel that no progress can be attributed to modern society. In another thread you said that modern medicine had not made any progress against cancer.
Personally I do think we are making progress as a species. We are learning more about the cosmos and our own bodies and the Earth, and we are certainly extending our lifespans and improving our general health. As P.J. O'Rourke quipped, "For those who dream about living in ancient times, I have one word: dentistry."
It's not necessary to reject all aspects of modern society just because some of them are not to your liking. Compared to most people in history, we are living in a golden age of freedom, comfort, and the advancement of knowledge.
And painless dentistry, too!
Posted by: Michael Prescott | April 25, 2010 at 07:22 PM
Erich, thanks for your reply (both of 'em, lol)!
Posted by: Louise | April 25, 2010 at 09:30 PM
Thanks, M.P. - for standing up a bit for progress! Because MAN.....these threads are getting uber depressing! (and really a reflection of a very marginal, psuedo-extremist point of view)
The world sucks.
People suck.
We are all repressed, ultra-violent, knuckle dragging neanderthals, one slender shred from tearing out our neighbor's reproductive organs...yet basking comfortably in the warm and reflective glow of some superiority I still haven't quite wrapped my brain around just yet. (although it appears to be a pretty thinly veiled problem with AMERICAN culture in particular - notwithstanding the fact that we tend NOT to torture people who diagree with our religious views - we DON'T mutilate our women for crimes against god - and we don't kill our neighbors for their food or furniture.
But we want to. It's always close. It's the missles and millitary might that keeps us from snapping. (and feeling superior)
And of course......of ALL the examples of cruelty to our fellow man (or woman) we come up with Abu Graib? (terrible, and shameful...I agree....but if you want to use an example of NON progress - and analogize properly - why not find current cultures who DO still throw their enemies to the sharks as punishment?
And football helps tame the wild beast that linger lovingly near the surface.
(Although I'm going to be honest - I actually thought about my natural pre-disposition to violence after watching the Philadelphia Eagles draft picks this weekend - you don't need to be Stanly Grov to realize we need to improve our running game and get some speed in the defensive backfield)
Guys - good luck and god bless with the shrooms - I hope it opens up a wide window into the ethereal realms and some of this self hating, finger pointing foolishness slowly ebbs away.
I'm going to be honest - MY "small self" says my hallucinegenic experiences were fun, adventurous and made my college girlfriend look a lot sexier at the time than she turned out to be in retrospect - but get yourselves planted a bit more in this world, and you'll find easier answers. (no pun intended)
I vote for a few good Zerdini stories about physical mediumship - or give me a whole bunch of Art quotes from Michael Talbot's books on the holographic universe - let's talk about William James and Fredrick Meyers for a few days. Because drugs and doom and gloom and all of these log cabin unobomber missives is making me miss Lenora Piper in a major league way!
;-)
Posted by: Stan | April 25, 2010 at 11:54 PM
"I vote for a few good Zerdini stories about physical mediumship - or give me a whole bunch of Art quotes from Michael Talbot's books on the holographic universe" - Stan
-----------------------------------------
I loaned my paperback copy of The Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot to our preacher from Church this evenging. He said he'd like to check it out! I told him I see a lot of parallels in the New Testament to the holographic universe and especially the trinity and Jesus dying and becoming "all men" on the cross. The New Testament has a very "holographic" flavor, stuff like if you judge others you will be judge the same (just like the life review whiich is a holographic experience par excellence), you reap what you sow, doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, etc. Anyway, Darryl is going to read The Holographic Universe! Hurray! This is going to be fun!
Posted by: Art | April 26, 2010 at 01:52 AM
Stan wrote: I vote for a few good Zerdini stories about physical mediumship
Okay Stan - here's one for you:
“Another example of the evidential return of a Spirit friend was recorded at one of Harris’s materialisation seances at which certain members of the National Council were present; amongst them was Mr Wilfrid Ely, B.Sc., M.S.N.U., a Minister of the Union.
During the seance, many figures appeared and one gave outstanding evidence to Mr Ely.
The Spirit who appeared and walked up to Mr Ely gave him the Sioux Indian salute and spoke to him. Then taking Mr Ely’s hand and placing it upon the nose of the spirit-form, smiled.
Mr Ely immediately recognised his brother who passed as a result of wounds received in the 1914-18 war, for his brother had received an injury earlier in life which had disfigured the nose.
Mr Ely was profoundly moved, and was full of joy and emotion: and then confided to his colleagues on the Council the striking information that his father was a full-blooded Sioux Indian.
This was a remarkable piece of evidence, as Mr Ely had not disclosed his father’s nationality. The name of the brother who appeared was John Henry Ely.”
Posted by: Zerdini | April 26, 2010 at 03:53 AM
I would like to add something that I haven't seen mentioned in this discussion. I won't touch on the merits of psychedelics or how they relate to individual experiences because others have done so in a very articulate way already.
However, there is something that has been said about ayahuasca that, without context and background info, is just incomplete information. Yes, ayahuasca causes heavy vomiting and diarrhea. Actually, that's the main purpose of this medicine.
This is a medicine that originates in the Amazonian jungle (Ecuador, Peru and Brazil). It is reported that is has been used for several thousand years and it is commonly known as "la purga" (the purge) and it has traditionally been administered by shamans to achieve a clean up of the subjects ingesting it. The purge consists of a deep and, to our western standards, unsettling clean up of the body. The people using it in the traditional settings are made to fast for at least 12 hours prior to ingestion due to the vomiting and diarrhea. Both of these are supposed to rid the body of bacteria, parasites and whatever is causing disease, and keep in mind that the approach of these medicine men and women is that the body needs to be healed by the physical and spiritual interactions and brought back to balance. The purge is an aid in that direction. Also, these medicines were given at a time when antibiotics, antiparasites and other pharmacological medicines didn't exist, so this was the only available form of treatment for these societies before pharmacology existed in its current incarnation.
Also, I see absent from this discussion, the cultural context in which these medicines were taken. They were not meant for the amusement of teenage suburbanites, but as a religious and healing experience, where health and spirituality were part of a religious experience under the guidance of a medicine man or woman. In the Spanish language, in the cultures where ayahuasca is still used in its original purpose, these medicine people are referred to as "curanderos" or "curanderas", that is "healers" who used the medicine to restore health, both physical and spiritual. The vomit and diarrhea are just part of this healing process, not an unintended consequence in recreational use. Most of the negative experiences described in online forums are akin to someone taking Prozac or Oxycontin without a prescription or the supervision of a professional and then complaining that it had a negative effect on the person taking it.
Posted by: Yanna | April 26, 2010 at 03:59 AM
Sorry for posting again, but I cannot edit my previous comment to add something.
Given that the discussion has included many exchanges about Christianism, I thought I would point out that, in Santo Daime, a religion officially recognized in several countries, Ayahusca is used as a sacrament to celebrate a form of Christianity. Link to the Wiki article, which is as good a starting point as any on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santo_Daime
Posted by: Yanna | April 26, 2010 at 04:13 AM
Stan, There is nothing self hating about honest self examination.
That is something that psychedelics teach us :-)
The fact that my family (4 generations) from grandfather through my own children (son an Army officer in combat arms and daughter in Naval intelligence) who are currently out there killing Islamic extremists are veterans of US service should be evidence enough that I believe - and come from a tradition that believes - that we have something very good and worth preserving here in in our country. Something worth dying for.
That being said, the dark forces that MP sees as operative in ancient Rome are just under the surface in our culture. We've sublimated them to a degree, but they are there all the same.
I think the violence of the past is being over emphasized. You also had great thinkers, artists, etc.
And, I can assure you, that when the shit hits the fan, a freckle faced 18 year old from Boise with an M16 is as violent a barbarian as anyone who rode with Ghengis Khan's Mongol hordes.
Posted by: Erich | April 26, 2010 at 04:24 AM
"we are certainly extending our lifespans and improving our general health."
That is a great over-simplification of the reality. In some ways, we may be the least healthy society ever.
"It's not necessary to reject all aspects of modern society just because some of them are not to your liking."
I DO NOT REJECT ANY ASPECT OF MODERN SOCIETY! This my society and I love it, for heaven's sake. What a profound misreading of my comments. I am trying to point, vaguely and uncertainly, to something like reality, beyond the cultural mythology.
Posted by: realpc | April 26, 2010 at 04:38 AM
If you hold beliefs mainly because they are pleasant, and/or because many others believe them, then you are not actually interested in figuring out what is or is not real. If I try to look at our civilization more or less "objectively," does not mean I'm rejecting it? Of course not!
If an American citizen finds fault with certain aspects of his country, would you say he rejects America? It would be authoritarian and intolerant to think that we should not criticize our country.
Similarly, it is ideological and intolerant to say I am rejecting my culture just because I try to look at it from a relatively non-ideological perspective.
"We are living longer and healthier lives. We are on the verge of finding a cure for cancer. We are politically correct and nice."
That's the kind of stuff you believe in order to feel good, not in order to understand what is actually going on.
Posted by: realpc | April 26, 2010 at 07:40 AM
" the dark forces that MP sees as operative in ancient Rome are just under the surface in our culture. We've sublimated them to a degree, but they are there all the same.
I think the violence of the past is being over emphasized. You also had great thinkers, artists, etc.
And, I can assure you, that when the shit hits the fan, a freckle faced 18 year old from Boise with an M16 is as violent a barbarian as anyone who rode with Ghengis Khan's Mongol hordes."
Yes to all that. And I also think MP is being very selective regarding history. He could have found other examples that were much more peaceful than we are now. Why are some civilizations more violent than others is a whole other debatable subject. I think it is mostly related to competition for resources.
Posted by: realpc | April 26, 2010 at 08:34 AM
"You seem to feel that no progress can be attributed to modern society."
No, that was not at all what I said. We make progress in certain things and not in others. And the main thing, in my opinion, is that we are having fun. We are a species that creates and explores and discovers. We love challenges. You progressives are too serious sometimes -- you think it's your job to make the world safe and happy and fair. Even if it were your job, you couldn't. And if you could remove all hardship and struggle and challenge (which of course you can't) we would quickly die of boredom.
"In another thread you said that modern medicine had not made any progress against cancer."
Any progress against cancer has been minimal. No need to take my word, it's all over the internet.
Posted by: realpc | April 26, 2010 at 08:41 AM
Thank you, Zerdini & Art! That's what I was looking for - a little physical mediumship - and a little bit of Michael Talbot in the morning (and Art's preacher) goes a long, long way..:-)
"Stan, There is nothing self hating about honest self examination.
That is something that psychedelics teach us :-)"
I agree, Erich - honest self examination is pretty important.
Unlike you though - I didn't need psychedelics to teach me it was..:-)
The freckle faced farm boy is NOT a barbarian, Erich. There is a difference between survival - and frenzy - and self defense - and KILLING for sport - and entertainment - or boredom - or joy - as was clearly the case in the Ghengis Khan days - as per your example.
No rational, realistic and honest assement of the historical landscape - especially if we are using THIS culture (i.e. - modern Western civilazation even with all it's flaws, fopahs and otherwise)fails to acknowledge the changes in conciousness - to some degree - in how we mete out justice to or adjudicate our disputes.
If you can't see the difference - I may consider cutting back on the peyote..:-)
Because if you take a walk around a big city - like the one I live in - you'll people holding doors for one another - smiling at strangers - busy - bustling and living life as a full contact sport - and getting along pretty well - all things considered - in the process.
All of the navel gazing, angry - GENERAL society whipping - finger pointing - we're not worthy stuff is rarely about solutions - or progress - or pushing stuff forward - it's usually posited by broken, angry and marginal people whose lives are empty and need an enemy to blame - and I find that sad, frustrating and difficult to read without arguing.
(not you - just in general - but there are clearly some on here who probably fit that mold - and once in a while - for all it's warts - I believe progress deserves some defense..:-)
Posted by: Stan | April 26, 2010 at 09:09 AM
Thank you, Zerdini & Art! That's what I was looking for - a little physical mediumship - and a little bit of Michael Talbot in the morning (and Art's preacher) goes a long, long way..:-) - stan
--------------------------------------
I just printed out three copies of the story about the little 3 year old boy who drowned and saw his dead grandmother who told him he had to go back. I'm going to take them to church with me next time I go and give them to three women at church I have been sharing my NDE and death bed vision stories with. I told these women that I find these kinds of stories very uplifting and comforting.
It is also fun when our preacher now says something that he knows reflects on the holographic nature of the universe. Believe it or not the Bible has a lot of very "holographic" like verses in it. There are even a few in the Old Testament. One I recall says something to the effect that there will come a time when people will have God's law (or knowledge) written on their hearts and they won't have to be taught it but will just know it automatically. I can't remember where I read that in the Old testament but I know it's there.
Posted by: Art | April 26, 2010 at 09:20 AM
Stan,
I'm sure you would have seen people holding doors for each other and mostly getting along in any of the 'barbarian" cultures. And if you could read the minds of today's soldiers you would see a lot of them secretly getting a thrill from the challenge.
Killing is an instinct, a very important one. And acting on our instincts causes pleasure. We just 'know" we aren't supposed to like violence, so we act like we don't.
And by the way, I am female and like many females I don't happen to enjoy violence. But you have to be deep in denial not to see that -- not all but a lot of -- men get a thrill from it.
Posted by: realpc | April 26, 2010 at 09:35 AM
And I really don't see how you or anyone could have misread my comments so drastically. There are pros and cons to progress, and pointing out some of the cons is not being anti-progress.
We are definitely not getting nicer. You can select examples from history or from primitive tribes showing how mean they were. But you can also select examples showing some of them were in some ways much nicer than we are.
Posted by: realpc | April 26, 2010 at 09:38 AM
I don't want to hog the blog so I'll just give one more example of Alec Harris's mediumship for Stan as related by Harry Dawson in his booklet:
“One or two supremely interesting examples stand out in my memory from the many seances it has been my privilege to attend over the years. At one memorable sitting with Alec Harris there were with me Ernest Oaten, John Stewart and Ernest Thompson.
During the proceedings a little stocky figure came out of the cabinet, and stood by Ernest Thompson who was a heavy man, fourteen stone. This little stocky figure proceeded to lift Ernest right off the floor. I myself was so fascinated I went down on my knees in order to watch the play of the muscles in the calves of his legs.
As a physiotherapist I know something about muscles. At the same time the Austrian scientist in charge of the proceedings invited another member of the group to reach out and ascertain that the medium was still in his chair.”
Mr Dawson continues, saying: “The more I learn of these matters, the more vital it seems that a greater knowledge of the subject should be acquired and then we shall not be too hasty in our judgment. I do feel that it is dangerous to take the ignorant and uninitiated into the seance room.
“On one occasion at Whitchurch, Cardiff, South Wales, sitting with the well-known medium. Alee Harris (who now resides in Johannesburg, South Africa), I witnessed a remarkable phase of this type of phenomena, and this was under the most stringent conditions imposed by the examining panel of observers. The curtains of the medium’s cabinet suddenly swung wide open and we observed the medium slumped in his chair in deep-trance-indicated by certain signs known to the trained symptomatologist, one of whom was present.
The ectoplasmic form of the guide (Austrian scientist in Earth life) was visible to all of us. (Three red lights of 75 wattage.)
As we watched we saw the ectoplasm begin to emerge slowly from the medium’s mouth, nose and ears, it rolled down his body on to the floor where it coiled itself into a sizeable mass and from the centre of this mass, it began to rise, just as if someone was pushing it upwards, it took the form of a little black boy (here I should mention that the mass as it first emerged was black in colour with white streaks in it). The figure finally presented itself perfectly, above the waist line, the eyes, squat nose and teeth when it smiled was perfect. After a short space of time it began to dissolve before our eyes, and slowly like a thick black snake it climbed back over the body of the medium and was absorbed through the same orifices of the body. There was a kind of phosphorescent light during the whole time, which rose and fell in intensity. This was indeed a most amazing night.”
Posted by: Zerdini | April 26, 2010 at 09:41 AM
I agree with Stan.
Although this topic has generated a surprising number of comments, I find the whole subject rather depressing.
"I think the violence of the past is being over emphasized. You also had great thinkers, artists, etc."
Yes, there were great thinkers and artists and writers and statesmen. For instance, Cicero was a great statesman. He was assassinated by Marc Antony's men, and his hands were cut off and nailed to the door of the Senate.
Seneca was a highly respected thinker and playwright, whose tragedies are still read today. He was forced to commit suicide by the emperor Nero.
The frequent proscriptions that began in late republican Rome and continued in the imperial phase cost literally thousands of lives.
Did everyone suffer? No, but the level of officially sanctioned murder was astonishing. Rich people were often murdered by the state so the emperor could have an excuse to seize their property. This was a common practice.
Poor people, of course, had far less protection than the rich, and were subject to every kind of exploitation, with little or no legal recourse.
Slaves, who made up perhaps 20% of the population, had no rights at all.
I do think we're making progress in many, many ways. As a general rule, we treat each other better, and have a higher respect for human life. We also live longer and survive many illnesses that would have proven fatal even one or two generations ago. We enjoy a level of comfort and ease that would have been unthinkable in any earlier era. If anything, perhaps we have it too easy.
When the most serious health problem in a society is obesity, we must be doing something right. Previous generations were faced with the threat of starvation, not excess pounds.
It's not all good, but there is a lot to be happy about and thankful for.
"Most of the negative experiences described in online forums are akin to someone taking Prozac or Oxycontin without a prescription or the supervision of a professional"
Quite a few of the accounts in that database were written by people who took ayahuasca under the supervision of a shaman. In the accounts I read, the supervised experiments did not lead to near-fatal reactions or reckless behavior, but some of the "trips" were still nightmarish.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | April 26, 2010 at 09:56 AM