A much wiser man than I once said, “By their fruits Ye shall know them. If the fruit of a tree is evil, then that tree is evil. If the fruit of a tree is good, then that tree is good.” I am reminded of this as I delve into the minefield of discussing my relationship with spirit allies in the form of psychoactive substances. It has been said that in polite conversation one should never discuss politics or religion. In discussing my relationship with psychoactives I’m doing both.
I’ve had a love-hate relationship with psychoactive substances for over 40 years (see prior posts). During that time I can honestly say that–like most close personal relationships–it has been both the source of my highest highs (unavoidable pun) and lowest lows.
Whenever people talk about these substances–whether it be alcohol, heroin, or anything in between–we need to remember that we can’t talk about them in isolation. As Alan Watts constantly reminded us–all existence is relative, nothing exists in a vacuum. We must therefore look not only at the substance, but its relationship to the individual and the results of that relationship. In scientific terms this means we must look at the outcome before judging the merits of any hypotheses.
Like anything else, psychoactive substances can produce seriously negative outcomes. Not only for those ingesting them, but also for those around them and society in general. However, does a substance’s potential negative outcome justify ignoring its potential good? Some would say “yes” and just leave it at that. I believe that reality is more nuanced than to fit in neat black-or-white categories, no matter how convenient or comforting they may be. Historically certain psychoactive substances have been used by many cultures as part of their spiritual and religious life. Indeed they are still in use today for this purpose throughout the world.
India is the birthplace of the oldest continuously practiced religion in the world–Hinduism. Hinduism traces its roots to texts call the Vedas (meaning “knowledge” or “wisdom”), which date back to 1,500–1,000 B.C.E. (for those of you who are math impaired that’s over 3,500 years ago). The oldest of these texts is the Rigveda, which roughly translated means “in praise of wisdom.” It is considered by most scholars to be the oldest religious text still in use today. The majority of the Rigveda consists of hymns to a psychoactive plant called Soma. Within the Rigveda, Soma is referred to as the “Creator of the Gods” and “God of the Gods.” No one knows exactly which plant was the source of Soma, but most believe it to be a plant containing psychoactive harmala alkaloids and beta-carbolines. These are found throughout India and the Middle East in the plant Peganum harmala (Syrian Rue). These are also, coincidentally, the same alkaloids found in the Banisteriopsis caapi, or Ayuahuasa vine of South America. Regular followers of this blog will note that Ayahuasca is the sacrament used for thousands of years by the indigenous people of the Amazon basin, as well as the present-day Santo Daime and União do Vegetal churches.
In the Americas there has also been a rich tradition of using psychoactive sacraments. Among pre-Columbian tribes of Mesoamerican peoples, psilocybin-containing mushrooms have been used in religious ceremonies at least as far back as 200 C.E. The name used for these mushrooms was teónanácatl, or “Food of the Gods.” Some, such as the late Terence McKenna, have speculated that use of such mushrooms by early hominids in Africa may have significantly contributed to human evolution. This theory is supported by the research of others, such as Roland L. Fisher and Giorgio Samorini. McKenna theorized that the ancient African grasslands were the historical “Garden of Eden” and that the mushroom–not the apple–was the fruit of the tree of (self) knowledge, which altered the evolutionary trajectory leading eventually to Homo sapiens.
As “far-out” as this may seem, it as good an explanation as any for the “great leap forward” made by Homo sapiens approximately 50,000 years ago when symbolic thought, language, and culture (religion, art, music, myth, etc.) emerged. This is biologically possible because one of the characteristics of the indole alkaloids (DMT, Psilocybin, etc.) is that they can intercalate (slip into) DNA and alter the genome. And, no, this is not the same as the false information spread back in the sixties that LSD damaged chromosomes.
Archeological evidence suggests the Native peoples of North American–particularly in present-day Northern Mexico and the Southwestern U.S.—have a history of using the mescaline-containing Peyote cactus (Lophophora williamsii) dating back to at least 200 years before the first Europeans arrived. In South America, other mescaline-containing cacti–collectively referred to as “San Pedro” (Echinopsis pachanoi, Echinopsis peruviana, Echinopsis bridgesii, etc.)–have been used among the indigenous peoples of the Andes since as early as 1,400 B.C.E.
In the case of all these substances (with the possible exception of Soma) they are still in use today within the cultures that have traditionally used them. This despite sustained efforts over hundreds of years by the Christian church and governments to eradicate their use. In fact some, such as Ayahuasca, have grown in use throughout the world through churches such as Santo Daime and União do Vegetal .
So, I think we have established that the use of psychoactive substances for spiritual and religious purposes is not anything new. Also, it is as alive and well now as any other time in human history. On to what many would consider the more pertinent question–is it “right”? Unfortunately, as much as some would like existence to fit into simplistic and comforting absolutist moral categories, existence tends to extend a metaphysical middle finger toward such efforts. Some find it preposterous to even discuss what constitutes a “valid” or “true” spiritual experience, as it presuposes there is some universally agreed upon standard.
When it comes to the phenomena of spiritual experience, there are basically three opinions. The first is that the only “true” spiritual experiences are spontaneous gifts provided through the grace of God (the Catholic church is but one example). Only those deemed worthy by God the Father shall receive such a blessing. In return, they shall be Canonized as Saints (assuming they meet all the other rules). According to this view, anything else is illegitimate.
The second opinion is that spiritual experience can only be brought about through hard work and sacrifice. Years of devotion, austerities, discipline, good works, etc. will–if you are lucky–result in some kind of awakening. Anything less is considered a spiritual “short-cut” and therefore “false.” I find it curious that people who are of this opinion consider practices such as hours of meditation or yoga to be “natural” while taking psychoactive substances is somehow “unnatural.” Contemporary neuroscience is revealing the biochemical nature of almost all psychological phenomena and has even delved into the nature of spiritual experience. I believe it is no accident that all these substances at the molecular level are astonishingly similar to our own neurochemicals. One researcher, Dr. Rick Strassman, has even referred to DMT as the “spirit molecule.”
The third opinion is that most eloquently described by the pioneering American psychologist and philosopher William James (1842–1910) in his The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902). James states there are many and varied forms of such experiences. Some take the form of the spontaneous conversion, others through a multitude of practices designed to facilitate such experiences. None is essentially “better” or “more authentic” than another. Each one is unique to the individual.
This does not mean, however, that the phenomena of spiritual experience itself cannot be described. Walter Pahnke (1931-1971) was a minister, physician, and psychiatrist who graduated with degrees from Harvard Medical School (M.D.), Harvard Divinity School (M.Div.), and Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences (Ph.D.). He is most well-known as the principle architect of the Marsh Chapel or “Good Friday” experiment (see prior posts). He also developed something called a Phenomenological Typology of Mystical Experience, wherein he identified the common elements of all such experiences independent of how they occur.
Dr. Pahnke’s research identified nine specific elements common to all mystical experience. These are:
1. A feeling of unity characterized by loss of normal ego consciousness and a sense of oneness.
2. Transcendence of time and space.
3. A deeply felt positive mood.
4. A sense of sacredness.
5. Objectivity and reality characterized by both Insightful, intuitive knowledge gained by the experience and the authoritative nature of the experience.
6. Paradoxicality, or the resolution of apparent paradoxes.
7. Ineffability, or the inability to describe the experience adequately.
8. The transient nature of the experience.
9. Persisting positive changes in attitudes and behaviors toward self, toward others, toward life, and toward the experience itself.
According to Dr. Pahnke’s research, if an experience has these qualities it is a genuine mystical experience. Other research by both Pahnke and others has shown that all these qualities can be found in the psychedelic substance experience.
Why then the controversy? I’m sure a good part of it has to do with the tendency to see things in absolute right-or-wrong categories. Naturally, if you have this mindset, whatever you are doing is “right” and whatever anyone else is doing is “wrong.” There can only be one path to the top of mountain. If you’re on a different path–you’re on the “wrong” path.
Another source of controversy is the puritan idea that anything that is too “easy” (or pleasurable) is “wrong.” This is a common belief among those unfamiliar with the use of psychoactive sacramentals, as they equate their use with “recreational” substance use or “partying.” On the contrary, using such substances as allies on the spiritual quest is far from “easy.” Just ask anyone who’s had a so-called “bad trip.” These substances are capable of not only revealing the angels within, but the demons as well.
Also, if one is using a psychoactive ally, there is much preparation (work) that needs to be done both before and after the experience itself. This is Huston Smith’s (see prior posts) chief argument regarding many who allegedly use these substances for “spiritual” purposes–the true evidence of the experience is what one does after the experience itself. In other words, the spiritual experience, no matter how it is achieved, is not an end in itself. Of all items listed in Dr. Pahnke’s typology, it is the last one–persisting positive changes in attitudes and behaviors toward self, toward, others, toward life–that is most often missing and, therefore evidence against a true spiritual experience.
This brings us to the final widespread misbelief that “religious” or “spiritual “use of these substances is a just a sham to rationalize getting high (as is no doubt the case with some who use “medical” marijuana). Unfortunately there seem to always be a minority of these poseurs within any group. I have met several myself during traditional Ayahuasca and San Pedro ceremonies. The fact that some will misuse these substances does not, however, delegitimize those who do use them for bona fide spiritual or religious purposes–just as the abuse of alcohol does not take anything away from the majority who use it responsibly.
I know that those who have already made their mind up will not be swayed by my arguments. I knew this when I made a commitment to this path. I will therefore end with a quote by English philosopher, sociologist, and liberal political theorist, Herbret Spencer (1820–1903):
There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance–that principle is contempt prior to investigation.
No comments:
Post a Comment