Plant Shamanism: The one the Religion cant give you....

[Queso]

Would be very interesting, indeed..

 

Well from what I've gathered in the beginning of this thread, a "matured veteren" of focussed meditation is going to have his astral nerve endings entangled and drenched in DMT.

 

Right, neuroflux?

 

I do not know how meditation and DMT intertwine, but from reading your posts there is a way over time to purify your body so that you can experience the essence of DMT just by meditating?

 

For the record,

I was taught how to meditate throughout my childhood by south koreans, very nice people.

At age 13 I gave it up, thought it was silly~~

 

Coincidently that was the same year I initiated my relationship with my entheogenic allies,

which coincidently allowed me to resurface my past

and finally Understand why I learned to meditate,

and stretch,

and focus,

and respect.

 

Gave life to my drawings of child-hood tenticles and eyes.

 

Thank you earth for sprouting me,

and throwing me into intense gravitational

orbits with other things here,

breathing, too.

 

Like hypography.

[IDMclean]

I am a practictioner of Shamanism and of deep cognitive meditation. I am highly picky about what things go into my body, and how often they do.

 

I have developed a list of drugs that I will, or have tried, and from that a list (though small at current) that I may try again.

 

So far it breaks down mostly like this. No man made drugs. None that I know of are safe. Organic Biochemical substances only.

That makes the formal list:

Cannabanoids, Cannabis (I have posted regarding this one multipul times, and the word of caution is there, don't smoke it. I perfer it in eaten form with some tasty curry.)

Psilocybin, Shrooms (not more often than twice a year, and always preceeded by and followed by liver care.)

Mesculine, Peyote (Not more than once a decade and not until after age 25. This is serious stuff ment for vison quests.)

DMT, Licking toads (I haven't really given this one much thought. I would need to research it more before I could give an indepth analysis.)

LSD, Ergot Derivative (synthesis drug, so boarding on the man made line. This one scares me personally, I have heard things which worry me. This is stored away for future concideration. No earlier than 30 years of age.)

 

To date I have only sampled, once, Shrooms. The experience was pleasant and eye opening. The dose was two red caps. The effects were Visual-spacial distortion, with exception to TV, which rendered as 100% normal. Fear repression was observed, didn't even shiver once while watching "Nightmare on Elm Street". Also Body "high". Tactile sensation was increased and dreams were more lucid, they were remembered in the morning, something of a rarity for me. Was capable of, though it may have been simply visual-spacial distortion, making out the curviture of the atmosphere. Experience lasted estimate of six hours.

 

Note: Readin proved impossible for the duration, the words got sucked away into vortexs on the page and the hand tended to grab the attention with it's distortions.

 

Shroom's from what I hear are hard on the liver, so of course I tend to that before hand and afterwards to prevent and treat any lasting damage that may occur. Keep it light dosage by minimal exposure so as to minimize possible damage to the body.

 

Now comparitive to Meditations. The issue that arrise from that is that, with exception of Extreame mediation, the difference is apples and oranges. Meditation is long term perceptual adjustment/refinement, which requires years of constant practice in day to day life. That is it is long term. Drugs provide a short term abrubt alteration, which may have lasting effects. In the case of LSD there is fairly good chance, from what I have heard, of permanent alteration, a phenomena refered to as "permafry".

 

Now as for extreame meditation, such as Solitary Confinement, and Sensory Deperavation, we are again talking apples and oranges. Where as the drugs are used to enhance, or otherwise broaden perceptual channels. Deep meditation is more towards focusing the existing perceptual channels. So It is my opinion, that the two are synergistic. One can only observe what one can comprehend. When the perception is narrow and the possibilities finite, the things that can be observed are likewise finite. when one throws open the doors of perception and the world spills out before you in infinite possibilites, the things that can be observed are likewise infinite.

 

So what I am saying i guess is this:

The point of tripping is not to be focused, as that reduces the scope of enlightenment, but to generate a larger scope.

The point of meditation is to focus one's scope of enlightenment.

Admittedly each is not mutually exclussive, and that some forms of meditation are capable of inducing a trip-like state. They are the exception, not the rule. Likewise some drugs can induce a focus-like state. Though this is usually only in the short term and therefore not as usefull as long-term focusing.

 

-Using the tools that were given, manna being one of them.

Psychonaut KickAssClown, The song that sing itself into existence.

[IDMclean]

Well from what I've gathered in the beginning of this thread, a "matured veteren" of focussed meditation is going to have his astral nerve endings entangled and drenched in DMT.

 

Don't forget the natural Opiates that are produced.

 

Also I will elaborate on medative technique, but oddly enough I need to meditate on that one to explain it coheriently.

[ughaibu]

A shaman is a person with a well specified role in a small society, this role is mainly defined by specialist medical knowledge, presumed to be aided by or arising from interaction with a mooted spirit world, (see this page: http://www.google.co.jp/search?hl=ja&lr=&defl=en&q=define:SHAMAN&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title)

Is there any reason to suppose that smoking DMT is a useful diagnostic aid?

Is there any reason to suppose that a shaman can adequately function without an apprenticeship involving a thorough grounding in general symptomatology?

Is there any reason to suppose that shamanism is suited to the diverse medical problems posed by large societies?

 

On this thread the word "shamanism" appears to be given a different meaning, one that implies no social position, it seems to imply no more than the use of hallucinogens for internal exploration. The hi-jacking of the word "shamanism" doesn't seem to have any constructive purpose or genuine justification, it seems to me to be, as in the case of the creation of the word "entheogen", politically motivated, an extension of Leary's original idea of exploiting a legal loophole that would allow the use of drugs for religious purposes.

[IDMclean]

Ughaibu, you are right. We are indeed redefining a word. Perhaps we should say something more to the effect of Neo-Shaman or similar.

 

However, science plays the role which religion once did, though terms are different and method is decidedly more methodical, it still remains that Scientist are essentially the new medicine men, the new spiritual advisors capable of crossing the gauntlet of the seen and the unseen.

 

I would ask though, is it prejuidice (pre-judgement) which prompts you to ask/imply these apparent objections?

 

Position is a relative term also. Which as it turns out, according to Einstein, position is a non-influence on the experiment done. Something to the effect of all laws of physics apply everywhere independent of location in space-time.

 

This could be applied to society, arguably. It is everyone's responsibility to insure that continued social existence flows smoothly. This would indicate to me that it is also everyone's responsibility to understand their position relative to others, which should be equal.

 

Shaman are ment to bring insight back to the village. Well now a days it's no different really. Only the means, method, and scale.

[Turtle]

Shaman are ment[sic] (mint?) to bring insight back to the village. Well now a days it's no different really. Only the means, method, and scale.

 

This is not the case as ughaibu well pointed out:

A shaman is a person with a well specified role in a small society, this role is mainly defined by specialist medical knowledge, presumed to be aided by or arising from interaction with a mooted spirit world, (see this page: http://www.google.co.jp/search?hl=ja...ition&ct=title)

 

Some of MagnetMan's post supported this assertion. The Shaman has a responsibility as a healer for real ills, just as physicians do. They specialize, just a physicians do. They know how to make medicines from herbs, just as physicians do. They do not know organic chemistry as the physicians do, so bring in the mumbo jumbo.

In any case I hear no one here who is promoting the great benefit of these psychoactives actually claiming any new skill for healing. Short of wow, take this & get in touch with the swirling colors pass it on, nothing is gained.

My experience is that psychoactive agents only enhance whatever "mind" state is extant. Much of the brain is hard-wired so you cannot stimulate connections that don't exist, & in fact some psychoactives may break up hard-wired structure with repeated administration. :hyper: :eek2:

[CraigD]

… because meditative practices have the same facility to induce altered states as do the psychoactives.

This claim brings to mind one of my favorite aphorisms, by Ram Dass (In “Be Here Now”, I recall, though not with great certainty), something like “LSD allows one to visit the Christ, but through meditation, one can live there”.

 

Though an inspiring message, delivered by a warm and charismatic person, there appears to be little scientific evidence to support the claim that the neurological states induced by powerful psychotropic drugs, such as LSD or DMT, are nearly identical to those induced by any type of meditation. Although molecularly similar to naturally produced molecules associated with meditation, such as serotonin, the concentrations (and thus the strength of the resulting psychotropic experience) of these neurochemicals at their receptor sites is much greater than those attainable by the most accomplished meditators.

 

Theory, empirical (brain imaging) data, and anecdotal accounts (which this and other threads have aplenty!) indicate a profound difference between meditation and drug-induced states of consciousness.

[Queso]

Do shamen just know how to heal,

or were they chosen by some other shamen to learn the arts?

 

Jesus must have been a shaman . .

[IDMclean]

# A word derived from the Tungas language of Siberia, it is a generic term for healers and spiritual leaders in tribal societies. Traditional shamans induced trance states through drums, dancing, ingesting hallucinogens, self-mutilation and deprivation and virtually any means by which one might achieve an altered state of consciousness. While in such a trance, the shaman crosses over into another world to get information for his people such as the cause of illnesses and other misfortunes. ...

http://www.geocities.com/sorchagriannon/terminology.htm

 

# in primal religious traditions, one through whom supernatural powers are channeled for the spiritual welfare of the community or tribe. More precisely, the shaman might heal the sick, escort the souls of the dead into heaven and away from their corpses, or confer with gods by taking on the shape or language of an animal or bird.

staff.jccc.net/thoare/gl%20q%20to%20z.htm

 

# In traditional societies, a shaman is a person who, usually in an altered state of consciousness, acts as an intermediary between the natural and supernatural worlds to predict and control the future, cure illness, generate miracles, and the like. Originally applied to societies in Siberia and Central Asia, the term now is used to refer to various kinds of healers, medicine men & women, witch doctors, mystics, priests, magicians, sorcerers, diviners, and so on, in any part of the world.

http://www.zoofence.com/define07.html

 

# A witch doctor or medicine man who communicates with spirits while in a trance and who has the power of healing.

http://www.wrexhamparaskeptics.4t.com/definitions.htm

 

highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072549238/student_view0/glossary.html

# Somebody who communicates with the spiritual realms on behalf of the living. Seen in many Animistic types of belief systems.

regentsprep.org/Regents/global/vocab/topic.cfm

 

# (Siberian Tungus language) a spiritual leader, a medicine man/woman or witch doctor. While a medicine man will tend to the sick, working with herbs, barks and the like, the shaman works more on the psychological level. He will go down on "a journey" for the benefit of the one who is ill; he will direct sacrifices, he will seek out new knowledge, and he will accompany the spirits of the dead on their journey to the afterlife. ...

site.lunamyst.com/filelocker/glossary.html

 

# among tribal peoples, a magician, medium, or healer who owes his powers to mystical communion with the spirit world. Characteristically, a shaman goes into auto-hypnotic trances, during which he contacts spirits. Shamans are found among the Siberians, Eskimos, Native American tribes, in SE Asia, and in Oceania. There is also now a development of shamanic healers and practitioners in North America. (See Spiritual/Shamanic Healing.)

http://www.whatever.com.sg/glossary.php

 

The bolded ones are the ones that I think give the best meaning for a basis of a neo term. Or at least the ones that are most applicable for me.

 

Any sufficently advanced technology is indistiguishable from magic.

 

I am trained, mostly by myself and my experiences, in many fields and all of them, without exception are synergistic. Psychology, and medicine have taught me one thing, we can only heal the sick who want to be healed. That the human body is the best cure, and sometimes it needs something a little extra to give it the extra kick to get it working properly again.

 

Physics, Astronomy, Astrology, Numerology, and Cosmology are the fields that teach me the ways of divination, divining the grand path of the material world.

 

Linguistics, Symbology, Religions, Philosophy and Animism teach me the magics/technologies of definition, of the abstract, intanglable, and almost unimaginable. In otherwords the technique of communing with the spiritual.

 

Ethics, Biology, Thermodynamics, Social sciences teach me the methods of detachment and balance, of right and wrong. They teach me that I can do great good and I can do great evil, and that ultimately the choice of harmony, or discord lye within my hands alone.

 

There are more, but these should make the point. Shamanism is still relavent. Perhaps we should denote the variance of the term with a pre or pro tag, but it seems somewhat unnessessary.

[Turtle]

This claim brings to mind one of my favorite aphorisms, by Ram Dass (In “Be Here Now”, I recall, though not with great certainty), something like “LSD allows one to visit the Christ, but through meditation, one can live there”....

 

Though an inspiring message, delivered by a warm and charismatic person, there appears to be little scientific evidence to support the claim that the neurological states induced by powerful psychotropic drugs, such as LSD or DMT, are nearly identical to those induced by any type of meditation.

Theory, empirical (brain imaging) data, and anecdotal accounts (which this and other threads have aplenty!) indicate a profound difference between meditation and drug-induced states of consciousness.

Gotta luv da Rom! Your counterpoint is well taken. I recant my hearsay (heresy?).:eek2:

I still fail to see any genuine benefit (or even a claim of such) of this shamanic and/or repetative psychoative use as the thread is suggesting; i.e. everyone ought try this & then the world will change. :hyper: I may just have to cast a spell on you trippers! :eek2:

[IDMclean]

And I may have to use reason and moderation to dispel your spell.

 

The corner that I come from in my advocation of Psycho-active experimentation is widening one's perceptions beyond the norm.

 

I advocate likewise, everything in moderation including moderation. Be conscious of everything, of all possibilities. It will help widen your world view and will allow you to be more receptive to new ways of thinking. Also, as is indicated (by various studies) certain "drugs" can be used in various kinds of therapy.

 

Experimentation is not for everyone. Not everyone is trained well enough, either by themselves or by fellow mentors to deal with the hazards associated with reasonable mental alteration. I highly suggest that if anyone is going to go this road that they do so with the set of Axioms that arrises from the BDSM subculture:

Safe (know yourself, know the situation you will be placing yourself into)

Sane (Don't over do it, don't place yourself into a situation which is decidedly unsafe.)

Consentual (This one only really applies to groups, but it also brings about a connection the previous axioms, Know your boundries and when to say "no".)

 

I do not think everyone should live the way I live or the way others live, only that it should be concidered and one should be aware of the option, the postives and the negatives. I think that a portion of the Scientific community, particularly could benefit from having their perceptions expanded, and of course in moderation with Meditation to bring about focus.

 

-Life is a balancing act. One false move and you might lose a limb, or worse you might wake up as a politician.

Clourophile/Clourophobe

[Queso]

Our lives are so different . .

 

What kind of spell are you going to cast?

 

The world has already changed significantly due to our lovely encounter with entheogens, and is going to constantly change

and we're going to constantly feed our heads

with whatever we can.

Knowledge,

pornography,

drugs,

food

whatever.

 

Avast-

 

This all fits perfectly in the puzzle

of balance,

"The greatest thing

you'll ever learn

is just to love, and be

loved in return"

[IDMclean]

"The greatest thing

you'll ever learn

is just to love, and be

loved in return"

Orby, you are mushy. I love that.

[Turtle]

Orby, you are mushy. I love that.

 

He's more than mushy, he's a damn poet! That's my point about eatagenies :eek2: in saying they enhance (amplify?) what is already there. Orby is a poet. No surprise to see some "enhanced" poetry. Jackson Pollock was a painter & a drunk (in the best possible terms). No surprise to see some "enhanced" paintings. Without the enhanceeogens we still have the poet & the painter. And the healer, the psychopath, the plumber, the chemist, etc..

Since the thread title ties this to religion I'll take a poke at that too. Coming back from some DMT trip & saying you met some dude beyond description who told you cool stuff, some of which can't be put in mere mortal terms.

Then we have say John Smith saying no really, this shiny bright guy beamed into my room & let me use his record player to listen to some stuff god says. See, I wrote it down.:doh:

I don't deny there's fun & distraction in all this, but it's no more a solution to human/world problems than a ride on a roller coaster.:eek2: May a small irritating (but otherwise harmless) pimple appear in the left crease of your nose & cheek & persist for 3 hours before disappearing.:eek: :hyper: :doh:

[IDMclean]

Perhaps. Though that has not been my experience so far. The one time I took mushrooms it made me far more aware of various things which I neglected to notice, out of shear mudanism.

 

Sure meditation MAY have eventually brought me to the same conclusion/perceptual-spacial, but it was, in my humble opinion brought on earlier, and perhaps only because of a severe short term shift in perceptual ability. To such a degree that I plan to do it again one of these days, not for fun, but for educational/experimental purposes.

 

Think me a dope smoking (I prefer to eat it thank you.) hippy if you would like, but I figure myself a practical person. Not entirely unreasonable.

 

I appreciate a little open mindedness regarding discussion. So far the opposed arguement has summed up in sarcasism, "drugs are bad", biased reasoning, and resulting fallacious arguementation.

 

It's fine with me if one chooses these methods, but it only lets me know that they are to be ignored for future discussions, establishing a history of biased, fallacial reasoning. In this thread alone, much like in the Intellegent design thread, I have encountered an interesting, though somewhat bothersome paradigm shift from objective reasoning into biased, emotive-driven exchange.

 

Happens though, I guess.

[Turtle]

It's fine with me if one chooses these methods, but it only lets me know that they are to be ignored for future discussions, establishing a history of biased, fallacial reasoning. In this thread alone, much like in the Intellegent design thread, I have encountered an interesting, though somewhat bothersome paradigm shift from objective reasoning into biased, emotive-driven exchange.

 

Happens though, I guess.

 

Emotive element redded. Ooopps. A touch of disgruntaltude? My fallacial reasoning can beat up your fallacial reasoning is it?:eek: Your a clown; lighten up. Squirt yourself in the eye with that little flower on your bib.:eek2: :hyper:

I heard this one from a spirit I met on mescaline; what is the sound of one clown clapping? An open mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Scientifically speaking I see no evidence here supporting the premise of the thread which seems to suggest getting high can substitute for religion (where you just hear others stories about getting high). Inasmuch as I have covered my contempt for religion & it's fantastic claims in other threads, the drug experience is guilty by association.

:eek2:

[IDMclean]

I did not deny an emotive drive, simply that I am aware of and use objectively (as a human can) that drive towards logical ends.

 

and as I said in my introduction post, I play by tit for tat, if you don't like what I say then don't listen to me.

 

I just think that the opponents, and Turtle as of current you are counted as being on the "otherside" of the debate, have not given this topic the same concideration as they have to other (more socially acceptable) topics in the past. That the analysis that has been given outside of the pro-debators, is shallow in effect. That is dismissed for no better reasoning than "I am right and you are wrong.". In my view this is true anyway. I can't speak for anyone but me.

 

To me it's quickly becoming a matter of, if you don't want to contribute, constructively, to the thread than please kindly go away. Constructive critism is good. Critism and synasism for it's own sake is not.

 

Constructive criticism is the process of offering valid and well-reasoned opinions about the work of others, usually involving both positive and negative comments, in a friendly manner rather than an oppositional one. In collaborative work, this kind of criticism is often a valuable tool in raising and maintaining performance standards.

 

Because of the overuse of negative, nagging criticism, some people become defensive even when receiving constructive criticism given in a spirit of good will. Constructive criticism is more likely to be accepted if the criticism is focused on the recipient's work or behavior. That is, personality issues must be avoided as much as is possible. Critical thinking can help identify relevant issues to focus on.

 

Especially sensitive individuals may adopt a passive, defeated attitude if they view a situation as personal, pervasive, or permanent (see learned helplessness). Others may adopt an aggressive response. In an online forum lacking face-to-face contact, constructive criticism can be easily misinterpreted and online exchanges often spiral out of control, becoming flamewars. Effective interpersonal communication skills can be helpful to assess the recipient's frame of mind. During initial exchanges or when encountering defensive individuals, effective criticism calls for softer language and inclusion of positive comments. When the recipient strongly identifies with contentious areas (such as politics or religion), non-offensive criticism becomes challenging.

 

On the other hand, stronger language can sometimes break through a defensive shell. Further, many people (both as providers and even recipients of criticism) appreciate a blunt style. They see bluntness as honest and efficient while viewing softer approaches as manipulative, condescending, tedious, or confining. Often, such people view stronger exchanges as lively and engaging.

 

Adopting the most effective style of criticism should be tempered by the cultural context, the recipient's personality, and nature of the relationship between provider and recipient. To assess a situation, one should put out exploratory feelers and initially adopt a perceptive rather than judgmental attitude; conflict resolution skills can be helpful.

 

As a recipient of criticism, one can benefit by focusing on the constructive elements of the criticism and by attributing charitable interpretations to those who use strong language. By adopting an open attitude to criticism, one can achieve greater personal growth and help uncover blind spots. Alternatively, such openness may be subjected to ridicule especially in a cynical or honor-based culture.

 

Prejudice, or pre-justice, or pre-jugdement. That is to have your judgement prepared in advance, and is not consequtive to informed improvement of, well just about anything. Communication being number one concearn followed by the idea, belief, methodology, philosophy or otherwise meme which is being discussed, disected, examined, ridiculed and otherwise analyzed.

 

If you want to degenerate into throwing crap arguements around, feel free. In the mean time, I am going to attempt to conduct a proper informative, reasonable, ration, objective discussion of the topic at hand.

 

This is not to say that I am not human, and not subject to err. I am not a robot (Well not one of those choppy things sci-fi conciders a robot), I am person with thoughts, feelings, emotions and objectives. I want to know, and so far, nothing has been added to this thread by InfiniteNow, Boerseun, and you Turtle.

 

The contributions, so far, have been meaningless drivel, merely showing that the people who have attacked have not infact done their homework. I apologize if I come off as arrogant, stuckup and self-righteous, but that would be because I am. at the moment I am rather annoyed that there has been repeated, unasked for, and unneeded input by the moderators regarding something which they can not obviously be rouse to actually research, it has been acuse of the author and myself of not substantiating claims regarding this topic, and yet these acussations are essentially, at their foundations, unsupported.

 

I would expect far better behavior, tact and observation of the many guidelines of debate from those who are of the Hypography Staff. I respect you people highly but in this case your being overbearing, repressive, obnoxious and otherwise quite adolecent like. I would suggest for all of you to either get with the program, do your homework, and contribute something worth while or simply go away.

 

I've seen people banned from here for less.

 

-walks away muttering to himself as he pulls out a seltzer bottle... "some people..."

The unhappy, disappointed, and frustrated KAC