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: 2002-02-09 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.