Quoi de neuf ?

Bienvenue sur Psychonaut.fr !

Le forum des amateurs de drogues et des explorateurs de l'esprit

Psychedelics and the various religious worldview metaphors

Which Eurasian worldview is most compatible with the insights of psychedelics?

  • Judeo-christian-islamo creator view of the universe/nature

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Fully-automatic view of the universe/nature

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Indian dramatic view of the universe/nature

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Chinese organic view of the universe/nature

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Nombre total d'électeurs
    0

UniversalConsciousness

Neurotransmetteur
Inscrit
7/4/09
Messages
78
Alan Watts did a lot to understand the various views of the East and how they compared and contrasted to the point of view in the West. In studying the various theories, he discovered three major Eurasian metaphorical theories.....well 4 theories if you count the modern western metaphor of nature with the old one. They are;

1. Judeo-christian-islamo creator view of the universe, what the old western world used to regard as the fundamental theory of nature. It states that the universe is a creation, an artifact, a sculpture, or a machine created by a monarchical patriarch of the universe. The universe obeys the laws set down by God.

2. Fully-automatic view of the universe.....essentially the same as the judeo-christian view except there is no creator god. The universe follows known laws, and is ultimately like a dead machine with each separate atom and molecule playing a different different roles in the formation of the universe. This is the theory most commonly found among modern westerners, and heavily influences even the more religious folk. Also the metaphor used in modern science to a large degree.

3. Indian dramatic view of the universe; The basic hindu view (and heavily influenced on buddhist view) of the universe as a drama, which goes through a series hide and seek games. The universe is fundamentally the Self.....and we don't see this because of maya, or illusion. All of this is basically a play of the Self/Godhead though, and the Self gets lost in all sorts of games of existential hide and seek. Some lives are full of bliss, until this gets boring and the Self creates more obstacles and more ways to get lost, until the adventure it thoroughly craves is found. The first cyle of the universe is the longest pleasant period, the second, third, and fourth culminate in shorter period of time spent, where things get wonkier and wonkier and more out of place.

4. Chinese organic view of the universe: The Daoist view of the universe as a unified holistic system where the unity of the dao unites the various seeming opposites of ying and yang....the universe is essentially like an organism, it is a biological unity that grows from itself, and from the inside-out, as oppose to the outside-in as found in mechanical western philosophy. This view seems to in a way seem like an opposition view to the western view......when we talk about organism the picture tends deviate from lifeless atoms, as oppose to intelligent "organs" of the universe and to a unified system where everything goes with each other very fundamentally.

Alan Watts explained these metaphors well in his talks, so I suggest these videos. The short version that summarizes the various theories can be found here;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlXZTTdh ... annel_page

For a longer more in depth explanation of each theory, check out the full talk here;

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7G-WH-My ... re=related

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LzQEfhG ... re=related

Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YqQSL1- ... re=related

Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw68SY3P ... re=related

Now which theory of nature do you think the psychedelic experience found in lsd, shrooms, and so forth points towards? Which of these 4 theories makes the most sense from a more psychedelic point of view? Obviously the Indian dramatic and Chinese organic view seem much more like fresher theories of the universe, though the mechanical view can't be completely discounted though since our universe still essentially follows those rules.

What do you think? Vote in the poll and discuss.
 
Adopted religion through the path of metaphors is like watching cartoons, it makes one bounce to every corner while stepping óver the core.

Metaphors, sober meditation and guidelines are hollow compared through the consciousness itself peaking on entheogens. Language is a form of detention compared to it.

Some Hindu's do Dhatura and Cannabis so they prolly resemblance the psychedelic corner the most.
 
Brugmansia a dit:
Adopted religion through the path of metaphors is like watching cartoons, it makes one bounce to every corner while stepping óver the core.

Metaphors, sober meditation and guidelines are hollow compared through the consciousness itself peaking on entheogens. Language is a form of detention compared to it.

Some Hindu's do Dhatura and Cannabis so they prolly resemblance the psychedelic corner the most.

Yeah maybe, though I wonder what entheogens daoist monks took.....after all daoism highly supports shamanism.
 
<- has larj penis
 
I can't decide. I think that many aspects of the categories Watts has made up are in fact compatible. It's totally possible to see the universe as a mechanism yet feel it is a biological entity, alive, or see the universe as god or as the self, etc etc.. I've had trips where my metaphors for understanding the world have gone through several of those categories
 
I think 1, 3 and 4 are all parts of the same thing just that the focus is slightly different.

I think psychedelics played a big part in religion, The one key thing that changes is the interpreter.
 
sorry, no time to read the previous posts.

But if you understand the story of Jesus as a story of Ego-death, there is very much insight and psychedelism there.

And, hindu, for sure.
 
Sticki a dit:
I think 1, 3 and 4 are all parts of the same thing just that the focus is slightly different.

It kind of reminds me of the famous old parable/analogy about the blind men and an elephant..
 
st.bot.32 a dit:
Sticki a dit:
I think 1, 3 and 4 are all parts of the same thing just that the focus is slightly different.

It kind of reminds me of the famous old parable/analogy about the blind men and an elephant..

Please explain?
 
one blind man touches the elephant's trunk and says it is a snake
the other its side and says it is a wall
the other it's leg and says it's a tree trunk
 
Thanx Rymmen mate :lol:
 
Retour
Haut