Home (theory of the ego death and rebirth experience)
Contents
Door article: "One toke over
the line of rational theology"
Bennett/Ruck's cannabis Christ in
Door Christian magazine
Amazon review: Bennett's
"Drugs in the Bible"
Assessing the influence of
Bennett's work
Bennett program: What is the Soma
Solution?
Uploaded
as
http://www.egodeath.com/doorcannabischrist.htm
<title>One
toke over the line of rational theology</title>
</head>
<h2><font
face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">One toke over the line of
rational theology</font></h2>
<p>
<i>(The
illustration shows a grayscale reproduction, 2 x 2-1/2", of a devotional
Jesus with large, faint halo, right hand up with palm facing viewer, and left
hand pointing to his heart, which has white rays surrounding it and a large
9-fingered cannabis leaf over his heart.)</i>
<p>
The
anointing oil and incense used by Jesus and his disciples contained an
ingredient called <i>kaneh-bosem</i> which has since been
identified as cannabis extract, according to an article by Chris Bennett in the
pro-drugs magazine<i>High Times</i>, titled <i>Was Jesus a
Stoner?</i>
<p>
"There
can be little doubt about a role for cannabis in Judaic religion," Carl
Ruck, professor of classical mythology at Boston University, said in the
article.
<p>
Bennett
suggests those anointed with the oils used by Jesus were "literally
drenched in this potent mixture... Although most modern people choose to smoke
or eat pot, when its active ingredients are transferred into an oil-based
carrier, it can also be absorbed through the skin."
<p>
He argues
that Jesus anointed his disciples with the oil and encouraged them to do the
same with other followers. This could
account for healing of eye and skin diseases referred to in the gospels.
<p>
"If
cannabis was one of the main ingredients of the ancient anointing oil... and
receiving this oil is what made Jesus the Christ and his followers Christians,
then persecuting those who use cannabis could be considered anti-Christ."
<p>
<b><i>And
I guess there was the time the disciples all "got the munchies" at
Passover? Oh, </i>please,<i> folks, give it up.</i></b>
<p>
<hr
size="1px">
<p>
-- The
above is the complete piece from the <b><i><u>Not
So</u></i> Good News</b> section, compiled by the Door
staff. March/April 2003, p. 40.
<p>
<a
href="http://www.thedoormagazine.com">The Door Magazine</a>
<p>
Chris
Bennett's book "Sex, Drugs, Violence and the Bible" is available
through several sources, including <a
href="http://www.forbiddenfruitpublishing.com">Forbiddenfruitpublishing.com</a>.
<p>
<a
href="http://www.google.com/search?q=%22chris+bennett%22+cannabis">Search
for "chris bennett" and cannabis</a><br>
<a
href="http://www.google.com/search?q=%22chris+bennett%22+entheogen">Search
for "chris bennett" and entheogen</a>
<p>
Note that
some entheogen researchers hold that the bible figures are purely mythical
personifications of aspects of the psyche encountered in the intense mystic
altered state resulting from visionary plants.
As with Dionysus, then, it would be more accurate to speak of Jesus
<i>being</i> cannabis and all visionary plants, rather than giving
or using them to his followers.
<p>
According
to this view, Jesus is the personification of visionary plants and the
corresponding metaphysical insight about time, space, self, and control that
the visionary plants produce. It is
profoundly but only figuratively true that "Jesus gives his flesh and
blood as visionary plants of salvation and enlightenment to his
followers."
http://www.thedoormagazine.com
The Door,
a religious satire magazine, March/April 2003, p. 40 has a half-page article about
Chris Bennett's theory published in High Times magazine about early Christian
use of cannabis products, with a favorable quote from Carl Ruck. The entheogen theory has been communicated
by being publically satirized.
I have
asked the scholars to emphasize the use of multiple psychoactive plant products
-- that point is too often hidden in footnotes. Bennett tends to portray the Old and New Testaments as being
informed *only* by cannabis, but we should think in terms of "mixed
wine" which could contain all known plants in combination, including
datura, ergot, Amanita, psilocybin, mandrake, opium, alcohol, cannabis, and
various other inebriants.
Instead of
showing that one religion used one entheogen at one point in time (the start),
it's time to show that all religions used all known entheogens at all points in
time. It's only modern-era blindness
and denseness that makes us so grossly underestimate the extent of use of
entheogens. Entheogen scholars ended up
selling themselves short, inadvertently ending up communicating the assertion
that entheogens generally were *not* used in religion -- the opposite of the
intended message.
>Cannabis,
strong-drink mixtures, mandrake, and mushrooms all are included in my book and
article.
>--Chris
Bennett
Some of
the proof of this is shown below.
______________________
http://forbiddenfruitpublishing.com/sexdrugs/intro.html
- excerpts:
Next only
to sex, do drugs, as in psychoactive substances, play a pivotal role in the
development of religion, and the Bible is here no exception. The importance of drugs in religion, like
that of sexuality, is often overlooked by researchers who have been imprinted
with our Christian influenced societies innate prejudice against these substances. Moreover, without personal experience of the
power of psychoactive plants, many researchers have failed to perceive the
pivotal role that such plants and preparations have played in religious thought
the world over. "All religions in
which mysticism and contact with the supernatural play an important part,
attribute a sacred character to an intoxicating drink or other
intoxicant"(Danielou 1992). The
Biblical references to wine, which had become the blood of the savior by the
Christian period, clearly falls into this category. The use of wine in the ancient world was "unquestionably due
to its power to stimulate the mystical faculties of human nature, usually
crushed to earth by the cold facts and dry criticisms of the sober
hour"(James 1929). Even more
interestingly, as we shall amply demonstrate on these pages, was the use of
other intoxicants amongst the Old Testament Israelites.
Despite
the early marriage between shamanism and psycho-active plants that inspired the
development of whole religions, naturally occurring botanicals like the
psilocybin mushroom, Indian hemp, peyote cactus and similar substances have
been condemned as devil's potions and drugs by most religious groups of our
modern era. Historically, this
situation is an anomaly, not the norm. Prior to the Common Era and throughout
the ancient world these magical plants had been seen as sacraments and
constituted a very important part of religious worship. In the 1930's respected scholar W.E. Budge
commented that, "Many of the ancient herbalists knew that the juices of
certain plants possessed properties which produced extraordinary effects when
introduced into the human body, and that some might be used as aphrodisiacs,
and others as narcotics, and others as stimulants. And the magicians when they were acquainted with them naturally
used them in lotions and philters to produce both good and evil
effects"(Budge 1930). Some modern
scholars have taken this line of thought further, pointing out that the
ancients considered these substances to be the sacred food of the Gods, and a
means of communicating with the divine. (Schultes and Hoffman 1979; Mckenna
1992; Ott 1993, etc.).
Still
other scholars suggest that humanities drive to alter their consciousness is as
innate as the drives to fulfill sexual needs and hunger. ... well-known health
and drug researcher Dr. Andrew Weil commented, "There is not a shred of
hope from history or from cross-cultural studies to suggest that human beings
can live without psychoactive substances". (A view that is discussed more fully in Ronald K. Siegel's
Intoxication: Life in Pursuit of Artificial Paradise.) ["Artificial"? Jonathan Ott has written a whole book
demonstrating how misleading and incorrect that way of thinking is; they are
the venerable, classic *natural* paradises.
This perfectly demonstrates how today's entheogenists shoot themselves
in the foot and are their own worst enemies, inadvertantly entrenching further
the dominant paradigm even as they strive to challenge it. -mh]
Etymologist
and religious historian John M. Allegro [you see him swinging by the neck in
the background, serving to quite effectively officially discredit the entheogen
theory of religion by his poor grasp of what entheogenic mysticism is about and
his dismissive, disparaging attitude toward the very subject he considered to
be a main advocate of -mh] pointed out that our ancestors believed these plants
were living gateways to other realms, and thought of them as angels. ... The
ancients interpreted the experiences they received from these plant-angels as
divine revelations, in much the same way that shamans have done around the
world before recorded history, and are still doing in South America, Africa,
Asia and even North America today.
Although
it is little known to most modern readers, marijuana and other entheogens
played a very important role in ancient Hebrew culture and originally appeared
throughout the books that make up the Bible's Old Testament. The Bible openly discusses the use of
mandrake, which is psychoactive, along with intoxication by wine and strong
drink so the Hebrews were more than familiar with altering their
consciousness. What will be surprising
to most modern readers, is the frequent use of cannabis-sativa, by both the
Hebrew Priests and Kings. Indicating, as anthropologist Vera Rubin noted, that
cannabis "appears in the Old Testament because of the ritual and sacred
aspect of it" (Rubin 1978).
______________________
In
addition to watching out for the challenges that the mainstream puts out
against the entheogen theory of religion, we also need to watch out for the
ways in which the insiders, the entheogen scholar community, harms its own
cause and unnecessarily unconsciously limits its own effectiveness by accepting
far too much of the dominant paradigm.
These
scholars can exclaim about my criticisms just as G.A. Wells said about Earl
Doherty's criticism of his work: "I am used to being criticized, but not
for being too conservative!"
G.A. Wells
wrote books asserting that Jesus kind of basically pretty much didn't exist,
not in any way we usually think -- whereas Doherty came along and said
"enough with the minor corrective epicycles: out with it, admit it, give
us a *real* paradigm shift: Jesus didn't exist, period. Honestly and really change your thinking,
and quit just shuffling the same old bits around with minor changes."
Then I
come along criticizing Doherty as being nothing but a paradigm destroyer, not a
paradigm changer, as he recognizes no profundity and relevance for the
Christian myth system, and has no more insight than any run-of-the-mill
Christian-origins scholar that the myth refers to specific dynamics experienced
and understood during intense entheogenic mystic experiencing.
I read
much of Chris Bennett's book Sex, Drugs, Violence and the Bible, and quickly
read his High Times article.
Just as
James Arthur claims to have "clearly" emphasized the great extent to
which entheogens are present in religion, upon closer examination it becomes
clear that Arthur and Bennett end up making the same communication mistake and
unbalanced thinking mistake as Huston Smith: after a 50% careful reading of
Arthur, the reader most likely comes away with the idea that there was a slight
presence of Amanita way back only at the beginning of Christianity.
With
Huston Smith, one ends up with a similarly tepid impression, that entheogens
are an also-ran, barely present throughout the eras of the religions. With Bennett, there is a good reason why the
Door Magazine characterized him just like I do: Bennett puts 99% of his
emphasis, so it seems, on Cannabis, and only in early Christianity. Arthur puts 99% of his emphasis, so it
seems, on Amanita, in several religions, but only way back at the beginning.
Huston
Smith, another "defender" and "promoter" of the presence or
legitimacy of entheogens in religion, also ends up giving the readers an
impression that 99% of religious experiencing and mystic tradition has *not*
been entheogenic. If these authors
intend to communicate what I am emphasizing, they have failed.
I don't
think this is a mischaracterization of the background paradigm behind these
books; this accurately describes what is actually communicated in practice by
these books.
If their
theory is that all combinations of entheogens have been used during all eras of
all religions -- which is the radical extremist alternative I am tentatively or
experimentally proferring -- they don't communicate that. Bennett *didn't* have that radical theory in
mind when writing the High Times article or the book. If he had, that would have been reflected in the Door article.
But no,
the Door article exclusively describes Bennett's proposition that Mr.
Historical Jesus used cannabis and that the laying on of hands was with
cannabis. Not one word about any other
entheogen in any religion in any era.
What I am
criticizing the entheogenists for, and shaking them to wake them up about, is
that they are shooting themselves in the foot (like drug policy reformers do in
so many ways) by buying in too fully into the dominant mode of thinking and
communicating. The world will never pay
attention to the entheogen theory if it is communicated so timidly, with such
an exclusive emphasis on one plant such that the others are completely
overshadowed.
*No way*
does the book or article by Bennett effectively communicate a multi-plant
theory -- it's far too exclusively focused on cannabis. It's really time to discard that way of
thinking that chronically overemphasizes a single plant, with the others
relegated to a footnote. Quit
identifying with a single plant, and move on to the "Integral
Studies" spirit like Ott, and like Dan Russell -- *they* have the right,
more extreme exphasis, probably Ott most of all.
Don't just
tack on a bit of use of one plant onto existing, status-quo thinking about
religion, and then add an even lesser footnote to that. Like Wilber would say, we need an "all
era, all plant, all religion" Integral theory of the role of entheogens in
religion.
Amanita is
plastered all over Arthur's works.
Cannabis is plastered all over Bennett's work. Ergot is plastered all over Dan Merkur's work. They all claim that they have promoted the
multi-plant theory -- they are deluded; they are utterly failing to convey the
ideas, because they are each in love with one plant only. Ott is different -- he consistently promotes
awareness of, and thinks in terms of, the entire pharmacopeia.
Today's
entheogen story doesn't work, doesn't fly, doesn't have an impact; look at how
The Door magazine waved it aside like a gnat -- Bennett supposedly is the
defender and representative of plant mysticism in Christianity, but his
approach carries no real weight, because in practice, in real-world
communication, it amounts to a theory of a single plant in a single religion in
a single period -- *not* a theory of an entire pharmacopia in all religions in
all eras.
In
claiming the latter, Arthur and Bennett and Merkur are deluding themselves
about the scope of their thinking are are claiming credit for more scope than
they have effectively ventured -- the broad theory, more on the order of Ott's
thinking, is just *barely* present in their works and isn't really communicated
at all, any more than Ken Wilber could claim to have "covered" or
"included" the Hellenistic Mystery Religions in his theory.
My
criticism is a matter of balance: it is totally commendable to focus on
establishing the use of one plant in one religion in one era, but eventually
the scholars need to adopt a balanced paradigm that assumes the use of all
plants in all religions in all eras, and these authors have not produced yet
such a balanced and ambitious paradigm, which is why we end up with such
effortless dismissals as the Door article.
Such
minimalist theories as have been put forward attempt too little in their
surrounding framework. Everyone should
buy and read these books, but make no mistake, the entheogen theory has barely
been hinted at yet, and there is much work at even the most beginning stage of
defining the scope of the entheogen theory.
Today's
books about the entheogen theory of the origin of religion also need to cover
the ongoing nature of religion and the ever-popular use of all available
entheogens inside and outside all the major religions in all eras.
Entheogen
scholars should be more on guard against inadvertantly supporting the status
quo theory which is exactly this: that yes, some deviant groups have sometimes
used drugs in some religions, especially in olden days. How could today's entheogen books challenge
the status-quo dominant paradigm by merely falling into it? Their little firecrackers bounce harmlessly
off the temple walls. The status-quo
paradigm can eat ten of these scholars for lunch as an appetizer.
These
books and articles so far are utterly failing to communicate, partly because
they unconsciously downplay the very thesis they are trying to put forward,
while taking for granted far more of the conventional views about religion than
the authors realize. If you let the
readers retain their overall paradigm of what religion is about, and only
introduce a focus on one plant, one era, one religion, it's a no-brainer what
the result will be: effortless dismissal; that is how paradigms work.
These
scholars severely overestimate their sweep and scope of ambition, and severely
underestimate how massive a challenging paradigm must be. No one, no one, understands why it is so
important to take on the whole of Christian theology and tradition and history,
and transform the entirety of it into a fully entheogenic paradigm (and drag
along all other religions as well).
Bennett's book was somewhat influential in my studying the whole of the
Bible canon.
Bennett
thinks he's presented a radical, sweeping alternative paradigm, but it is no
such thing, far overemphasizing cannabis, the earliest origins of a religion,
and the Christian religion only, while unconsciously accepting as an overall
paradigm the status-quo paradigm, which is that a few deviant groups used one
drug in isolated heretical cases long ago.
They don't
really offer an alternative paradigm -- just a minor modification within the dominant
paradigm, which is easily brushed off like a bit of few breadcrumbs off a good
Christian's tablecloth.
One kind
of serious threat to a new paradigm is a way of thinking that appears to be a
new paradigm and thinks it is, but really is just a minor ill-received
modification within the same, old, half-baked way of thinking. This is how paradigm replacement works: the
new paradigm must be bigger and more encompassing than the old, more ambitious,
more cogent and concise, more natural, more everything.
Nothing
less than a whole new interpretation of metaphysics, religious myth, the nature
of myth, the ever-popular use of every entheogenic plant in sight by everyone,
stands a chance when battling the fierce dragon of the established dominant way
of thinking. Low-dose theories fail to
cause regeneration of the sinner's heart.
These
psilocybin caps just aren't cutting it; we need a far stronger drink, a far
more efffective potion, to kill the beast of the dominant way of thinking about
the role of entheogens in religious history.
We need to leave this mellow jazz guitar music played by the Bennett,
Arthur, and Merkur brothers, and hook up a chain of guitar amps overdriving
each other.
Everyone
should buy and read these books and ask what would result by taking their
postulates as far as possible:
Mushrooms
and Mankind: The Impact of Mushrooms on Human Consciousness and Religion
James
Arthur
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1585091510
Merkur's
book Psychedelic Sacrament is very important; entheogen use by rabbinic mystics
is more important than my review implies.
This kind of serious engagement with Western religion is important and
entheogenists really must expand beyond idolizing Buddhist mysticism. Entheogenists need to get interested in
quasi-official Jewish and Christian mysticism; it's the only possible way to
ever succesfully challenge the dominant way of thinking.
The
one-topic revisionist scholars think that they have a new paradigm, and it may
seem like they do, but really, they don't have anything but the dominant way of
thinking, with a minor revision; just a revision of the current way of
thinking, not really a new way of thinking.
One of my
top priorities is to write a better review that explains why this book is one
of the very most important and why every entheogenist should read it *even if*
they imagine that they aren't interested in "rabbinic mysticism" --
just like most entheogenists imagine that they aren't interested in
"Christianity". They'll never
make a difference and challenge the dominant paradigm until the day they *get*
interested.
I really
need to write more explaining why the most important thing to do is to
completely take over the entire nature of religion and the entire history of
religion in order to sweep away the completely incorrect dominant, official way
of thinking about religion and especially to exorcise that delusion from their
own habitual character of thinking, and framework of assumptions.
The
existing books have made *no impact* on the dominant way of thinking, because
they unthinkingly take too much of the dominant paradigm for granted as the
paradigmatic framework in which they put forth their minor revisions of a few
points. The problem these authors have
on their hands, the only real problem, is how to construct a serious challenger
to the dominant way of thinking.
It's been
proven by now that this will require far more than the puny, feeble little
gnat-like "entheogen theory of the origin of religion". The time is ripe for an actual
transformation in thinking, rather than the isolated revision of points that we
have become accustomed to under the false and deceptive banner of
"revolutionary paradigm shift".
The
Psychedelic Sacrament: Manna, Meditation, and Mystical Experience
Dan Merkur
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/089281862X
The
Mystery of Manna: The Psychedelic Sacrament of the Bible
Dan Merkur
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0892817720
Sex,
Drugs, Violence and the Bible
Chris
Bennett, Neil McQueen
http://www.google.com/search?q=sex+drugs+violence+bible+bennett
Purchase:
http://www.forbiddenfruitpublishing.com/sexdrugs - intro is online.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1550567985
It's long,
like Dan Russell's book Drug War, but quite readable and makes the scriptures
interesting. If you substitute
"entheogens" instead of "cannabis" when reading and
thinking about this book, this book is an essential key for revealing that the
Christian scriptures are inspired throughout.
Many of the sex or ritual sex aspects generally concur with studies like
"The Historical Mary Magdalene" and Allegro's "The Sacred
Mushroom & The Cross". I'm not
interested in the subject of sex or ritual sex, but like the subject of
astrotheology, ancient religionists were.
Book list:
Currently named "Entheogen theory of the origin of religion".
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/listmania/list-browse/-/103-0184603-8834266
When
Amazon fixes a problem, I will rename this to something like "Entheogen
theory of religion", "Entheogen basis of religion", or something
else implying that real religion has always been about entheogen allegory --
all plants, all eras, all religions, all classes.
The very
name of the theory I've been using has a fatal flaw: it asserts that entheogens
are only present in a disappearingly small moment: the temporal beginning --
very easy to dismiss as an anomaly that proves the rule that "religions,
generally and on the whole, are *not* about drugs, and are about rejecting
drugs".
>I
found some of your reviews on Amazon.com, and I noticed that you
>just
did a review on Chris Bennett's Sex, Drugs, Violence, and the
>Bible. I was wondering if you have ever watched any
of his shows at
>www.pot-tv.com?
No, would
you recommend some?
A review I
posted today. There are presently no
reviews. This book is in my Amazon
list, "Entheogen theory of religion".
Sex,
Drugs, Violence and the Bible
Chris
Bennett, Neil McQueen
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1550567985
Search/purchase:
http://www.google.com/search?q=sex+drugs+violence+bible+bennett
5 stars
Valuable
cannabis-focused entheogen theory
-----
Anyone
interested in the entheogen theory of religion should get and read this book.
It is largely devoted to ferreting out the many entheogen references and
allusions in the Bible. It covers most books of the Bible in order.
High-quality
scholarship. Aside from some distracting typos, it is highly readable and
reveals how interesting and complex many of the Bible stories are. As is
standard, it assumes the literal existence of Bible characters -- an assumption
which entheogen scholars are increasingly calling into question.
I'm
grateful for this book spurring me on to take on studying all the books in the
Bible. Highly recommended for entheogen and religion collections -- essential,
in fact, especially in light of how few books there are about entheogens in
Christianity.
Chris
Bennett strives to offer more credible evidence of the use of a variety of
entheogens in early Christianity than any researcher to date.
Per Ott, I
criticized the word "artificial" in Siegel's book:
Intoxication:
Life in Pursuit of Artificial Paradise
Ronald
Siegel
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0671691929
Bennett's
"Sex..." book is about the Bible, so is focused on the Jews and
Christians:
Sex,
Drugs, Violence and the Bible
Chris
Bennett, Neil McQueen
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1550567985
For
material on a variety of religions and cultures, see:
Green
Gold, the Tree of Life: Marijuana in Magic & Religion
Chris
Bennett
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0962987220
I am
considering posting the Door review, which I consider a meaningful weathervane
of status-quo thinking and attitudes toward the entheogen theory: many people
assume that the theory need not be seriously refuted, because they think it's
unthinkable.
I'm
finding so many entheogen-diminishing passages in books on mystic experiencing
and early Christianity and Buddhism, so many that I'm highly aggravated. This is somewhat of a sign of the entheogens
making significant inroads. My driving
goal in assessing the situation is to prevent religion writers from so easily
getting away with diminishing the spiritual use of entheogens and the entheogen
theory of religion.
Almost
every run-of-the-mill scholar of early Christianity now is obliged to do the
same aggravating dance of "some theorists even put forth such absurd ideas
as Jesus leading a mushroom cult".
Those mainstream, official scholars then feel that they have safely
defused and swept aside the threat of the entheogen theory, which threatens
their paycheck and livelihood as explainers of "what the historical Jesus
and his beliefs were really like".
One of
Bennett's High Times articles mentioned mushrooms, mandrake and other
entheogens.
One of the
High Times articles:
http://www.hightimes.com/htsite/news/content.php?page=news_03021011&tpage=2&cmnt=1
Regarding
the question of to what extent the entheogen theory is being communicated
effectively, Bennett's High Times article was coverd in every major newspaper
in the world, including the UK Gaurdian, Sunday Times, BBC, India Times, Indai
Express, Washington Post, and others.
Bennett's
article was likely the most widely covered entheogen story in the last few years.
http://www.google.com/search?q=cannabis+jesus+bennett
Access
Unlimited has 100 copies of Chris Bennett's book Green Gold; then it will go
out of print. He is working on a
similiar new book.
Sex,
Drugs, Violence and the Bible is available through several sources. http://www.forbiddenfruitpublishing.com
The author
chose not to offer the books through Amazon.
>>New
on line documentary disusses the diferent candidates for soma/haoma and
asks,
"Can the answer to the soma riddle be found in the archeological
remains of
the 4,000 year old cannabis cult in the Kara Kum Desert of
Russia?"
http://www.pot-tv.net/archive/shows/pottvshowse-2041.html
At 9:25
there appear to be a couple Mexican retablo paintings, oil on tin. My page about this:
http://www.egodeath.com/retablos.htm
The
program says Amanita is poor at producing bliss. I have only experienced extreme sweating, no psychoactive effects
whatsoever. Heinrich reports
psychoactive effects; here is my summary of his descriptions; my summary is at
http://www.egodeath.com/amanita.htm
SESSION A
Conditions:
Fasted
Drank the
urine
Dried caps
5 caps,
various sizes
Mature
specimens, unaesthetic
Effects:
o Vision
logic - "the few thoughts that arose in my mind drifted through like
enlightening holograms"
o Thought
stoppage (cessation of chain of thought-triggering), one-pointed concentration
o Flooded
with light from above, of utmost whiteness
o
Passively taken up and absorbed by the Godhead, mystic union/rapture
o
Timelessness; cessation of sense of time
o
Depression at relative flatness of mundane world after return
o Great
revelation of enfolded meaning when reading Gospel of John
SESSION B
Conditions:
No mention
of whether fasted
Didn't
drink the urine (implied)
Dried cap
1 large
cap
Immature
specimen
Effects:
Extreme
sweating and salivation, hypothermia
Intense
recurring nausea and throwing up
Cycles of
ego death, nausea, and rebirth
Unable to
sit up; hypergravity
Magnification
of very near object to appear gigantic
Riot of
shimmering unrecognizable blobs of color
Blurred,
unable to see clearly beyond 2 feet, lack of definition
The
program says cannabis is fragrant and "mushrooms" are not. That is incorrect and an overgeneralization:
dried amanita is remarkably fragrant and food-like, like honey. Cannabis does not have a honey smell.
I'm glad
to find that a mixture was used for soma (ephedra, cannabis, and opium), as I
thought after reading Ott and James Arthur.
I considered cannabis drymouth as a complement of Amanita's salivation
effect. Eleusis researchers may have
mentioned opium as a nausea preventer for an entheogenic blend.
>>There
are two main problems, as I see it,
with the Cannabis as Soma, idea.
First Soma was considered a rarity whose recipe was
"lost." Hemp has never been
considered "rare."
>>Secondly,
the effects, even with a large quantity eaten, do not produce the same kind of
processes that occur with other "true" entheogens.
An
authority states:
>>>Definite
hallucinatory effects from larger oral doses of hashish and extracts have been
recorded.
>>>Besides
Weil see Siegel's "Intoxication" and the references to Cahagnet's
experiments where recipients reported visions of the afterlife. Also set and setting can effect the
experience immensely, [an older man] ate a couple of [cannabis] cookies ... and
was convinced he was dying until ... explained about the cookies, then he was
... ecstatic ... Classic death and rebirth.
>>The
most interesting recent literature I find from David Spess, with his emphasis
on the Lotus Plant. He has written a
easy to find book "Soma the Divine Hallucinogen," but also two other
more, in-depth works, one of 900 pages,
that delves further into the pharmacology.
It was
great news to find from Spess that the lotus portrayed likely is an entheogen.
Soma: The
Divine Hallucinogen
David
Spess
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0892817313
Flowers of
Ecstasy & Immortality: The Folklore, Medicinal & Psychopharmacology of
Sacred Lotus & Water Lily Plants of Both Egypt & India
David
Spess
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0935548106
Soma:
Plant of Immortality - A Comprehensive Study
David
Spess
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0935548122
Home (theory of the ego death and rebirth experience)