Step XIV of My Spiritual Journey: In Which I Talk Drugs
I know I'm a day late on this, but hey - my posts go up on Wednesdays.
But first, before I begin, let me state for the record, for posterity, for my mom, and for all future employers, that I do not do drugs. Nor did I do drugs for any part of Step XIV in My Spiritual Journey. In fact, as you'll see once we get a little further along, I actually dislike drugs, especially in regards to spirituality.
So, yesterday there was a bit of a to-do, if you will, about a researcher who claims Moses was high on psychedelic drugs. I'm going to go ahead and leave that alone, as I have no idea what happened however many bajillion years ago, nor do I have any business pretending I do.
Regardless of whatever drugs Moses did or did not do, I firmly believe that there is a strong connection between spirituality and drugs. And the more I think about this, the more I realize that the relationship between spirituality and drugs is something that really annoys me about spirituality in general.
I guess I'm picturing those shaggy-haired, stoner hippies playing the bongos at some full-moon tropical isle beach party. (Well, that or Matthew McConaughey, naked, and in his own home, but that's neither here nor there.) And while I know that the stoner, bongo playing, hippie is a ridiculously stereotypical example, I, for one, believe that stereotypes exist for a reason. (Case in point: Matthew McConaughey.)
Anyway, back to my actual point. When I think of religion, I think of straitlaced, commandment-abiding, God-fearing citizens. Or, less stereotypically, I think of someone who obeys the rules / was the goody-goody always raising their hand in high-school. (No, wait. That was no less stereotypical, and well, that was me. Minus the religion part.) Whatever, the point I'm trying to make is that when I think of religion, whatever religion, I think of a specific set of beliefs and rules. And when I think of spirituality, I think of a sort of do-it-yourself holiness. And I think that sometimes this DIY spirituality leads people to search, well, externally (read: chemically) for some sort of guidance.
Look, I get it. I've asked for a guru, but I think that sometimes people confuse spiritual awakenings with psychedelic trips. For example, and to highlight the specific psychotropic drug mentioned by said researcher, Libet Johnson, heir to the ridiculously large Johnson & Johnson fortune, discusses her love for the Amazonian tree-vine drug ayahuasca in this week's New York Magazine. According to Wikipedia, "ayahuasca is used largely as a religious sacrament," and those who use it in a "non-traditional context...often align themselves with shamanism." Now, can't you just picture Matthew McConaughey jaunting off to the Amazon for his spiritual awakening? (Sorry. I'll leave him alone now.)
Honestly, there's just too much ground to cover on this topic, like peyote, which is legal to use for ritual purposes within the Native American Church, or that Simpsons episode where Homer goes to the chili cook-off and eats some crazy habanero pepper, which causes him to hallucinate and set off on a spiritual journey guided by a coyote voiced by Johnny Cash.
At the end of the day, I suppose spiritual drug-use, besides being illegal (except for peyote, dammit), is one of those "to each their own" things. Which is fine by me, but I guess my point is that how can any hallucinated journey that existed solely as a result of ingesting a psychotropic and/or psychedelic drug be considered spiritual? (I would define that as chemical. I'm just sayin'.)
The bottom line? When you find yourself in spiritual alignment with Matthew McConaughey and/or The Simpsons (see: Bonus Clip at bottom) starts making fun of you, you've got to admit that you're not only a stereotype, you're also a little absurd.
Happy Trails!
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The plant Ephedra-ephadrine-meth component- grows wild in Utah---They call it "Mormon Tea" for a reason. The Hindu spiritual use of ganja predates Judaism. African use of iboga is another example. Cannabis is in Japanese Shinto practice for thousands of years. The Dalai Lama has been reported to say when asked if drugs led to enlightenment "I certainly hope so!" Use of amanita muscaria ranges from Scandanavia through Siberia and Mongolia as a spiritual get high among shamanic cultures, past and present. Try Google for some of your thoughts--straighten ya right out, eh? The Shivarati festival is going on now in India and Nepal. The eat and smoke ganga to worship Lord Shiva, so some use of "drugs" seems to be religious, as well as spiritual, even in today's modern world.
Wow, lots of posts but only one reference to the Amanita Muscaria.. come on kids, get with the program! ;)
The amanita is arguably the most influential entheogen in human history, and is directly related to the development of the spiritual traditions of India, Greece, Egypt and Persia, and can be traced all the way down to judiaism and christianity as well.
Here is some info and a photo of the mushroom: http://www.erowid.org/plants/amanitas/amanitas.shtml
The effects are well known and include those that commonly are termed "religious experiences" such as the breaking of light above the head, disruption of the internal monologue, etc. Now, note the color of the "plant" and ask yourself how likely it is that, down through the ages, the description of a "plant the color of fire" may have wound up being phrased as "a burning bush"...
For more on the universality of the Amanita Muscaria in the world's spiritual and religious traditions, check out Magic Mushrooms in Religion and Alchemy, by Clark Heinrich. Also the writings of R. Gordon Wasson on the identity of "Soma" the enthogen of ancient India and Greece, and even Dan Merkur's work on other likely entheogens of biblical times, particularly the Ergot wheat fungus, which produces LSD-like effects.
Lastly, familiarize yourself with the concept of "sympathetic magic" in which one dresses like the object one is hunting. Hunting an eagle? Wear an eagle feather... then check out this page to see why the Pope dresses the way he does ;) http://www.gnosticmedia.com/main/index.php?module=photoalbum&PHPWS_Album_op=view&PHPWS_Album_id=3
There is ample evidence that novelty is good for the brain and the soul. Drugs have become the "trip abroad" for many people. Certainly they are problematic and dangerous. I remember what Fran Leibowitz had to say about drugs when asked, "Well, they work." Cryptic but rings of truth.
Wow, you ARE getting the crap kicked out of you for this one. This subject is always a huge can of worms.
Honestly, I've never successfully ingested psychedelics. That doesn't mean I wouldn't like to successfully.
Gotta give you thumbs up for being one of the very few Huffposters who have the nuts to reply to comments besides Harry Shearer. And Harry rocks!
Checked out your new webblog. Keep at 'em. Too bad that pic of you here is so cropped and tiny. You're a cutie.
Cheers!
joe
I second JoeKing's thumbs up, Verena. Despite your simpleminded (and I mean that in the kindest way) approach to the topic, your response to the bloggers makes this all the more interesting. Love and Light!!!
for reals! Some of us even managed to have civil conversation and make good points! there might be something to this blog thing afterall...;)
Yeah, I too have to second JoeKing's praise of you for replying to commenters. That's brave, especially given the hornet's nest you stirred up. Thanks for trying. And replying and defending yourself. Good for you. As I said before, no personal thing to you. You are doing fine. You are out there taking criticism. You go girl.
You go do research, girl! I mean that positively! :-)
Capsicum (from habaneros) is a very strong central nervous system stimulant. Homer really did get off!!
WTF does Matthew McConaughey have to do with any of this?
Seems the majority of posters so far are of the 'I'm okay, you're okay" variety --that whatever makes you happy is the way to go. I disagree. I think using drugs to obtain enlightenment, commune with God or whatever is taking a cheap shortcut, and don't work. Are you really having a revelation, or a drug-mediated hallucination? You'll never know if you use drugs. This discussion reminds me of some of those marajuana sessions the characters on "That 70's Show" had almost every episode. One or the other would have this great discovery about themselves or the universe, but almost all of it was silly, not to mention that they forgot it once the weed wore off. Better to take the slow boat towards spiritual development, meditation, reading, praying, and strengthen yourself while improving your relationship with the divine.
Whatever.
Your only defense of your position is a reference to a very bad sitcom.
Your point about the slow road is good. Works for some, not all. Is there a rule somewhere that says only one method to enlightenment works? Oh yeah, the 3 Middle-Eastern religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. And they're still fighting with each other over whose method is correct.
Your opinion about the cheap shortcut applies to you only. And that's ok. :-)
Wildflowermaven,
Using entheogens relies on context. Sitting around getting high for the sake of being high is not likely to do anythng but make you high. Taking entheogens as part of spiritual practice to achieve ecstatic states and experience the divine is serious business, not to be done lightly.
You, like Verena, don't know what you are talking about with respect to entheogens.
I have mentioned in other places on this thread that there are ways of experiencing the divine without entheogens as well but it is silly to say that one works and the other does not.... Like Verena, you need to do your homework. I have offered some resources on this thread, take a risk and learn something.
Actually I think That 70's show was really entertaining. But I wasn't using it as a defense, only an example. How can you say your experience is meaningful, and the ones I described not? Is it like beauty is in the eye of the beholder? I have no doubt that in some ceremonies certain drugs play a meaningful role, but I still don't see the applicability for the average Joe or Jane seeking a spiritual path.
cheers to that...I agree!!!
When I think about the development of the "other" spiritual paths you propose, it becomes clear to me, and others who study this topic seriously and deeply, that you've got the progression of spiritual practices upside down. It seems quite improbable that an entire discipline, such as meditation or yoga, would be developed to achieve a particular goal without experience of that goal in the first place. Those practices developed as alternative paths to the same type of experience FIRST given by the plant kingdom. Ie, it seems highly likely that after experiencing an organically-induced experience one would attempt to re-create it by other means if, for example, the particular entheogen involved was no longer available, etc. It seems highly unlikely that a practice would evolve without a goal, just randomly, and then someone would wander into the forest, munch a plant or mushroom, and then say "hey this is just like when i meditate/do yoga/pray/etc" ... i really think the historical record shows that entheogens are THE original human religious experience, not shortcuts at all. The subsequent religious practices were designed to attain the same states first glimpsed via entheogens.
No, my only problem is that you're writing and soliciting comments on a topic you eagerly admit you know nothing about.
I could blog about quantum physics if I even knew what that was. But it would be a pretty ridiculous post since I have nothing to say about them. For good measure and a tad too much enjoyment out of flaming a blog, I could look down my nose at everyone who DID know something about quantum physics.
Ta Da! Recipe for a great blog post that'll "get people talking."
And here's a news flash: Your name has to be on the blog since you got the job at HuffPost (somehow). Stop calling people who comment on your posts cowards because they don't include their full name, social security number, and place of employment.
If I didn't know any better I'd say you were a sugary-sweet front for the DEA. I am, however, looking forward to your next enlightening post about our society's other losers.
Have you run out of interesting things to say?
So, drugs and spirituality are a controversial topic. Well, that, or my posts just suck.
Anyway, I completely understand the comments regarding my bashing something that I have not tried - that is to say, "tripping" on drugs as a form of spiritual enlightenment. You are right - I have not tried it. But my VERY humble opinion is that whenever I DO get somewhere, spiritually, I'd personally hope that it came from my natural state of being.
That said, I'm a little surprised at the furor over the idea that I don't do drugs at all. I have a few things to say about that.
Firstly, this post is not questioning the whys or the hows of the legality of drugs. Now, that's something I REALLY know nothing about. All I know is that I know people who have had bad experiences with drugs, and unfortunately, there are some (read: many, many) people that do not know where to stop, or who not to distribute to. So, if we have to have the government control these possibly harmful substances, some of which are EXTREMELY harmful if used incorrectly, then so be it.
Secondly, I'm genuinely shocked that people take issue with my "I don't take drugs" attitude. Is that so bad? And while we're on that topic, I've mentioned this in a reply, but this is an extremely public forum, and a permanent one at that. I don't see any commenters who are publishing under their full names and/or at their place of work. If your thoughts on drugs are such that I've been so "brainwashed" by after-school anti-drug specials, then can I assume that you would actively encourage your young children to try them? Or how about telling your boss about your "spiritual" drug use? How very liberal.
All in, I'm still extremely proud of this post, if only for the fact that it got people talking. I'm not posting for any particular audience, nor am I posting, really, to please anyone. These are just my thoughts and/or musings on an interesting subject. Perhaps I was too judgemental. To each their own.
No objection to your natural path Verona... only your judgement of alternative paths. Cars are dangerous. Alcohol is dangerous. Having a discussion with your boss about drugs... just plain stupid. When was the last time you talked to your boss about your favorite sexual position? Or does the fact that you don't talk about your detailed sexual escapades mean that you are ashamed of them and that they ultimately destructive in nature. You need to be a little more creative in your thinking... and a little less closed minded.
Depends on your boss doesn't it Lean?
2 things.
1. Look, I don't care if you take drugs. That's your choice. There is no objective good or bad in that.
What I object to is your very uninformed column that is basically fluff.
It did get people talking, and I found the comments to be much more informative than your column, so a begrudged agreement with you there. However, your column itself prompted the comments mainly because it was so poorly written, and really did not say anything about the drug assisted "spiritual" experiences. I would have appreciated it if you could have cited somebody other than Matt M, who is a fairly poor example of a stoner, actor, and pretty much everything else. You could have said you didn't know a thing, and solicited comments and information. You could have read any of the vast body of literature that discusses drug related spirituality, not just the Simpsons. You could have done some research. Instead you were flip and made very poor attempts at humor, which is why I felt so disappointed. On top of that, you were dismissive about something you admit to knowing very little about. Why are you a columnist, exactly? Why are you writing about this topic?
2. You keep talking about a "natural" experience being more "real" than one created by "outside" sources. If that's the case, don't eat food. It comes from "outside" of us. It enhances our life by allowing us to live. But the experience of nourishment doesn't come from "inside" so it must be suspect, according to your reasoning. So why eat?
Having the govt control much is a very bad idea. Following the logic behind your statement, why aren't alcohol and ciggies more controlled?
Verena, no ad hominem attacks from me. But please, do some research, open your mind.
High, Try the "natural" way--fasting will get you visions, hallucinations and a near-death experience, if you really push it. All the major faith traditions recommend fasting for spiritual advancement. They all seem to have some form of ingesting mystical substances as well, so it looks to me like it is a choice sort of deal. That piece of dry bread is ACTUALLY the flesh of God? And grape juice is really His blood? Believe what is comfortable for you and be blessed.
Verena,
The history of gov control of "drugs" has little to do with the idea that they are EXTREMELY harmful.
There is not toxicty to psylociben or cannabis or LSD....you can't overdose on them. Period.
When politicians get involved they say whatever sounds good. Dr.s know what toxicity and have argued against the ratioanale offered by politicians.
Addictive substances are a different story but you are lumping all of them together and, if you will forgive me for saying so, you don't know what you are talking about.
You have clearly done no research on entheogens and their use in spiritual practice.
You are simply describing a subjective opinion that involves a "clean" aproach to acheiving an ecstatic state however you haven't mentioned this understanding once in the posts that you are so proud of nor have you offered a definition of what spirituality is and attempted to conform with that definition. So you don't even seem to know what spirituality is.
It seems, from your posts, that you feel it has something to do with behavior modification to be "good" but you haven't discussed a personal relationship with the divine in your entire series.
You don't seem to understand what you are talking about.
I have mentioned in several posts that there are "clean' ways to acheive ecstatic states and that you can do it fhrough those means... if you know what you are doing and why you are doing it.
The idea that entheogens are EXTREMELY dangerous is nonsense, especially when used in the context of a spiritual practice.
Western culture has divorced itself from directly experiencing the divine to the point where you, yourself, don't even know that is. It isn't a case of "to each their own" as you put it. Either you are directly experiencing the divine in a way that is common to all of us who are doing it or you are not experiencing the divine because these ecstatic states, no matter how you acheive them, are doorways to the same place. Everyone who goes there comes back with the same story though it may be wrapped in cultural trappings...
I have offered a number of good resources... examine Transpersonal Psychology...
Do your homework, Verena....
Good Luck!
Good Luck!!
You are not a young child. But that argument is nothing but a red herring. It's not necessary to take drugs in order to discuss how they interact with spirituality. My own drugs of choice are chocolate and the occasional cup of coffee. This topic is not that controversial, but your narrow-minded yapping about how religion is people worshiping God in church and that "stereotypes exist for a reason" is confining and judgmental to the point of extreme provocation. Stereotypes *do* exist for a reason: so that people can get away with being lazy thinkers.
The fatal flaw of your writing wasn't that you were too judgmental; although you were that. It's that you were too superficial. You shot off a bunch of negative, culturally biased fantasies and then pointed to the Simpsons and said "case closed". Maybe you ought to consider the idea that a sense of judgment is useless without understanding. Do your homework next time.
Lets just put it this way - Millions of years ago came the plants/fungi , then several thousands of years ago came the people using the plants/fungi and in the last hundred years or less came the drug laws.
Personally, I wouldn't put much credence in anything so "trendy".
This is lame.
Hi Verena,
Spirituality (as compared to religion) involves the direct experience of ecstatic states. You can experience these states through a variety of means. Shamanism is a specific practice involving interaction and mediation between the spirit realms and this one as well as engagement with the entities that occupy those realms.
Religion is a belief system that simply involves faith and behavior modification and is quite subjective.
Shamanism is not subjective, those who truly experience it have a common description of where they went and what happens there.
One can experience ecstatic states in a variety of ways. Trance dancing and drumming and singing or chanting are very, very ancient ways to do this. Think of the Sufi like Rumi and the whirling dervishes-- or think of the large dancing grounds around most native villages and the dancing and drumming rituals.... or think of rave dances..Fasting, yoga, meditations with breathwork are other examples. The use of entheogens is another way to do this. The purpose of these ecstatic states is to break down certain boundries and filters to allow you to engage reality in a more intimate way.
It seems, from your article, that you are experiencing a clash between your own morals and beliefs with an ancient form of practice. The only publicly released section of the Dead Sea scrolls caused the ttranslator to write a book describing the roots of Christianity as "fertility and mushroom cults". In Moses' time people used entheogen in ritual. Acacia bark, Syrian Rue, psylociben, blue lotus flowers and other things were part of that experience.
Ritual use of entheogens in the shamanic experience is serious business. Ayahausca has a fad following... but the root of this is serious. It isn't fun, it isn't light hearted. It is designed to teach you something. Further, once you learn the lesson you don't need to take it any more. None of these substances are addictive and most of them are not toxic - you couldn't eat enough of them to kill yourself if you wanted.
And not all of them are illegal or detectable.
For more info take a look at the work of Richard Strassman (DMT: The Spirit Molecule) and the Cottonwood Foundation.
For an insightful video on the topic featuring qualified consciousness researchers go to www.guba.com and search "entheogen" and watch "Entheogen: Awakening the Divine Within". Finally, examine the work of Transpersonal Psychology, Carl Jung, Stan Grof, Barbara Marx Hubbard, etc Graham Hancock wrote a fascinating book on the subject "Supernatural".
Examine some of these resources or continue to be wholly ignorant on the topic. The Entheogen video is especially helpful in defining the spiritual experience, its purpose and the various modalities involved.
If you aren't experiencing ecstatic states that are brnging you closer to understanding your journey, then you aren't being spiritual. You are just practicing behavior modification to teach yourself how to be nice... it is not the same thing.
Good Luck!
Iboga. Iboga, iboga, iboga...
Said to be like 5 years worth of therapy in an 8 hour 'trip".
Anyone "experienced"?
In Hancock's book "Supernatural" is a description of an Ibogaine journey.
For those who don't know, Iboga is a drug from WAfrica that is very important to rituals... It is used to commune with the spirits of the deceased....
Yes... scary the one time I tried... not knowing what to experience. It detaches your mind from your body and gives you gothic-like visions on the back of your eyelids... a full dose is about 24 hours and feels like 48... just you and your innermost thoughts. Needs to be taken in a safe environement so that you can pursue and confront your personal demons and memories. Scary and something I said I would never do again. Though I can easily see how the drug could have miraculous results in a spiritual / therapeutic sense (in the right setting). A second visit down the line may be in the future. Life is good at the moment, not going to unessesarilly tempt fate with a second try.
Perhaps an altered state of consciousness can bring something out of your brain that might normally be suppressed, and you would have no idea was there. People are in a rut, many ruts, deep ruts, and society encourages this and keeps digging them deeper. If your brain has temporarily forgot how to follow the rut, you have to figure out a path, and it might be a different path, maybe even something better than before. Of course you have to wait until the feeling passes and judge the value later in your normal state of mind, but you might just discover a rut you can rationally escape from if you are lucky. This is spiritual because religion and possibly sometimes spirituality are rutted.
So, I guess you are against vitamins and all forms of medication as well correct? If minerals and vitamins exist in our bodies already, why take vitamin C or put a balm on a burn? Best let nature just naturally fix everything right? Just like medicine for fevers, aches, and ailments, some people take "medicine" to help their mind make sense of the world. Some don't.
For some, watching Fox News and reading only the Bible is all the spiritual nourishment they need. Others require a little more - and have been seeking answers for thousands of years. Many of which manage to even approach the moral and ethical fortitude of young Ms. Von Pfetten.
Seriously, this is one of the stupidest posts I've ever read on here. To have a blogger proudly admit that she has no idea what she's writing about is a pretty pathetic statement for this blog. Why don't you try your hand at topics with which you have some knowledge you were able to glean in between showering and doing your laundry (which apparently take up much of your day)?
I have to agree that you do come off as a bit naïve, a bit snarky as well. It would be very easy to stereotype you too but I won’t. Maybe it was as you said, all the anti-drug rhetoric warped your sense of what is real and what is just hype. I mean we’ve been force fed that line since Hearst ran baseless feature articles claiming black men were corrupting white women with the evil weed. Of course Hearst was heavily invested in timber for paper and felt threatened by the new hemp harvest equipment that could produce paper cheaper. But that was just business.
Actually, it’s all about business. From Nixon and his cronies afraid of the growing anti-war movement to Regan’s corporate buddies wanting a ‘productive’ and tame work force. Drugs are bad. Work is good. Stay in line.
While, like Tracy in Inherit The Wind, I’ll fight to the death to defend your right to express your opinion no matter how wrong I think it may be, I would ask that you do some real work. Try researching your topics, especially the ones that you know very little about. Humans taking drugs has as much history as humans having sex and like sex, drugs can be both good and bad.
I once hoped that bloging would cut through the bull and get to the truth. You’re not helping.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
