On the spiritual uses of mind altering substances

[chrono eric]

• I was a very zealous Christian up until around age 18-19 when my ongoing spiritual journey reached an extreme crisis of faith that soon lead to a near-total spiritual and mental breakdown

Interesting. People's religious faith fascinates me. I am a man of science (I have a degree in science) and stereotypically I have always had an extreme aversion to religion. Ever since I was a child. But then one day I had the incredible fortune to be able to participate in using a certain native american religious sacrament (my girlfriend is mexican native american) in a spiritual ceremony. Let's just say I learned to think about things a little bit differently after that.

Anyways, welcome!

EDIT: For anyone confused about the nature of the first post to this thread, it was actually moved here from another thread so that one wouldn't get too far off topic.

[hiddensquire]

I am a man of science (I have a degree in science) and stereotypically I have always had an extreme aversion to religion. Ever since I was a child. But then one day I had the extreme fortune to be able to participate in using a certain native american religious sacrament (my girlfriend is mexican native american) in a spiritual ceremony. Let's just say I learned to think about things a little bit differently after that.

Now you have me curious.  What precisely happened that changed your perception?

[chrono eric]

I'll PM you as I've found that people in general (especially people of Western faith) are not very tolerant of native entheogenic practices, and I don't wish to offend anyone.

[KebreI]

Squire kicked a hell of a lotta' ass, how much will you kick?

I'll PM you as I've found that people in general (especially people of Western faith) are not very tolerant of native entheogenic practices, and I don't wish to offend anyone.

You became religious because you like getting high? You sound like my grandfather.

[chrono eric]

You became religious because you like getting high? You sound like my grandfather.

Which is exactly why I didn't want to post anything here  . If people aren't intolerant than they are ignorant of the true effects.

No, entheogens don't make you get "high" and the experience isn't enjoyable at all. It is meant to be performed in a religious ceremony only at certain times during the year and not for recreation. In fact, most often the experience is so earthshatteringly terrifying that you don't want to do it again, and it takes weeks for your mind to integrate and make sense of the experience.

I don't "like" it at all. But it changes you as the experience is profoundly spiritual. And it was a great honor on my behalf for them to allow a white guy to participate.

[chrono eric]

Yes I posted that as frank and simple as possible because for ALOT of people that is true. Regardless the process does induce abnormal and sometimes limits brain functions, and the user is no longer in a state to make decisions. Why them do you do this to make a choice as important as faith in this state? The choice is the flaw I see(well it is but that a whole other can of worms), its the method gone through to make it.

Yes, it really bothers me when I hear on the news about idiot high school kids using sacraments that have been historically used for religious practices in an attempt to "get high". All it does is make them look like idiots and it makes lawmakers illegalize these sacraments, thus limiting the religious freedom of immigrant native americans from say, Mexico for example, that want to continue practicing their faith in America.

I'm not going to start a debate about entheogens in religious practices, but I thought I would comment on what I've bolded above. You don't seem to have much of a knowledge of biochemistry or psychopharmacology so I thought I'd explain a bit. It's a common misconception that the effects of a substance are proportional to how toxic that substance is. Nearly all entheogens bind reversibly to receptors in the brain and cause zero to no neurotoxicity. Indeed, the entheogen psilocybin is listed as less toxic than aspirin by the CDC. And even if neurotoxicity was a genuine concern, you have to question what level of exposure and with what frequency it becomes a concern. Infrequent use is harmless.

Compare that to alcohol use, which is a chemical that is known to be extremely neurotoxic and hepatotoxic but it is consumed by millions daily for no spiritual or religious purpose. So to answer your question, any calculated risk is well within the limits of "worth it".

And as for "no longer being in a state to make decisions" - why exactly is that important? People who participate in these practices for religious purposes do not get in a car and drive while under the influence. They sit peacefully and quietly in darkness or candlelight. Compare that to the numerous assholes who get wasted and then drive, and that's a rather hypocritical statement don't you think?

The compendium is actually one of the only places on the net when I've seen this kind of discussion work and be debated, argued, or thought over with out bickering, flame and mindless swearing. Not as much recently thought lost some of the main members(i.e. Lord J Esq, Daniel Krispin, Ms. Black) plus some unfortunate new members can't carry on a good discussion.( i.e. this is too obvious I not going to say just hint at blatantly).

Why would someone discuss native american spiritual practices on a site devoted to a video game? (except for us of course, but I hope that this thread doesn't get off track more than it already has)

[Radical_Dreamer]

Compare that to alcohol use, which is a chemical that is known to be extremely neurotoxic and hepatotoxic but it is consumed by millions daily for no spiritual or religious purpose. So to answer your question, any calculated risk is well within the limits of "worth it".

Do you think that taking a mood altering (and I apologize if I'm using the wrong term, I'm looking for a term which incompases both alcohol and "sacraments") substance, in order to achieve that mood altering effect is more valid when performed in the service of a spiritual or religious goal than for a secular goal?

[chrono eric]

Do you think that taking a mood altering (and I apologize if I'm using the wrong term, I'm looking for a term which incompases both alcohol and "sacraments") substance, in order to achieve that mood altering effect is more valid when performed in the service of a spiritual or religious goal than for a secular goal?

I really didn't want to get this thread too far off topic but I guess it's inevitable now. Also it was an interesting and fair question. No, I didn't mean to give that impression (and 'mind altering' or 'psychotropic' is acceptable). But what do you mean by "valid" exactly? In the case of alcohol, there is really no other purpose for it except for secular recreational consumption and limited consumption in religious ceremonies. The mind altering effect of alcohol does not do anything profound. Entheogens however are typically taken because they produce profound spiritual experiences (hence the name 'entheogen' - to make god within). In the case of entheogens, the experience is just as valid in a religious or secular setting but within bounds. I was referring specifically to immature kids taking such substances (in a secular setting) as an escape or as a misconceived attempt to get "high" (such as psilocybe mushrooms, peyote, salvia divinorum) which have been used for hundreds and probably thousands of years in religious ceremonies.

Whether for religious use or secular use (ie: 'psychonaut' purposes or expanding ones consciousness) the end result is the same and I see no difference. In both cases the individual is educated and informed about what they are doing and they are likely doing it in a safe environment. But the nature of these sacraments is such that they powerfully alter the mind in ways that you cannot possibly imagine before experiencing it.

So basically, just because an individual does not know the proper religious procedure doesn't make it less valid if they are doing it for the sake of spiritual purposes. The ceremony itself is just a tradition to prepare oneself for the experience. The same thing could be said about any religious ceremony. It is the experience which is important. Religious ceremonies provide an extra level of 'safeness' to be sure, but as long as a person is educated and can be safe about it, I see no difference in secular use.

Compare this with kids that you see on TV running around acting like idiots on Salvia divinorum because they thought it would get them 'high' and instead they think they've become a tree. It's sad, really. All it leads to is effectively outlawing legitimate spiritual practices.

[Daniel Krispin]

Heh, what, I'm not lost to these forums. I just don't post all that much. The same does go for Lord J, I'm sure.

Now, I'm not entirely against mood altering substances... after all, I do drink coffee and smoke cigars/pipes (tobacco, mind you, not anything else!), yet in both these things I would consider myself justified as I do not take them to an addictive or dangerous extreme (the old Delphic advice of meden agan, nothing in excess, is something I hold to be true.) All the same, I do not favour much of anything that makes one lose control of themselves, no matter what the grounds. Of course, I will admit if there is no lasting harm, and there is no danger to self or others, I don't suppose there is anything more than that that I can dispute.

Now, I well understand the antiquity of such religious thought. This idea of through an induced mania a god becoming indwelling may be seen echoed in ancient Greek Dionysiac ritual. All the same, I have always had difficult with purely spiritual/experiential religious belief. That is, for me religion is not founded upon the way it makes one feel. In the same way I have troubles with the Pentecostal type religious sect and their very emotion based beliefs. In this I suppose I am distinct from many who see religion and faith as matters mandated by personal and experiential factors. It is to me far less personal and more communal.

So I suppose it's on such grounds that I have a natural inclination against it. I would not call the experience truly spiritual, because I do not think any experiential event such as that can be spiritual, but can only masquerade as it. Spiritual, in my view, requires a certain ability to truly comprehend and understand that does not fade when the experience of the moment has faded. Such is my stance against it.

[HyperNerd]

I don't even HAVE a real religion anymore 

[chrono eric]

So I suppose it's on such grounds that I have a natural inclination against it. I would not call the experience truly spiritual, because I do not think any experiential event such as that can be spiritual, but can only masquerade as it. Spiritual, in my view, requires a certain ability to truly comprehend and understand that does not fade when the experience of the moment has faded. Such is my stance against it.

Finally an intelligent statement from someone. I would disagree with you in the bolded sentence, however. How does one define a spiritual experience? I would submit for argument that any spiritual experience is a result of an altered state of mind.

Example: You're in church praying to God. You pray and you pray and you pray. The suddenly, you feel a sense of relief wash over you. A sense of purity. A sense of happiness. You feel that your prayers have been answered. However, it is known that prayer and repetition floods serotonergic and dopaminergic synapses with serotonin and dopamine, respectively - the "feel good" neurotransmitters. Was the experience you had truly spiritual then? Were you answered by God? Or was it merely an experiential event that is masquerading as a spiritual one?

Example # 2: A person is in a fatal car crash and has a near death experience. They see their entire life flash before their eyes. They go through a tunnel with a white light and speak with deceased relatives. Then they come back to "life". They report their experience and it changes their lives profoundly. They decide to leave a more spiritual life. However, it is likewise known to science that the neurotransmitter DMT (dimethyltryptamine) is released in the brain when it is starved for oxygen upon a slow death. It is also known that this neurotransmitter is likely responsible for near death experiences. DMT, interestingly enough, is the active ingredient in the psychoactive brew Ayahuasca that certain south american tribes use. The chemical itself when ingested or smoked produces a very similar experience to the near death experiences that people report (ie: seeing dead love ones, seeing your whole life flash before your eyes, even speaking to strange "spirit" entities).

In either of these examples, does the fact that the experience was derived from an alteration of normal neural activity invalidate the spirituality of it? I say no, of course not. People that experience such things often change their lives completely afterwards. To them, it's more real than reality itself. What would one want to be a "true spiritual experience"? God speaking to you directly? And how would one separate that experience from a simple auditory hallucination?

[Ramsus]

Considering the very simple way most people live and see things, I would think quite a few of them require some form of separation from their normal perceptions to reach any sort of spiritual insight about their lives. Drugs like LSD simply act as a catalyst.

[chrono eric]

Considering the very simple way most people live and see things, I would think quite a few of them require some form of separation from their normal perceptions to reach any sort of spiritual insight about their lives. Drugs like LSD simply act as a catalyst.

Agreed Ramsus, very insightful. I am however not supporting the participation in illegal activities and I want to make that abundantly clear. Many entheogens are 100% legal, such as Salvia divinorum (except in Florida to my knowledge), which is actually far more powerful and just as potent as LSD. 'Potency' refers to the minimum amount of the chemical needed to exert an effect, and 'powerfulness' refers to the nature of the effects - to avoid confusion.

And I also am not supporting the use of any entheogens without the individual first being completely knowledgable on the effects and measures needed to maintain safety. Of course, an individual may know that Salvia divinorum triggers a non-classical near death experience in upper doses and profound spiritual visions in lower doses, but you can never fully prepare yourself for the experience. That is the point of the religious ritual. To cleanse the mind in preparation. And while the individual undergoing the experience thinks he has left his body and become one with the universe, he may attempt to move which could potentially cause injury - so someone should always be there as a 'sitter' for safety.

I am a strong advocate of safety with any mind altering substance. Be it alcohol or LSD. Of course, you are more inclined to think you are in an okay state to drive on alcohol than on most psychedelics, which makes alcohol particularly dangerous. These substances are nearly completely harmless as long as precautions are taken and the person using them is a responsible adult.

[Ramsus]

That's a respectable position, and nobody should be encouraging or admitting to doing anything illegal on a public forum like this anyway.

However, I certainly don't believe most drugs should be illegal to own, use, manufacture, or sell to begin with. Anymore, it's just an excuse for government to barge into your home and arrest you for having anything "that could be used to make drugs," even though that encompasses a lot of common items and most chemistry sets. It's a pretty good cover to use if you want your own secret police to take out people you don't like, all because we're afraid of someone using drugs.

And all the crap about gangs and criminals doesn't matter, because none of the money from drug activities would be flowing to gangs and terrorists if we didn't impose restrictions on the drug trade to begin with.

[chrono eric]

Me and you are of like mind Ramsus. I specifically think that all entheogens and all psychedelics in general should be 100% legal because they are nearly completely harmless, non-addictive (indeed, anti-addictive in most cases), non-toxic, and making them illegal violates the first amendment rights of people who want to practice their native religions in america. There should however be an age restriction for people purchasing these substances. 21 would be my ideal age. I don't believe that most 18 year olds can handle the mental experience of an intense psychedelic trip.

The drug laws are especially hypocritical when they concern psychedelic chemicals which are already endogenous in the body. In the united states it is illegal to be in possession of any amount of DMT. Really? Well everyone has DMT in their brains, including you and me, so can we be arrested for possession of DMT? That's rediculous. So you're left with a harmless chemical that has historically been used for religious practices being illegal. There is no criminal investment in DMT - most people don't know what it is and only do it once because it scares the shit out of them. There was no reason to illegalize it except to intrude upon the rights of certain brazilian immigrants who wanted to practice their religion in America. Salvia divinorum will likely follow DMT's suit in a few years or so. It's despicable.

But when it comes to legalizing substances that are highly addictive and toxic such as cocaine, methamphetamine, amphetamine, heroine, etc. - well I'm undecided about that. Pros would be that it would free up a lot of space in prisons, it would eliminate the black market trade of these substances and they could be taxed and made safe to purchase by the government. Cons would be that there would probably be more people addicted to them which would be a drain upon the medical industry. My thoughts are that you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you are going to legalize highly dangerous and addictive drugs like alcohol and nicotine, then you have to legalize all highly dangerous and addictive drugs.