Spiritual Journal, 2/4/02
Feb. 8th, 2002 03:36 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
novapsyche7:04 a.m.
Every once in a while, my brain reminds me that there are people who consider entheogenic use as cheating, its fruit undeserved. I want to (need to?) respond to this.
You have two people. Person A utilizes traditional methods to engender the ecstatic state. This person may use such time-tested methods as chanting, drumming, dancing, swaying, fasting, or sleep deprivation. (Of course, incidentally, traditional cultures often used entheogenic substances, but I suppose that is neither here nor there....)
Person B ingests a substance that is psychoactive.
Work involved is often brought up by entheogen-use opponents. They'd point to Person A and say, "At least this person did something to bring about this physiological change in perspective. The other person just swallowed something." Person A, also, produces the bases of his/her ecstatic state endogenously; Person B had to rely on something outside the body. It's often assumed that being reliant on an outside substance is bad and should be avoided.
In some way, this whole scenario seems to boil down to the deserving and the undeserving; the person who did the most work and was the more self-reliant is the deserving one. He/she worked hard for that ecstasy; the resultant mindset is his/her reward.
But I am reminded of something in the Bible: the rain falls on both the just and the unjust. Person B may not have put in as much grunt work, but that does not mean that he/she should be denied a similar experience to Person A.
This is eerily reminiscent of the old argument of salvation through works and salvation through faith. Our Puritan morality makes it so that we find inherent goodness in work; and we detest those who "keep their hands idle." But faith is the cornerstone of belief, and (good) works are not enough for salvation.
I'm just saying. The just and the unjust are equally treated by the universe: the sun shines on them both. Those who work for their ecstasy are not necessarily more deserving than those who use "shortcuts" or somatic triggers; they are just perceived that way by us--we, the bystanders, whose powers and levels of perception are skewed, idiosyncratic, and necessarily limited.
LSD, as well as all of the other entheogens, is no respecter of persons. The gods made manifest will do so in anyone who has consumed. The god within will blossom in both the sinner and the saint. And, in my opinion, such egalitarianism can only be positive. Equal access to and opportunity for the deeply ecstatic state is a boon for the whole of mankind. (Whether or not everyone takes part in this opportunity does not diminish the significance of the presentation and availability of that opportunity.)
Every once in a while, my brain reminds me that there are people who consider entheogenic use as cheating, its fruit undeserved. I want to (need to?) respond to this.
You have two people. Person A utilizes traditional methods to engender the ecstatic state. This person may use such time-tested methods as chanting, drumming, dancing, swaying, fasting, or sleep deprivation. (Of course, incidentally, traditional cultures often used entheogenic substances, but I suppose that is neither here nor there....)
Person B ingests a substance that is psychoactive.
Work involved is often brought up by entheogen-use opponents. They'd point to Person A and say, "At least this person did something to bring about this physiological change in perspective. The other person just swallowed something." Person A, also, produces the bases of his/her ecstatic state endogenously; Person B had to rely on something outside the body. It's often assumed that being reliant on an outside substance is bad and should be avoided.
In some way, this whole scenario seems to boil down to the deserving and the undeserving; the person who did the most work and was the more self-reliant is the deserving one. He/she worked hard for that ecstasy; the resultant mindset is his/her reward.
But I am reminded of something in the Bible: the rain falls on both the just and the unjust. Person B may not have put in as much grunt work, but that does not mean that he/she should be denied a similar experience to Person A.
This is eerily reminiscent of the old argument of salvation through works and salvation through faith. Our Puritan morality makes it so that we find inherent goodness in work; and we detest those who "keep their hands idle." But faith is the cornerstone of belief, and (good) works are not enough for salvation.
I'm just saying. The just and the unjust are equally treated by the universe: the sun shines on them both. Those who work for their ecstasy are not necessarily more deserving than those who use "shortcuts" or somatic triggers; they are just perceived that way by us--we, the bystanders, whose powers and levels of perception are skewed, idiosyncratic, and necessarily limited.
LSD, as well as all of the other entheogens, is no respecter of persons. The gods made manifest will do so in anyone who has consumed. The god within will blossom in both the sinner and the saint. And, in my opinion, such egalitarianism can only be positive. Equal access to and opportunity for the deeply ecstatic state is a boon for the whole of mankind. (Whether or not everyone takes part in this opportunity does not diminish the significance of the presentation and availability of that opportunity.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2002-02-08 05:01 am (UTC)we also make our own meanings dont we? what do we make of what we experience?
(no subject)
Date: 2002-02-08 07:53 am (UTC)2. Liberation from the world of suffering (or during life, it's POWER over you) by means of permanent adaptation to higher consciousness is the beginning goal of mysticism. Total liberation out of the entire cycle of involution/evolution by identifying as the All is the end goal of all mysticism--to realize that this is one's true nature.
3. Reliance on drugs will not bring this about under any circumstances. It has been known to induce subtle and sometimes even causal mystical states, but never identification as the All. Besides, try getting hold of these drugs on your deathbed. Wouldn't that be inconvenient if you didn't happen to have everything you need to induce this temporary state (without understanding the intricacies of it anyway) when you're about to die? Darn it.
4. The Bible (and every other mystic literature--not that the Bible is mainly that) does indeed say that. It does not say that one should therefore be unjust. I believe nearly all of it says the reverse. The point of mysticism is not simply to be one or the other, it is to transcend both. If the universe is divided into opposites of pleasure and pain, just and unjust, up and down, acting and not acting, judging and not judging, then the only way to be free of this is to evolve one's consciousness to the stage where none of these things are separate. They are all equally expressions of Spirit in the same way that a chair and a gallows are both expressions of wood. If one can identify as spirit (and the causal witness of spirit at the same time) or "as the wood," one is freed of this duality. Every single mystic tradition emphasizes transcending the barrier between self and other. All you have to do is do the reading.
5. Faith is not the cornerstone of belief. The progression has already been shown to go belief (a mental idea), faith (realizing that belief is not enough and doesn't work) which recognizes the mind can only go so far at which point it goes in a circle, and then experience which is a direct apprehension of spiritual transpersonal realities. Of course, since one can experiences these "peak" (or rather "peek") experiences into the transpersonal at any time in development (especially with drugs), they often get translated downward into that individuals current beliefs giving them a feeling of authority since that is the only way that lower self-structure can translate them.
6. In no mystic tradition is making value judgements viewed as a bad thing. When mystics talk about "not judging," they are talking about the stage of consciousness called the formless witness. At that stage, you simply witness everything. You witness judging, you witness not judging. You don't DO either. You don't DO anything. However, every mystic tradition advocates making judgements of compassion and wisdom and care in one's active life. So in mysticism, making judgments in active life is viewed as good and judging things is not viewed as BAD as the formless witness (since that would simply be a judgement that all judgement is bad, which seems the hypocritical nonsense of today's typical brand of tepid egalitarianism).
7. It is not said that "God will blossom in the good and the bad," it is said that God is already equally present in the good and the bad in a similar way to molecules already being equally present in the good and the bad.
Frankly I don't care what you do or don't do all that much. However, if you want to say that mysticism supports your particular arguments, please learn more about mysticism. I'm not saying that there are no arguments for using drugs to aid in spiritual pursuit, I am saying that they arguments mentioned here have all been shown by pretty much all fields of study to be extremely invalid.
(no subject)
Date: 2002-02-09 08:44 pm (UTC)Frankly I don't care what you do or don't do all that much. However, if you want to say that mysticism supports your particular arguments, please learn more about mysticism.
With all due respect, I said nothing in my original post about mysticism. The word never surfaced. It was not my intention to link that thought with mysticism. That was a topic you brought to the text, not I.
(Also, you do not need to implore me to research more. I am actively researching several subjects very intensely, and mysticism is one of those subjects.)
So please read the rest of this reply with the above in mind.
1. Ecstasy is not the end goal of any form of mysticism.
I never claimed it was.
It occurs to me that you may believe me to be promoting ecstasy as a feeling, as a physiological emotion. I am not. I would call that state more akin to euphoria. That is not something I am advocating.
When I speak of "ecstatic practices," I am specifically speaking about the activities and actions taken by someone meant to lift them out of their everyday in order to commune with the divine. Often, people will speak of being mentally attuned to a higher dimension; that's something more in the vein of what I mean. As my good friend says, ecstasy is ex-stasis; and the use of psychotropic substances can propel one onto a different point of departure, one that can make communication with the Beyond possible.
Reliance on drugs will not bring this [one's true nature] about under any circumstances. It has been known to induce subtle and sometimes even causal mystical states, but never identification as the All.
Again, I reiterate that I was not speaking about mysticism at all. I agree that drugs are not the All (but, then again, they are, since all things are reflections of the ultimate ground of being--sorry, my animism informs that opinion), but can illuminate particular paths that can enable one to perceive the All. They help pierce the Veil.
Besides, try getting hold of these drugs on your deathbed. Wouldn't that be inconvenient if you didn't happen to have everything you need to induce this temporary state (without understanding the intricacies of it anyway) when you're about to die? Darn it.
It's not necessary. The body naturally supplies itself with the appropriate neurochemicals during the death process. Humans have been dying for millions of years. I have no doubts that my own body will be able to go into death just the same.
The reason I don't know or understand much about "the intricacies" of the mystical state is because I was first introduced to one only seven months ago. I am very much a newbie in all respects. I realize that. I am very enthusiastic about my practices. This does not mean that I do not have miles to go and millions of things to learn and incorporate. I already recognize this, and I look forward to the learning process with much excitement. This is the journey of my life, and it's nice to have a sense of the vastness of information I have yet to absorb.
Re:
Date: 2002-02-10 07:53 am (UTC)Yes, I knew that when I sent that response. However, since it has been shown that mysticism is the only actual scientific system that produces verifiable results in becoming One with the All. It has also been shown that basically every other form of spirituality relates back to mysticism as its starting point. So not including mysticism is like shooting yourself in the foot. These things are not widely known, but they are quite verifiable. And when I use the word "scientific," I'm talking about the basic scientific process of training perception, doing the experiment, seeing the results, and verifying them with a community of those who have done all those steps as well. For example, if you want to know the result of an advanced mathematics problem, you must first learn math up to that point, do the problem using those mental tools, see the answer, and verify it with other similarly adequate mathematicians. Any who refuse to learn math cannot ask for their opinions to count. In mysticism, drugs have been known to help make up for lack of training so one can see the result, but there are problems with interpretation of the results in these cases (not to mention potential biological side-effects which I do not mention because I don't know much about the long-term side effects of such drugs).
As my good friend says, ecstasy is ex-stasis; and the use of psychotropic substances can propel one onto a different point of departure, one that can make communication with the Beyond possible.
Actually, both definitions are fine. The stage of subtle mysticism is one of extreme bliss and communion with the beyond. There are higher stages than that though that one cannot reach using drugs. Either way, as I said, interpretation of those experiences depends on the normal, unaltered waking consciousness of the individual. This is where the training comes in handy...the training is much more likely to help one evolve everyday consciousness to that level. In this case, one doesn't need to "transcend everyday life" because one has already transcended these things permanently and everyday life becomes divine itself (or rather is realized to always have been so).
I agree that drugs are not the All (but, then again, they are, since all things are reflections of the ultimate ground of being--sorry, my animism informs that opinion)
Yes, it is easy to see the One as the Many, since that is what surrounds us. Seeing the Many as the One is the point of consciousness evolution (though it's good not to lose sight of the Manyness aspect). I edited out the rest of that paragraph since I've already adressed it.
It's not necessary. The body naturally supplies itself with the appropriate neurochemicals during the death process. Humans have been dying for millions of years. I have no doubts that my own body will be able to go into death just the same.
I'm not saying your body will not die. I'm saying that the end goal of the core of spiritual practices is to consciously identify as the All during life and to therefore be released from the birth/death cycle (known as involution) when one dies. You can't always shout, "Where are my drugs?!" when you're about to die.
The reason I don't know or understand much about "the intricacies" of the mystical state is because I was first introduced to one only seven months ago. I am very much a newbie in all respects. I realize that.
I realize that, but as a newbie, you must realize that anytime you put a strong opinion or stance out there for criticism, it is very likely to be, well, criticized by those who have substantial knowledge that you are as yet unaware of.
(no subject)
Date: 2002-02-09 09:10 pm (UTC)You completely misread my analogy. Was that an honest mistake, or were you phrasing your response that way intentionally to ridicule a strawman? I mean, how exactly do you read that passage?
I read it as a statement that, no matter human perceptions of being upright or being undeserving, the universe treats each person the same. Some people in our midst we consider "monsters"; still, the Breath of Life fills their nostrils just as it fills ours.
One may think it is "unfair" that someone can reach an ecstatic state by merely taking in some exogenous substance, but that unfairness is merely a human perception.
If the universe is divided into opposites of pleasure and pain, just and unjust, up and down, acting and not acting, judging and not judging, then the only way to be free of this is to evolve one's consciousness to the stage where none of these things are separate.
I realize that. If I hadn't, I wouldn't not have been able to use the analogy as I did. And the evolution of one's consciousness to the awareness of such things is irrelevant to the nature of the things themselves. Pleasure and pain are two sides of the same coin; whether someone in the span of a lifetime comes to such a belief does not change the relationship of pleasure and pain to each other.
The progression has already been shown to go belief (a mental idea), faith (realizing that belief is not enough and doesn't work) which recognizes the mind can only go so far at which point it goes in a circle, and then experience which is a direct apprehension of spiritual transpersonal realities.
As an existentialist, I have promoted the value of experience for quite some time.
You'll have to explain to me how faith is "realizing that belief is not enough and doesn't work". I know plenty of people who would argue that point with you. I would call that the collapse of belief, sure... but not faith itself. Being an apostate does not make one faithful.
It is not said that "God will blossom in the good and the bad," it is said that God is already equally present in the good and the bad in a similar way to molecules already being equally present in the good and the bad.
I equate G-d to the natural universe anyway, so your explanation seems redundant to me. My phrase about blossoming was poetic language, not hard description of cosmology.
I'm not saying that there are no arguments for using drugs to aid in spiritual pursuit, I am saying that they arguments mentioned here have all been shown by pretty much all fields of study to be extremely invalid.
Fine. I'm still researching, so I am reserving judgment (especially since I have first-hand knowledge of how psychotropic agents have aided in my own "spiritual pursuits"). I am not simply reading items written by, say, Timothy Leary (in fact, I have yet to read anything by him). I am reading up on how biochemical processes affect the brain, how brain processes affect consciousness, how consciousness (and/or belief) affects health. I do not wish to fool myself. I wish to inform myself.
I appreciate your comments and your perspective.
(no subject)
Date: 2002-02-09 09:19 pm (UTC)Entheogen, etymologically speaking, means "god within" or "god- or spirit-facilitating" (http://www.csp.org/practices/entheogens/entheogens.html ). That was what I was referring to--NOT that the Bible said that "God will blossom within the good and the bad".
I apologize for not making my meaning explicit.
Re:
Date: 2002-02-10 08:30 am (UTC)Actually, the point of it was not at all clear to me. The implication seemed to be saying what I responded to, but I didn't honestly think that's what you meant. I figured if you actually did mean something along those lines, it would be responded to. If you didn't mean that, you would rephrase. I will now respond to that rephrasing.
I read it as a statement that, no matter human perceptions of being upright or being undeserving, the universe treats each person the same. Some people in our midst we consider "monsters"; still, the Breath of Life fills their nostrils just as it fills ours.
I had thought this was somewhat obvious, but either way, I don't see how it relates to your main point.
One may think it is "unfair" that someone can reach an ecstatic state by merely taking in some exogenous substance, but that unfairness is merely a human perception.
"Merely a human perception?" Please show me why this makes it less valuable. Granted, if you are defending drug-aided spiritual practices to people who simply say, "But no fair!" then I can agree that such an attitude of "unfairness" is indeed silly (since the experience is not supposed to be some kind of reward for "playing nice"). If you are defending against those who claim that your approach can have the same (but less far-reaching) results for the price of its many shortcomings, implying that human perceptions shouldn't matter so much here is the same as saying, "Well, like, that's just your opinion, man." And the same defense could be used against you. It makes the claim that all human perceptions are equally valuable--a claim which (as I showed in my original response) is self-contradictory.
Pleasure and pain are two sides of the same coin; whether someone in the span of a lifetime comes to such a belief does not change the relationship of pleasure and pain to each other.
I'm not talking about a belief. That is a mental idea. I'm talking about the direct apprehension of that oneness. I know it sounds like splitting hairs, but they are two vastly different experiences. It's easy to develop to the point where you believe that. Much harder to experience it in a moment of insight as a very tangible truth.
I would call that the collapse of belief, sure... but not faith itself. Being an apostate does not make one faithful.
Sorry, I wasn't clear on that one. That is the collapse of belief, I meant to add that faith is what soldiers on when belief collapses. It is somewhat blind, by nature, because it does not have the map of belief anymore, nor the light of experience. It is open to the possibilities (which allows the truth of experience to come in). One's beliefs often get in the way of actual experiences.
I equate G-d to the natural universe anyway, so your explanation seems redundant to me.
It has been shown in extensive works (including those of all the greatest physicists) how God cannot be equated with the natural universe. Some good and definitive references on this are written and/or compiled by Ken Wilber. _Sex, Ecology, Spirituality_ (which I've already recommended) is one, _Eye to Eye_ goes into that particular issue in detail as well, and then there is _Quantum Questions_ which is an amalgamation of the views of two dozen or more exceptional physicists (from Bohr to Einstein) who were incidentally all mystics. One can also consult their works, but I prefer going to one source to find the references and then working back to those. In this light, my analogy was not redundant. Indeed, I'm always a bit careful to use that one because it encourages people to make the same equation that you did.
I hate the 4000 character limit. The rest in a sec...
Re:
Date: 2002-02-10 08:30 am (UTC)On that issue, I would again reference Wilber's SES. His "Four Quadrants of a Holon" system has made his work pivotal in understanding and interpreting (and INTEGRATING) scientific processes and obersations, consciousness research, and cultural values. The problem with consulting most "science" texts on this is they are very partial and act as though consciousness is the end product of little particles zipping around and coincidentally fitting together in nifty and useful ways. This skews all consciousness research towards hyperactive atoms with ideas above their station. However, SES is something that opens up the argument and invites you to make your own opinions by giving a broader overview and leaving the details for you to research.
I do not wish to fool myself. I wish to inform myself.
The most noble goal. I'm not sitting here pretending I have never fooled myself. Indeed, I once had most of the same beliefs you have now. I was somewhat annoyed to find that texts showing clearly and definitely where the fallacies lay were so hard to find, though I was surprised that they actually fit my experience MORE than my prior beliefs. :)
(no subject)
Date: 2002-02-08 08:09 am (UTC)http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/interviews/interview1220.cfm/xid,8287/yid,9296268
(no subject)
Date: 2002-02-08 08:09 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2002-02-08 09:37 am (UTC)Comment, Part One
Date: 2002-02-10 06:46 pm (UTC)You don't actually define "ecstatic practice" until one of your comments:
When I speak of "ecstatic practices," I am specifically speaking about the activities and actions taken by someone meant to lift them out of their everyday in order to commune with the divine. Often, people will speak of being mentally attuned to a higher dimension; that's something more in the vein of what I mean. As my good friend says, ecstasy is ex-stasis; and the use of psychotropic substances can propel one onto a different point of departure, one that can make communication with the Beyond possible.
I think your terminology is misleading. According to Merriam-Webster, ecstasy is defined as:
a. a state of being beyond reason and self-control
b. a state of overwhelming emotion; especially : rapturous delight
c. TRANCE; especially : a mystic or prophetic trance
(MW also includes a definition of the chemical substance ecstasy.) While the third definition does seem to suggest being mentally elsewhere, I am not sure that I would agree that "ecstatic practices" is an appopriate term for practices intended to "lift them out of their everyday in order to commune with the divine." "Beyond reason" doesn't necessarily mean above it.
(Also noteworthy for the etymologically-inclined: while ecstasy does derive from the ancient Greek ekstasis and from existanai [ex is "out", "histanai" to cause to stand], it is also noted to mean "to derange." This information I also found on MW.)
Comment, Part Two
Date: 2002-02-10 06:47 pm (UTC)The other thing that I like about the idea of enlightenment is that its definition does not limit the gaining of spiritual insight to periods when one is in "a state of being beyond reason or self-control". Nor does it assume that spiritual insight necessarily includes "rapturous delight". (I've had spiritual insights and been horrified and saddened by them.)
Now that I've made my point about the ecstasy versus enlightenment, I'm going to address whether I think drug use is "cheating" in gaining each.
I do not believe that drug use is an invalid ecstatic practice. As you know, I have used drugs, and using the formal definition of ecstasy, I can say that yes, I have been beyond reason, in some ways beyond self-control, and I have certainly experienced rapturous delight.
I think saying that drug use is "cheating" as a form of spiritual insight or that one simply cannot gain spiritual insight from drug use would be overly harsh. Let us look at your idea of people pursuing "activities and actions...meant to lift them out of their everyday in order to commune with the divine". You call these practices ecstatic; let's use the first definition of ecstasy, "the state of being beyond reason". Kierkegaard has examined the idea of the divine being beyond reason before: he defines faith as being beyond reason. He theorizes that one cannot determine God's existence or God's will through reason; we cannot know these for fact. Therefore we must have faith - beyond reason. (I believe this is what rudel meant when s/he said that faith is "realizing that belief is not enough and doesn't work".)
So yes, I would have to say that drug use, in creating a state of being beyond reason, can aid in spiritual insight.
What I object to is not the idea of using drugs as a means of enlightenment - what I do object to is the idea of drugs being one's only tool for enlightenment. Your dichotomy, I think, is flawed. You say:
You have two people. Person A utilizes traditional methods to engender the ecstatic state. This person may use such time-tested methods as chanting, drumming, dancing, swaying, fasting, or sleep deprivation. (Of course, incidentally, traditional cultures often used entheogenic substances, but I suppose that is neither here nor there....)
Person B ingests a substance that is psychoactive.
Some traditional cultures, as you mentioned, did use entheogenic substances. But they didn't just do that; they also chanted, fasted, went on pilgrimages, and so on. In all my studies of mystics and so on, I'm afraid I'd argue that they did put a lot of "work" into.
This brings me to the following assertion:
In some way, this whole scenario seems to boil down to the deserving and the undeserving; the person who did the most work and was the more self-reliant is the deserving one. He/she worked hard for that ecstasy; the resultant mindset is his/her reward.
Comment, Part Three
Date: 2002-02-10 06:48 pm (UTC)Again, I'd say "enlightenment" instead of "ecstasy", and that is, perhaps, the point of contention here. I would still agree with the idea behind your statements that the sun shines on the just and the unjust just as it rains on the just and the unjust.
I do not agree that spiritual insight is like sunlight or rain, however.
I do think that if one works hard for one's enlightenment, the resultant mindset is his/her reward. I believe that spiritual insight is an exercise of the mind, much like any other study. You can't learn everything from books. Nor do I think one can learn everything about the divine through drug use or being beyond reason.
But does one's study determine how intelligent a person is? I don't think so. I'm sure you know as many people as I do who score well on tests and got good grades. Are they smart? Not necessarily. We both know the calibur of Grinnell students, and there were several people there I would call stupid.
Similarly, I don't believe that one's study determines how good a person is. I don't believe one's spiritual study necessarily influences one's salvation. I believe it's actions, not ideas, that determine how "good" or "bad" we are, and whether we are saved.