Are psychedelics spirituality?
Moderator: Moderators
-
Athiest-420
- Student
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 7:25 pm
Post #13
[Replying to post 11 by dio9]
It all depends on how you define the term "mystic".
For example: Are you saying that mystical experiences are similar to hallucinations of some sort?
dio9 wrote:
I am of the opinion psychedelics give the mystic experience without the discipline of meditative practices. Does that make sense?
It all depends on how you define the term "mystic".
For example: Are you saying that mystical experiences are similar to hallucinations of some sort?
Post #14
[Replying to post 13 by Blastcat]
Back in the days of LSD and psychedelic research, there were some serious studies done, one by Pahnke on seminary students, that showed definite parallels exist between psychedelic experiences at a Good Friday service (Pahnke) and descriptions of ecstatic experiences as described in the Christian mystical literature.
No, I don't think this means mystical experiences are all hallucinations., It think it means psychedelics can open up new doorways of spiritual or mystical experiences.
Many nonwestern cultures use various forms of psychedelic drugs as part of their religion.
Back in the days of LSD and psychedelic research, there were some serious studies done, one by Pahnke on seminary students, that showed definite parallels exist between psychedelic experiences at a Good Friday service (Pahnke) and descriptions of ecstatic experiences as described in the Christian mystical literature.
No, I don't think this means mystical experiences are all hallucinations., It think it means psychedelics can open up new doorways of spiritual or mystical experiences.
Many nonwestern cultures use various forms of psychedelic drugs as part of their religion.
Post #16
[Replying to post 14 by hoghead1]
I agree that people have all kinds of experiences they can describe as religious, mystical and so on. I have those myself. I don't attach these experiences with the supernatural labels that other people might. I consider my experiences to be perfectly natural.
If I take a drug, I'm not really surprised that it has an effect.
Could you explain which ones are and which ones aren't?
Are the hallucinogenic drug induced mystical experiences all hallucinations?
Again, I am not quite sure what you mean by "spiritual or mystical experiences".
I don't believe in the spirit world, or know what YOU mean by "spirit", and if by "mystical" you mean "mysterious", then we agree. I can fully agree that when I take a hallucinogenic drug, that I would suffer from hallucinations. That's what these drugs do.
Could you define the terms "spirit" and "mystical experience" and "hallucination"?
I think I might not quite know exactly what you mean.
They take drugs to induce hallucinations that they then interpret according to their religion.
I don't have a religion, so if I were to ingest the same drugs I would feel the drug's effects and NOT attribute the experience to something else. The brain is very complex. We can mess up the signals quite easily. Some people do that kind of thing as a form of entertainment, too. Some people might even PRETEND to be religious IN ORDER to entertain themselves with "religious" drugs.
Can drugs be "entertaining"?.. I'd say yes, to some.
Can drugs be associated with religions? .. I'd say yes, to some.
Does LSD or any other hallucinogenic prove the spirit world or any religion?
That would have to be determined. I don't think so.
Let's study that.
Well, I do prefer serious studies as opposed to the jokey ones.hoghead1 wrote:
Back in the days of LSD and psychedelic research, there were some serious studies done, one by Pahnke on seminary students, that showed definite parallels exist between psychedelic experiences at a Good Friday service (Pahnke) and descriptions of ecstatic experiences as described in the Christian mystical literature.
I agree that people have all kinds of experiences they can describe as religious, mystical and so on. I have those myself. I don't attach these experiences with the supernatural labels that other people might. I consider my experiences to be perfectly natural.
If I take a drug, I'm not really surprised that it has an effect.
So, you don't agree that all mystical experiences are hallucinations.hoghead1 wrote:
No, I don't think this means mystical experiences are all hallucinations., It think it means psychedelics can open up new doorways of spiritual or mystical experiences.
Could you explain which ones are and which ones aren't?
Are the hallucinogenic drug induced mystical experiences all hallucinations?
Again, I am not quite sure what you mean by "spiritual or mystical experiences".
I don't believe in the spirit world, or know what YOU mean by "spirit", and if by "mystical" you mean "mysterious", then we agree. I can fully agree that when I take a hallucinogenic drug, that I would suffer from hallucinations. That's what these drugs do.
Could you define the terms "spirit" and "mystical experience" and "hallucination"?
I think I might not quite know exactly what you mean.
Yes, many do. Even some North and South American cultures do.hoghead1 wrote:
Many nonwestern cultures use various forms of psychedelic drugs as part of their religion.
They take drugs to induce hallucinations that they then interpret according to their religion.
I don't have a religion, so if I were to ingest the same drugs I would feel the drug's effects and NOT attribute the experience to something else. The brain is very complex. We can mess up the signals quite easily. Some people do that kind of thing as a form of entertainment, too. Some people might even PRETEND to be religious IN ORDER to entertain themselves with "religious" drugs.
Can drugs be "entertaining"?.. I'd say yes, to some.
Can drugs be associated with religions? .. I'd say yes, to some.
Does LSD or any other hallucinogenic prove the spirit world or any religion?
That would have to be determined. I don't think so.
Let's study that.
Post #17
[Replying to post 15 by dio9]
[center]Were getting a little bit vague for my taste.[/center]
I can interpret it to mean too many things:
Is the mystic experience the feeling of complete presence in reality, or it is an actual complete presence in reality?
Do you see the difference?
You describe the mystical experience one way.
I don't have a quarrel with your definition.
But are you expressing an opinion about the experience or are you describing a fact about the experience?
Because I can accept that when you are having a "mystical experience" that you FEEL ( or somehow think ) that you are in a complete presence in reality.
Even without being in a mystical experience, I really do feel already completely in the presence of reality. ... Or maybe it means that I'm ALWAYS having a mystical experience?
If you would elaborate what you mean by "the mystic experience is complete presence in reality", it could be helpful.
Right now, I can interpret that statement too many ways.
[center]Were getting a little bit vague for my taste.[/center]
That statement is too ambiguous for me.
I can interpret it to mean too many things:
Is the mystic experience the feeling of complete presence in reality, or it is an actual complete presence in reality?
Do you see the difference?
You describe the mystical experience one way.
I don't have a quarrel with your definition.
But are you expressing an opinion about the experience or are you describing a fact about the experience?
Because I can accept that when you are having a "mystical experience" that you FEEL ( or somehow think ) that you are in a complete presence in reality.
Even without being in a mystical experience, I really do feel already completely in the presence of reality. ... Or maybe it means that I'm ALWAYS having a mystical experience?
If you would elaborate what you mean by "the mystic experience is complete presence in reality", it could be helpful.
Right now, I can interpret that statement too many ways.
Post #19
I am describing a fact. You say you must be always having a mystical experience lucky you. I can't describe my mystical experience for you , 'cause its mine. You have your own mystical experience. I don't doubt you're having them.Blastcat wrote: [Replying to post 15 by dio9]
[center]Were getting a little bit vague for my taste.[/center]
That statement is too ambiguous for me.
I can interpret it to mean too many things:
Is the mystic experience the feeling of complete presence in reality, or it is an actual complete presence in reality?
Do you see the difference?
You describe the mystical experience one way.
I don't have a quarrel with your definition.
But are you expressing an opinion about the experience or are you describing a fact about the experience?
Because I can accept that when you are having a "mystical experience" that you FEEL ( or somehow think ) that you are in a complete presence in reality.
Even without being in a mystical experience, I really do feel already completely in the presence of reality. ... Or maybe it means that I'm ALWAYS having a mystical experience?
If you would elaborate what you mean by "the mystic experience is complete presence in reality", it could be helpful.
Right now, I can interpret that statement too many ways.
For the record, The classic mystical experience is oneness with all things internal and external.
Post #20
[Replying to post 16 by Blastcat]
Christian mystical literature centers upon what some call an "oceanic feeling of oneness" with God and also with the world. That means there are no hard-and-fast dividing lines between yourself, God, and the universe. God and the universe are literally flowing in you, and you in God and all the rest. The mystics experience God as omnipresent and themselves as ontologically fused to God, part of the very being of God. In the metaoysics of modern-day process theologians and philosophers, reality is understood as relational, relativistic. Everything is related to everything else. We are not all separate substances, leading lives encapsulated within ourselves. We are all incarnate, resent in one another. Hence, I believe that process provides a coherent metaphysical explanation for such mystical experiences.
Christian mystical literature centers upon what some call an "oceanic feeling of oneness" with God and also with the world. That means there are no hard-and-fast dividing lines between yourself, God, and the universe. God and the universe are literally flowing in you, and you in God and all the rest. The mystics experience God as omnipresent and themselves as ontologically fused to God, part of the very being of God. In the metaoysics of modern-day process theologians and philosophers, reality is understood as relational, relativistic. Everything is related to everything else. We are not all separate substances, leading lives encapsulated within ourselves. We are all incarnate, resent in one another. Hence, I believe that process provides a coherent metaphysical explanation for such mystical experiences.
