Anyone who DOESN'T see 'god' on his explorations?

[VidnaObmana]

Steve Pavlina has a great article on this, in which he explains how changing his belief system changed his reality several times: Take the red pill
I recommend you read it.

Thanks LOL! Awesome read :D
I've taken a sudden interest in NLP because of this article.
Sorry, a bit off-topic, but this is worth reading :thumbsup:[/quote:xdynmqco]

Seems like a nice read... but.. What's NLP ??

 

[tryptonaut]

For antichrist's sake, is there any psychonaut in here that doesn't seek god in his quests? Or someone who has had several experiences and didn't ever encounter god?

Even more, isn't there an atheist psychonaut anywhere? or even more, doesn't some explorer exists that his experiences with psychoactives / psychdelics not only didn't reveal god, but helped explain the world and universe and this simple explanation didn't need a god and will never do?

Your initial question sounds like anyone around here was constantly talking about god - but who is? Most people here (including myself) are seriously against dogmatic religious beliefs because we are psychonauts.

I have had many experiences on mushrooms that felt really spiritual - but there was never a "god" involved - and I was never looking to meet "god". The experiences that I had often brought me closer to the buddhist view that there is no god. I also experienced spiritual feelings that were more shamanistic, involving the feeling of certain powers or spirits.

I think being open minded to spiritual encounters is important for humans, because it just seems to be in us. Maybe it's just our mind fooling us, maybe not - I'm going to explore further and try to experience everything with an open mind.

 

[hippietrhggr]

i am an athiest i guess. i dont beleive in a higher power. i beleive we are all one animals (humans) and plants.

 

[mutant]

Your initial question sounds like anyone around here was constantly talking about god - but who is? Most people here (including myself) are seriously against dogmatic religious beliefs because we are psychonauts.

Well, noone [here] refers to 'god' in the traditional sense - it's pretty clear anyway that 'god' in the loose term it is discussed here is transformed into a wide series of concepts, so in a strict sense it's not really a discussion about 'god' in the traditional form but also spirituality, the meaning of life and all and has jumped to a couple of other themes as well, as ego / self conflict etc.

Whatever the case, your answer was interesting and relevant ;)

on to.. the EGO / self thing

These posts are getting long, hope we don't scare of all the others.

Yeah, I hope so too! ;)

but it does make one unhappy if one identifies with it too much.

well, you do indeed give an arguement for that in the next quote, but I would argue that even this very statement depends on the self / individual.

The lack exists because you identify with the part instead of the whole. The part cannot sustain itself without harming other parts which will make the part unhappy with itself because somewhere it knows that it is dependent on the whole. Once you identify with the whole, you will not lack love or consciousness or happiness or whatever.

Moreover, I can't help than notice that what you refer to identification with the whole seems some kind of denial of the self as is. The lack exists because it exists - because you don't have something you need [or supposed that you need] or would want to have. in some cases you can archieve it, in some others not. And, while stepping on thin lines here, what you say sounds like an attempt to finding the things we lack in other 'realities', the 'whole' picture etc. Attributing qualities of the 'whole' , which we don't actually have to us doesn't really replace the lack - it is just another method to cope with life and stay well-balanced and tuned with what you're supposed to be.

"you can close your eyes to the horrors of reality but they won't go away"
...Active minds, UK DIY punk/crust band...

If it works for some, it's a beautiful concept indeed. But is it really archievable? Or is it just another utopia [I have nothing against utopias, on the contrary] that whereas it makes someone struggling further, evolving, exploring and loving instead of fighting it ain't nothing more than a man-made structure, maybe constructed out of wisdom, crafted by the benefits and aspects of psychedelia ? Another religion/philosophy about the ancient question about the meaning of life and all ?

In my eyes, and with certain changes, it ain't so far from the psychanalytical approach of "know yourself , accept yourself", at least in terms of aim, purpose. It's kind of like dissociatives/psychedelics: totally different angles, methods of function, point of views, but it just might serve the same purpose, which is: PERSONAL happiness, balance, sense of completeness [etc]

You also say that identifying with the whole, 'you will not lack love or consciousness or happiness or whatever'. Along with some other claims you made, it seems to me you don't have enough data / arguements to back this up, only axioms, good will, good faith. Which is understandable if you think we 're talking about 'stuff' that somewhat reside at the limits of spirituality and religion [or what religion was really about in the first place]. And it's funny tryptonaut mentioned it now, but this discussion is very religion-related in some sense, whatever the words [god, religion, spirituality] we use.

What is the whole anyway? It seems you present the 'whole' as an ideal 'whole'. As if there's no pain, lack, unhappiness and lack of consciousness in the 'whole'. I cannot disagree enough with axioms like these : there's no single one recipee for happiness, that's one for sure. Neither identification with the whole, and that is IF such a thing is possible or real anyway, would work for all.

It is true that we are dependent on other 'stuff' to be hapy, well-balanced, complete. I imply that the other stuff which are contained in the 'whole' is love, sociality, other people, our planet and the awe of just looking at the way it functions, the cycle of life, every single small or big creature on earth etc. I am really with you on these - but "the whole" ??

... the mechanism works the other way around: the self drives the ego, because it is the ego which is searching in many ways for the self, only finding it when it stops searching.

Hehe, it's only a matter of point of view what you say, but it still premises the ego / self are strictly divided, that they're somewhat opposite forces and that they're totally different 'things', which I don't think you argued a lot about.

So they do something altruistic to satisfy their ego? Why would they not do something egoistic to do that? That would be a whole lot easier and since egoism coexists with laziness in most people, truly egoistic people would not help others to satisfy their own ego.

Hmmmm, you don't seem to be too willing to see the concepts of ego/egoism from other angles, as I presented them in my previous posts.

Not all people who do something altruistic do it for the same reasons! Not every 'egoism' is the same, because, like I said everyone is an egoist and everyone is different in many aspects!

Some people just can't be selfish! It's the way they are! Call them 'good folks', call them suckers, or weak but if they try and be anything else, they will be hurting themsleves. So they satisfy themsleves by helping others needs first, and by doing so, they feel good with themselves too. In a way, it's a mutation of what they are obliged to be and what they can become.

Others act in an altruistic way because despite their selfishness, they want to be 'bigger' than that, because they believe in the human, because the want to be something else - which, biologically is somewhat opposed to our nature, to be altruists. This type IS 'bigger' than animal - the proof we can be more than animals. But it IS EGO-related! They act like this because their will, their ego is big enough they just want to do something nice, something useful - it really makes them feel good with themselves to be open minded, altruistic. To be preachy or passionate with philosophy or spirituality is in a way the same type of egoism.

And of course you have the traditional 'bad' selfish guy - the 'bad carma' egoist : the one who cares only for himself and will do anything to satisfy his greed - only this type cannot really love or be loved, and this is his curse, and just maybe this is the type of egoism you are denying.

...and you are everything

when I see this little phrase in the words of 'psychedelic theists' , I tend to wonder if we are just talking about the exact same thing, but choose [or it happens] to see it and describe it in other words. I mean... "You are everything" ?? Doesn't this sound a bit egoistic ?? ;) :P

Of course each of us is everything! We are all and everything and the world is spinning around each one of us! Because each reality, each 'universe' is personal!

The only decision is whether you follow love or whether you see love as something different than what you are.

Hmmm again, I don't like the point of view. Follow love? What is it, some dogma of some kind?

Note: I don't deny true self-forgetful 'love'[how could I?], I just deny ethical guidelines.

Love is notably anti-ego [or so it seems ;) ], people who dismiss love are those incapable of archieving, handling, giving and accepting it. Love is somewhat of a wonder. All these emotions related with family, comradeship, love, sex are all wonderfully powerful and liberating. Well, sometimes the passion for a woman/man can even destroy you, such is the power , LOL, but this is a different story.

The self is prematerial, "things" necessarily require an object and a subject, which is a false dichotomy in my opinion, since the self is undivided.

I still can't follow, but I suspect it's another word thing, about the word 'thing' , LOL :)

 

[phatass]

i think what many people call god, i would simply call "self" and "shadow" (obviously i am not the first to use these terms, both Freud and Jung explore them in much more detail, and often did so with the use of psychoactive drugs)... beneath the concience the "self", and the "shadow" are in conflict... what i encountered on my kétavoyages was discussions with my self, and discussions with my shadow...

 

[Forkbender]

All I am saying is that I experienced some sort of formless continuity behind the ever changing 'reality'. This I call the self. It is not 'my' self, because I cannot own it, it is more an eternal self which owns my body/mind and all other body/minds. I'm not saying you should do certain things (i.e. meditate, take drugs, go to church, etc.) to achieve this experience, that there are certain rules that you must follow, I'm saying that there are rules to how you will feel if you do certain things with your body/mind. You can call it egoistic to be blissfull and dedicate your life to loving, but I think that in that case you can call anything egoistic, which kind of makes the word a tautology, which is not bad, but useless because it cannot distinguish some types of behaviour from others.

My personal philosophy about lack is the following: If you lack something, give it away. If you feel you don't receive enough love, give it away. If you lack attention, give it away. In this way you will notice that everything that you imagine you lack is already within you. Not in the 'ego', since the ego is the part that wants and doesn't want to give. But in the 'self', which is everywhere. Loving is just as rewarding as being loved. Giving is just as rewarding as receiving, because in the end it is the SAME (giver and receiver share the self).

I'm not saying that there is no pain and loss in this world. There is plenty. But pain and loss transform into something beautiful if you give it attention. And to give something attention means to get into something, to try to fully experience it. And once you do, you recognize your self.

 

[tryptonaut]

i am an athiest i guess. i dont beleive in a higher power. i beleive we are all one animals (humans) and plants.

Well, the feeling that we are all one can be the feeling of "god". If you really feel the oneness of all life and the universe - isn't that very spiritual? At least it was for me and it made me feel that we are alltogether "god"...

You can call it egoistic to be blissfull and dedicate your life to loving, but I think that in that case you can call anything egoistic, which kind of makes the word a tautology

Hehe, have you read Nietzsche? He surely was one crazy motherfucker, but he said that every human action is egoistic. In his opinion, even the most altruistic action of dedicating your life to helping children in need is egoistic - because it makes you feel better! Think about it! There is really something to this thought (although, as I said, Nietzsche really was one crazy un-self-confident motherfucker)

 

[Forkbender]

Yeah, I've had my share of Nietzsche, but I never came across what you said here (or never remembered it). To someone who identifies with the ego, every action seems egoistic. To someone who identifies with the self, every action seems 'self-less'. I have seen the world in the way you describe, but it's not a pretty picture and doesn't promote happiness at all.

 

[mutant]

You can call it egoistic to be blissfull and dedicate your life to loving, but I think that in that case you can call anything egoistic, which kind of makes the word a tautology, which is not bad, but useless because it cannot distinguish some types of behaviour from others.

Things are not egoistic, actions are not egoistic. Actions are actions, their identity is designated by the person acting. But animals are, and animals we are, so we can't help it: we do have egoistical genes. ;)

Hehe, have you read Nietzsche? He surely was one crazy motherfucker, but he said that every human action is egoistic. In his opinion, even the most altruistic action of dedicating your life to helping children in need is egoistic - because it makes you feel better! Think about it!

Max Stirner, one of the most radical modern philosophers, one of the unjustly overlooked ones, is on for that thought also, propably a lot more than Nietzche.

 

[tryptonaut]

This thread really shows me again why I refrained from continuing my philosophy studies at university a few years ago. The more you delve into philosophy, the more pointless it seems to argue about it. It always ends in lengthy, heated discussions about what might or might not be the case - no chance of winning such a philosophical argument because if it could be won, it wouldn't be philosophical. Now that was philosohical, wasn't it? ;)

 

[Harlequin]

There was a person I once was. An atheist-agnostic. This person understood he couldn't know the truth, yet thought it was more likely there was no god. Maybe this rose from the repulsion to "bad" things made in the name of god. All those peddlers of dogma and the "only truth" didn't feel right for that person.

Then came the mushroom experience. An experience more real than anything in that persons memory. There I was, back in the realization of all. In that stateless state with no time. It took months to understand that experience. On the next mushroom experiences it was clear. Everything clicked. Everything made sense. The only thing in existance was consciousness. All particles and forces arise from that consciousness. Everything is in your mind. There are no boundaries. Life was just a ride in that consciousness. In that ride I am here. I started deconstructing the barriers I had created for myself. I'm still doing that and it feels great.

I still feel I can't know the truth. Truth also, is just a word. Still, it feels good to let go of the right-wrong duality. When I know, there are no words, when I only remember, I doubt. This way, I can feel the discovery all over again. Nevertheless, It's easier every time and it keeps growing and growing. The feeling is here all the time. Mushrooms just made the state recognizable.

The word god does indeed have baggage. We all understand it throught eyeglasses of our own creation. That's the way things go, with every word. There seems to be western tradition to consider god as something external. That's an alienating thought, though. You ARE god. That same consciousness. You may disagree and you feel as you need to feel. There is nothing right or wrong about it. Find your own path. Science and god, two sides of the same coin. If science is an easier way for you to approach, then by all means do. It's like a finger pointing at the moon. If everything is connected, any direction will do.

There is no right or wrong way to do or think.We all need to find our own ride. My ride will not work for you and your ride is not my ride. Yet we are all connected. There's a funny paradox in this, as I have left clues for myself in other incarnations, yet I can never explain the thing so it would be really understood. It needs to be experienced.

These words can't explain anything, yet it's nice to chase one's tail once in a while.

 

[Psychoid]

The only thing in existance was consciousness. All particles and forces arise from that consciousness. Everything is in your mind. There are no boundaries. Life was just a ride in that consciousness..

Man... you just put words on what I wasn't able to. I have come to about the same realisation on my shroom trips.

THANKS!!!!!

 

[random]

As my brother said, we are like a drop on the oceans.
We Are the Ocean.

Love

 

[mutant]

Hey, Harlequin, beautiful post man!

You say you were atheist / agnostic like it's the very same thing - but they're not. I understand all this, all this concept, all the history of ethnobotany and the ancient religion.

Of course I am GOD. It's the only concept I would deify, myself.

You may disagree and you feel as you need to feel. There is nothing right or wrong about it. Find your own path. Science and god, two sides of the same coin. If science is an easier way for you to approach, then by all means do. It's like a finger pointing at the moon. If everything is connected, any direction will do.

yeah, and there's nothing right or wrong, in general. No duality about black and white was ever right. each one is a different cake :) it's exactly like you say : if everything is linked then you can go to it by several ways. and you needn't point at it, like the 'truth' is the end of time ;)

there's always some mystery in the 'truth', like you say, and we can be comfortable with that. well I can :)

The more you delve into philosophy, the more pointless it seems to argue about it. It always ends in lengthy, heated discussions about what might or might not be the case - no chance of winning such a philosophical argument because if it could be won, it wouldn't be philosophical. Now that was philosohical, wasn't it? ;)

A philosophical discussion, like you said, isn't something to be won [even though there might be small victories or even a complete one in some discussion] is getting boring if you're bored by it. When the arguers are bored or stopped speaking. When the discussion is leaning to an end because some will not or cannot argue anymore. When some arguers don't find the discussion so exciting any more. Or when someone feels the basics have been said.

That's why the discussion about the ego was interesting. Because it made the topic delve into ethics and realisation of self as self, an thinking animal, a standing ape made of matter.

Having such discussions is much better in real life, doped up with some wine or something ;)

 

[WetStaples]

Didn't read the whole thread, too lengthy; but I will get back to it because there seem to be interesting discussion within!

Anyway, I am an atheist. As for psychonaut, I wouldn't call myself that (yet, at least). Haven't really done many drugs or meditation or anything like that (hope to do more of the latter).

The reason I'm into all of this drugs and psychonaut stuff is because I want to know more about myself and my brain. Although, I have a scientific mind and don't know if I could take any of my findings seriously, but I still wish to observe, nonetheless.

That said, if I ever come across a force or being like I have heard being talked about, I would definitely consider it, but I would have to feel the same way about it when I'm back in a normal state of consciousness for me to accept it. I think it's plausible that there's some sort of force that could be called 'God', but just because it's plausible, I can't think it's true.

 

[Dantediv86]

i never see god
what i see is a projection of my psche (soul in ancient greek)
and if you believe in god or the oneness or whatever you believe then you would aggree that it is a manifestation of it. thus you are indeed seing god and whatnot
however if you do not believe or know or whatever it is you do you will aggree that it is a projection of your mind that is affected at the neural level by a substance that is not meant to be there in your daily life (and don't come up with "it should be there in our daily lives instead" 'cause you know what i mean) but then again the mind can take only so much, the concept of what is behind and beyond reality can't be understood, therefore we will end up saying to ourselves there is sumething in the unexplainable
this is not a response to anyone
is just an open thought i had to share with people and hear your responses
and one more thing
i dunno who said it earlier but a philosophical argument cannot be won it's just to take out knowledge and see what other people have to say about it
that's why the figure of Sochrates alway fascinated me he was the real deal the true philosopher because he would find the truth by questioning everithing without wanting really to impose his views (that put him in antithesis with the sophists that were using the art of retoric to impose their ideals and lead thoughts he called them prostitutes of thought) infact he was practicing mayeutic...

 

[Harlequin]

Hey, Harlequin, beautiful post man!

You say you were atheist / agnostic like it's the very same thing - but they're not. I understand all this, all this concept, all the history of ethnobotany and the ancient religion.

Nice you liked it, thanks. Just one thing though. I was an atheist-agnostic. Not atheist/agnostic. I didn't deny the absence of god as an atheist might, but felt that the absence or presence of god couldn't be known. Yet, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I found the absence of god more plausible.

Here's a small wikipedia entry about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

Now I find definitions empty. I'm just this thing you know.

 

[st.bot.32]

i never see god
what i see is a projection of my psche (soul in ancient greek)

Basically this has been my experience as well.

@wetstaples
The reason I'm into all of this drugs and psychonaut stuff is because I want to know more about myself and my brain.

Same here.

I find psychedelics a fascinating tool to observe and learn to understand my senses.. By changing the way I perceive the world, I learn to understand how my perception works, and in the process have had occasional personal epiphanies as well..

 

[mutant]

i never see god
what i see is a projection of my psche (soul in ancient greek)

Basically this has been my experience as well.

The reason I'm into all of this drugs and psychonaut stuff is because I want to know more about myself and my brain.

Same here.

I find psychedelics a fascinating tool to observe and learn to understand my senses.. By changing the way I perceive the world, I learn to understand how my perception works, and in the process have had occasional personal epiphanies as well..

exactly... so the whole point for those who see it this way, is why the hell would you call the manifestation of the self 'god', 'divine' or anything? just because you had an epifany?? and I think this is what the initial question is all about...

 

[Forkbender]

exactly... so the whole point for those who see it this way, is why the hell would you call the manifestation of the self 'god', 'divine' or anything? just because you had an epifany?? and I think this is what the initial question is all about...

why not? It has been called that by mystics throughout the ages.