Against Drug-Free Spirituality

I don’t do either drugs or religion, so I guess I’m headed for Hell.  Michael Hoffman writes at

My mood of late against meditation and post-1960s American spirituality: I’m sick and tired of it, I hate it, and I’m not going to take it anymore.  This nonsense and claptrap has gone on for entirely too long.  If spiritual people are offended by this pointing out that the emperor has no clothes, then too damn bad for them and their feelings.  It is necessary to sacrifice false spirituality in order to gain a firm grip on the straight facts.

On the whole, to concede the legitimacy of someone’s drug-free meaningful spirituality that gives meaning to their lives is, in practice, to condone lies and falsity and to encourage suppression of Truth together with suppression of entheogens.  The fact is, entheogens are the source, fountainhead, wellspring and so on of all that is highest and most profound and most central in religion; *real* Christianity and *real* Buddhism and *real* esotericism are, *first and foremost*, entheogenic.

The legitimacy of drug-free spirituality is *nothing* in comparison to that of real spirituality, which is practically identical with entheogens.  I grant a millionth of a percent legitimacy and efficacy to the upstart proposed alternative methods which, the bottom line is, *don’t work*.  Drug-free spirituality is a failure.  Any exceptions are nothing, because they just prove the rule, offering only a travesty of religion, an insult to the genuine, actual, authentic *intense* religion.  There is far more than enough support to back up my adamant hardline view.

Enough lies — won’t someone, for once, tell it like it is?  I wash my hands of these lies; I want nothing to do with them.  There is one true path: entheogens.  The other proposed paths are cheap ripoffs that are nothing in comparison: to admit as I have done that meditation is a tenth of a percent as effective as entheogens is to tell evil lies.  Here I state the truth, that meditation is a millionth of a millionth as effective as entheogens, which is to say, meditation is extremely ineffective, while entheogens are extremely effective.

Put side by side, the bottom line is, meditation/contemplation is a failure, while entheogens are a success.  The received dominant framework is the assumption that direct religious experiencing is rare and not entheogenic — we must yell in the streets that that is the very opposite of the truth; direct religious experiencing is potentially utterly common, and is entheogenic: the received framework is bunk, wrong, mistaken, false, and wholly and profoundly off-base.

There is no mystery about the mysteries, esotericism, and gnosis: to the extent that the mysteries, gnosis, and esotericism actually delivered on their promise of direct religious experiencing, to that exact extent, the mysteries, gnosis, and esotericism  were entheogen-based.  The one or two supposed exceptions only prove the rule: meditation/contemplation is entirely a mistake, a lie, futile, hopeless, a false replacement, a phony substitute that debases religious experiencing, and has to be discarded and rejected as a hypothesis about the nature of religious experiencing.

Neither I nor my audience has another minute to waste conceding legitimacy to the illegitimate, condoning confusion and error.  It is a tiny slight mistake to wholly dismiss drug-free spirituality as I do, whereas it is a colossal error and lie of the first order to grant drug-free meditation/contemplation a significant amount of legitimacy.

Read more here.

  • Haystack

    What a weird thing to be hard-line about. Entheogens aren’t the only source of mystical experience and insight.

    • Max Freakout

      They are the only way to get repeated, reliable access to the intense psychedelic state of consciousness. Any drug-free alternative to the *real* thing will inevitably lack exposure to, and familiarity with, the mindblowing psychedelic experience. That is Hoffman’s essential point. It is erroneous to take this one claim out of the context of the overall theoretical framework that Hoffman is offering, ie the cybernetic theory of ego transcendence and the maximal entheogen theory of religion and mythology.

  • atlanticus

    “Blah blah blah I am obviously in such a superior position that I can tell people what they may or may not feel about spirituality–I can even tell them that their experiences are unreal!”

    Sounds exactly the same as the people who would tell me “if you just meditate correctly you don’t need drugs!”

    • Chaorder Gradient

      yeah that’s what i was thinking. It sounded like someone having a diatribe about food being the only important thing, claiming that sticking to water is stupid and you don’t need water, because it didn’t work like food.

      • atlanticus

        Awesome analogy. :)

    • Daniel Gill

      I abhor meditiation and drug use. The time it takes to get your drugs and the time it takes to meditate are both inferior and too long compared to the time it takes to entertain the apprehension of the descent of the numinous, and entice through the self-loss and etc etc that I laid out above.

      both of those are for suckers. you’re not doing it right.

      • Guest

        “you’re not doing it right.”

        And you wonder why everyone thinks you’re a cunt.

        • Daniel Gill

          Its a fact that shamanism doesn’t involve drug use everywhere, so how does that make me a cunt?

          • Dahbafu77

            It makes you a cunt because you are acting like you’re any sort of authority on what works and what doesn’t. You are in no position to tell anyone else that they aren’t doing it right, just as they aren’t in a position to tell you the same.

          • Daniel Gill

            I am an authority . I am a spirit medium myself. I judge from my own experience. And this is my own opinion. I am entitled to my own opinion. You don’t have to agree with it. And Michael Harner said that not every culture uses drugs and that most cultures don’t use them and that is true.

          • Calypso_1

            Do you have experience w/ entheogens?

          • Monkey See Monkey Do

            “I ate mushrooms and went to astro-world and had a really bad time.”
            “you’re an idiot. They are sacred, go to nature.”- Bill Hicks

          • nozodurendozuuo

            I think it’s the tone.

          • HCE

            What tone? I don’t hear anything. I only see cleverly arranged pixels. Internet discourse – the ultimate ‘open to interpretation.’

          • Daniel Gill

            so the ignorant assertion that all shamans use drugs or that all spiritual cultures use drugs is a better tone than mine? All I am saying is that these are the cultures that don’t use them, they have common similarity in usage of chi (which is NOT mushrooms, come on..) and that it is worth doing and studying.

          • Calypso_1

            Chi is the effect/essence/life & perception/ internally directed physiology of a substance such as the nourishment of food or pharmakodynamics of an herb.

          • Daniel Gill

            but it is also transferable

          • Calypso_1


      • Calypso_1

        Are you unaware of the history of mushroom use in korean shamanism?

        • Daniel Gill

          Give me a citation and I’ll look into it.

          I’ve cleared 4 books on Korean shamanism and none of them involved mushrooms in any rituals.

          The mechanics made explicit mention of ch’i used in channeling for worshiping and nourishing the shaman’s found deities , descended out of Chaos. That is, whatever accepted their offerings.

          They use the word ch’i, exchanged with the deities, and they use the word Chaos. When I say these descriptions I’m taking from those books.

          • Calypso_1

            I’ll offer you a clue instead; two, actually.

            1) The Chinese words for Chi & Mushroom are synonyms & have a common etymology.

            2) The Korean word for Amanita muscaria is….

          • The Well Dressed Man
          • Daniel Gill

            That doesn’t mean that Korean shamans take drugs or that Shinto ascetics take drugs etc

          • Calypso_1

            not XOR

          • Daniel Gill

            Speak English please

          • Calypso_1

            ask your spirits for help

          • T-lo

            Are you sure about the etymologies of chi & mushroom? I’m not challenging you, just very curious.

          • Calypso_1

            : ) I’m not going to claim authority in Chinese Linguistics. There are connections worth exploring.

  • Richard Frith

    Somebody get this man some drugs so he’ll shut the fuck up. I’m trying to meditate.

  • DeepCough

    Finally! Someone who understands that the whole point of religion in the first place was to trip balls!

    • Calypso_1

      what of the hierodule?

      • The Well Dressed Man

        Hold the ceremony at the 24-Hour Coin Operated Church of Elvis Presley, and the trinity is complete.

      • DeepCough

        When are we humans not looking for an excuse to fuck?

  • OregonIan

    I’m disappointed to see someone using the word “entheogen” being such a douche.

    • Jeremy Johnson

      Yeah, me too.

  • ellis_dee

    Yes, the new age spiritualism is bullshit… he makes this point well enough, but then goes completely off the deep end and says that drugs are “where it’s at”. For someone demanding of proof, and going on about what a failure new age spirituality is, I’m amazed he doesn’t go just a little further and realize that all religion is essentially bullshit.

  • Daniel Gill

    I guess this writer is not aware that ego death from initiation into mediumship through the Self Loss – a sacrifice of ki – doesn’t involve meditation and is spontaneous. See -> Korean, Vietnamese, and Japanese mediumship. Victorian Spiritualism is harder to get good information on.. for that I recommend Edward J. Cornelius’ Aleister Crowley & The Ouija Board.. but has the same practices.

    The influential and most famous theorist of the Self-Loss was Marcel Mauss that he explored in The Gift

    Rudolf Otto supplies the ingredients for temporal distortion and spontaneous ritual communion through his philosophy of daemonic-dread that he explores in Idea Of The Holy

    Another famous theorist of biological energy fields was Dr. Wilhelm Reich. Whom believed that, similar to Otto’s writing on the shudders or heebeejeebies we get from the English gothic, for which he has been heralded as the most influential theorist on, that energy was withheld in a muscular tension and emotional inhibition.

    I’m not kidding,
    if you understood what Rudolf Otto is getting at, and you ritually offer yourself, profusely, reciprocation is given to you through your energy haunting the received. Your soul is inalienable. Your shudders expand beyond your physical body and consciousness. Read Otto. Read Lovecraft. Commune. Horror is for this.

    I’m the only sane one here. . . . (rambling trails off into the distance)

  • Daniel Gill

    If you don’t believe what I am saying, then um try it? The more profusely and openly you send waves of heebeejeebies, the more potential you create for yourself through suspension of disbelief.. go into a theatre of your own creation, go into a bathtub room close the door turn off the electronics and light a candle, strip down naked to bare yourself to the great beyond, but actually set out to do it.. just try it, see if what Korean Shamans and Vietnamese mediums actually do works, just do it yourself, don’t balk at what I am saying actually set out to do what I say, and change the paradigm of how you think of religious worship, try their paradigm, that I have found success with. Entice the numinous to descend, offer your body to seat their consciousness and to nurture on your life essence /or consciousness. Open yourself to them.

    • The Well Dressed Man

      Bloody Mary, Bloody Mary, Bloody Mary….

      edit- Upvote for “waves of heebeejeebies.”

    • Calypso_1

      Do you have an underlying assumption that you are experiencing things that others have not?

      • Daniel Gill


        • Calypso_1

          You are addressing a community that has a a great deal of experience with the realms you are exploring. Why don’t you share some of your experiences as opposed to touting the superiority of your path. You’ve offered nothing that allows insight into the efficacy or desirability of these methods.

          • Daniel Gill

            It’s a known paradigm though.

            Theorized by Marcel Mauss primarily, he is known for one of the most important anthropological concepts – Reciprocity

            In his classic work The Gift, Mauss argued that gifts are never “free”. Rather, human history is full of examples that gifts give rise to reciprocal exchange. The famous question that drove his inquiry into the anthropology of the gift was: “What power resides in the object given that causes its recipient to pay it back?” (1990:3). The answer is simple: the gift is a “total prestation”, imbued with “spiritual mechanisms”, engaging the honour of both giver and receiver (the term “total prestation” or “total social fact” (fait social total) was coined by his studentMaurice Leenhardt after Durkheim’s social fact). Such transactions transcend the divisions between the spiritual and the material in a way that according to Mauss is almost “magical”. The giver does not merely give an object but also part of himself, for the object is indissolubly tied to the giver: “the objects are never completely separated from the men who exchange them” (1990:31). Because of this bond between giver and gift, the act of giving creates a social bond with an obligation to reciprocate on part of the recipient. To not reciprocate means to lose honour and status, but the spiritual implications can be even worse: in Polynesia, failure to reciprocate means to lose mana, one’s spiritual source of authority and wealth. Mauss distinguished between three obligations: giving – the necessary initial step for the creation and maintenance of social relationships; receiving, for to refuse to receive is to reject the social bond; and reciprocating in order to demonstrate one’s own liberality, honour and wealth.

            An important notion in Mauss’ conceptualisation of gift exchange is what Gregory (1982, 1997) refers to as “inalienability”. In a commodity economy there is a strong distinction between objects and persons through the notion of private property. Objects are sold, meaning that theownership rights are fully transferred to the new owner. The object has thereby become “alienated” from its original owner. In a gift economy, however, the objects that are given are inalienated from the givers; they are “loaned rather than sold and ceded”. It is the fact that the identity of the giver is invariably bound up with the object given that causes the gift to have a power which compels the recipient to reciprocate. Because gifts are inalienable they must be returned; the act of giving creates a gift-debt that has to be repaid. Because of this, the notion of an expected return of the gift creates a relationship over time between two individuals. In other words, through gift-giving a social bond evolves that is assumed to continue through space and time until the future moment of exchange. Gift exchange therefore leads to a mutual interdependence between giver and receiver. According to Mauss, the “free” gift that is not returned is a contradiction because it cannot create social ties. Following the Durkheimian quest for understanding social cohesion through the concept of solidarity, Mauss’s argument is that solidarity is achieved through the social bonds created by gift exchange.

          • Calypso_1

            OK, but you still have not related any of your experiences w/ this paradigm.

    • T-lo

      Ahh, the Sex In The City approach…

  • Noah_Nine

    …I actually respect this…. it’s rare that someone believes in something enough to risk sounding insane to get their point across….

  • Juan

    I agree with this guy. I think he pretty much nailed it.
    Other forms of spirituality that do not involve entheogens may work for some people, but they have never worked for me. Judging by how fucked up and unhappy most people are, it seems they have not worked for the vast majority either.
    The thing with the standard Abrahamic, dominator religions is that they do not provide a direct spiritual experience. They just talk about it a lot, and make up a buncha shite about “god” that are clearly the projections of their own twisted psyches.
    Eastern religions promise a direct experience after you have tortured yourself with various techniques, that after years of “practice” and study may or may not produce a direct experience.
    With entheogens it is possible to get right to the goodies on the first go, no “sweeping up around the ashram for twenty years” before you are deemed worthy to even approach “enlightenment.” Sure, like anything, it does take some practice with entheogens as well to really begin to get a feel for how to navigate those spaces to good effect. But of you are informed, respectful and always consider the importance of set and setting, entheogens will deliver the goods on a consistent basis.
    Yes, I am simplifying and generealizing, but that’s more or less the situation as I have lived it.

  • Chaorder Gradient

    Seriously why does everything have to bifurcate into a war of some kind?

    • The Well Dressed Man

      Methinks the mods aren’t above having a bit of fun with trollbait.

      • Matt Staggs

        I like making sure that there’s something for everyone here, even when I disagree with it. The last twenty four hours or so should speak to that. 😉

        • The Well Dressed Man

          Wouldn’t have it any other way!

    • Monkey See Monkey Do

      Its how us monkeys handle reality. Divide it into two.

  • M00nface

    What a knob.

  • JerGuy

    Wow..sounds like you got it all figured out. From my point of view you could use some meditation/self-contemplation…something to balance you out.

    I encourage all to experience things yourself if interested…see what resonates and is truly meaningful within your own life experience and realize it will hopefully be different from others’…and beware of people preaching “this is the only way” and “this way is the right way”.

    “I’m going to point z from point a. Maybe I want to visit b,c, and x along the way, stop screaming at me to use a straight line.”

  • echar

    That’s an awesome gif, but I don’t buy the entheogen angle… at all. They can ruin people and lead astray through illusions. They are one way, not the way.

    • The Well Dressed Man

      Howdy! While you were away…….

  • Kane VonDoom

    I wouldn’t recommend completely paying attention to anyone that says one path is the only “true” path however he does make some very relevant points. That being said, seek knowledge wherever you can and discern for yourself. Just realize that you do still currently exist in the material universe and use your time here as best you can.

  • HCE

    There’s more than enough indisputable evidence for non-psychoactive spirituality. Frank Fools Crow, Black Elk and a few others of that lineage come to mind. And of course there are others. Obviously whatever Mr. Hoffman is doing isn’t working to well for him, otherwise I doubt he’d be bothered by this.

    Wu-wei Mr. Hoffman.

    • kelethian

      Umm…tobacco? Have you ever smoked that at tribal strength??

      • HCE

        Neither of the two men I mentioned, or their tradition used it that way. It was all strictly based on simple actions that made available a direct connection to Wakan-Tanka.

        Fools Crow specifically spoke against the use of Peyote, Tobacco, the so called Mescal bean and other mind altering plants. This idea was passed own to him by Black Elk and those before him.

        • Calypso_1

          What do you think of Black Elk’s vision of the Daybreak Star Herb of Understanding & the subsequent search for it.

          I’m not sure what references you have where Frank Fools Crow speaks out against tobacco use, but you can also find references to his personal participation in pipe rituals.

  • Jeremy Johnson

    I guess I’m going to hell, too. I don’t do drugs to practice my spirituality, and I’m not against entheogens. I just don’t like the claims of exclusivity. Sounds like another form of idolization to me. “No salvation except through Christ,” etc. Another religion around… entheogens? No, thank you.

  • Rob Lai

    Meh. A lot of the drug people I know are snobs. So are most of the really “spiritual” people I know. Only makes sense that the drugged/spirituality crowd would produce more than a couple…

  • Jesse

    Though I have had religious experiences,
    I am still skeptical as to them being more than hallucinations.
    My most vivid have certainly been either chemically
    or somehow mentally induced within a short period of time of having done drugs.
    The man’s mad rantings and tone aside,
    I think he makes a good point.
    The root of all religious thought may very well be psychedelic plants.
    These included in a diet have evolutionary advantages
    and could also explain the advent of language and consciousness
    – if there is any separation between the two –
    and a great number other human behaviors, as well.
    Not to say that these things can’t happen by other natural means,
    but these attributes may have initially been brought about in a great number of our species by these plants.
    There really is no question that they amplify theses things in people, and can even change the course of a life with very little contact.

    • Max Freakout

      Hoffman’s essential point is that psychedelic drugs are the only means by which ordinary people can immediately, repeatedly and reliably access the intense psychedelic state of consciousness. Therefore anything claiming to be ‘spiritual’ or ‘religious’ but not involving the use of psychedelic drugs, is necessarily going to be lacking reliable access to the psychedelic state of consicousness.

      Hoffman’s theory is for entheogenic ‘insiders’, ie people who have been religiously transformed by using psychedelic drugs.

      Psychedelic tripping = religious/mystical/transcendent experiencing

      • Jesse

        Right, I got that. I was saying that I haven’t experienced anything to make me believe ‘spiritual’ or ‘religious’ thought is anything more than a mentally or drug induced hallucination.
        I agree with him on the various psychedelic states originating religious thought in humans – just at some point in our distant history. Everything since then is uninformed thought playing its self out on an emotional process, and in turn having the emotional process play itself out on uniformed thought.
        This is only amplified by hallucinogens – not created by – but it is pretty easy to see why theses things were taken to be larger than life by an uniformed mind.
        I have done my share of psychedelics and had religious experiences when I was looking for them.
        It’s an incredible experience any way you look at it, but if you aren’t looking for a ‘religious’ experience,
        it isn’t one.

  • Earthstar

    Translation: I have only put a millionth of a millionth of effort into meditation and contemplation and am impatient and lazy and my ego is not at all a problem.

  • befunknote

    The truth is one, the paths are many. To say that your path is the only way to true enlightenment is a very unenlightened thing to say. There is no one size fits all way to enlightenment but whichever path you do choose the truth that you discover is the same for all.

  • Iuwus

    Ok I want to ask you guys. What’s the difference between kundalini ‘awakening’ and enlightenment then, or are they pretty much the same thing? Thing is I’ve been reading about how kundalini comes about when we fuck up our brains and/or bodies to the point that we have to have a big ‘reset’. Apparently this is a fairly natural and common thing found in many species. Is it possible we’ve built an ‘enlightenment con’ around a fairly ordinary biological function that we could only previously conceptualise in mythological terms?

    • Juan

      That is a fascinating idea I had not considered. Can you elaborate or perhaps post a link or referrence about this “reset” that is common to various species? What is the proper term for this biological function (reset) you mentioned?
      This is the first I’ve heard of it.

  • kelethian

    I think hes sick and tired of hearing propaganda regurgitated through recovery graduates… and the flaming bullshit taught to people through new age books.

  • johnsawyer

    Too bad he had to make his point in a way that sounds like a drug-addled rant. Though for all I know, that may not detract from what he’s saying, but I wouldn’t know.

  • Alan Morse Davies

    Some interesting points are made here and I sort of agree with the general directional thrust of it but it’s very judgmental and the argument is not well framed.

    The writer appears to have a particular bee in his bonnet about meditation and buddhism, which are not the same thing, unless he means meditation in the broader contemplative sense, which is nothing like actual meditation (don’t worry, I’m not going to promote meditation).

    “Drugs” appears to be a catchall concept for substances he considers cool, apparently from the “Spiritual Gardens” from the old days our culture has forgotten about.

    So meditation vs drugs, we’re asked to choose yet neither is clearly defined.

    Just from my experience with friends I do agree that a lot of people get very little from meditation and a lot more from drugs, I just don’t see why the two should be mutually exclusive. I’ve also seen friends waste a lot of money on both and not get any lasting benefit. There’s no guaranteed “awakening” in either.

    I like drugs and also like meditation, both have helped me in different ways and I don’t see either as inherently spiritual, more experiential on a personal level. I don’t believe that if I personally experience something through either drugs or meditation that I have tapped into some universal spiritual truth which I need others to believe.

    I’m not religious, I used to describe myself as an atheist but I see no need to have a label that describes my non-participation in something. I also see no need to evangelize my personal world view in order to “correct” others.

    I think someone else said this, but there’s definitely a “my spirituality is better than yours” thing going on in this article.

    Isn’t spirituality as a concept inherently religious and largely used as a put down and method of division? What is spiritual and how does it differ from non-spiritual? It’s supposed to be better than non-spiritual I guess? Maybe it’s only better if you have the “right” spirituality. Are people with the “wrong” spirituality the same as those who are “non” spiritual? Are the lives of the “non” spiritual empty? Who makes that judgment?

    There’s also a weird “we lost our way, we need to go back to the old ways” hokey fake nostalgia. A yearning for an undefined, mythical time before everything went wrong (can we get a date for that?).

    Can I suggest something to the author? Berating people for how they think or what they believe is not productive for any of us, it just creates artificial divides. It’s empty polemics and limits functional dialog. We’re genetically diverse at a macro level. At a micro level we’re all still genetically diverse. There is no “right thinking”…

    Oh wait… sorry I missed this earlier, I’ve just spotted something. You believe in the universality of your personal “truth”… don’t you?

    Tell me you don’t, please.

    How about instead of “we’re good”, “you’re bad”, which is about people, you pick one issue you would like to change in the world, then rally the support of others who you may totally disagree with on other issues but have the same goal on this issue in order to change it? Would that be so bad?

    Would you be intellectually tainted by association or would you have created change?

    I’m not arguing against philosophical debate as opposed to action as engines for change, I just think this argument was poorly made and partisan by design.

    We may as well throw shit at each other. [oops, I did]

    • Max Freakout

      “Can I suggest something to the author? Berating people for how they think or what they believe is not productive for any of us”

      This ^ suggestion isnt relevant to the author because he isnt ‘berating’ anyone for how they ‘believe’. He is merely pointing out that meditating without drugs doesnt cause people to have intense mystical/religious experiences, as drugs do.

      “There’s no guaranteed “awakening” in either”

      with drugs there is the guarantee of mindblowing altered state experiences, with meditation there is no guarantee of anything in particular

      • Alan Morse Davies

        I have no religion, but oh Jesus.

        There is inherent judgement in the author’s argument, which you seem to share.

        Neither drugs nor meditation guarantee anything.

        “with drugs there is the guarantee of mindblowing altered state experiences”

        Really? Let me know which drugs and I’ll take them, I’ve taken most of them, except heroin.

        This is not a drugs or meditation debate, it’s a drugs vs meditation debate.

        I don’t see why it needs to be a random partisan battle that pits drugs against meditation.

        How much meditation have you tried?

        I’ve tried most drugs, I’ve made that clear and some of them I like very much.

        Hash and occasionally coke. DMT and salvia for the special occasions where I feel comfortable to cease to exist and go with the flow, although I think salvia is more of a comedy drug.

        Since it’s drugs vs meditation, I assume you’ve really tried to meditate, that you’ve got into it hardcore?

        If not then what are you talking about?

        Both drugs and meditation have changed me for the good, I see no reason to choose between them, it’s all part of the same thing.

        You get greater benefit by doing both, they’re complementary.

        You’re maybe just too young at this point, don’t rule anything out.

        I’m 48, I know we’re all supposed to be equals but on this, I have experienced more.

        • Guest

          P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; }

          “Really? Let me know which drugs and
          I’ll take them”

          Any psychoactive drug, when taken at an
          appropriate dosage, will trigger an altered state experience
          guaranteed. But the drugs that are especially relevant to this
          conversation are the entheogenic/psychedelic drugs such as LSD and
          psilocybin, which trigger specifically mystical/religious type
          experiences. By contrast, meditation does not typically trigger these
          kind of mindblowing altered state experiences.

        • Max Freakout

          “Really? Let me know which drugs and
          I’ll take them”

          Any psychoactive drug, when taken at an
          appropriate dosage, will trigger an altered state experience
          guaranteed. But the drugs that are especially relevant to this
          conversation are the entheogenic/psychedelic drugs such as LSD and
          psilocybin, which trigger specifically mystical/religious type
          experiences. By contrast, meditation does not typically trigger these
          kind of mindblowing altered state experiences.

        • Max Freakout

          “Both drugs and meditation have changed me for the good, I see no reason to choose between them, it’s all part of the same thing.”

          It isnt a question of choosing one or the other, rather it is about acknowledging that they are two entirely different things, with entirely different effects on the mind.

          • Alan Morse Davies

            Come on, please, you only respond to the points you choose.

            You’re a psychedelic evangelist.

            I have spent many hours talking to people with unassailable views, where the experience or views of others make no impact on their beliefs.

            If you’re only responding to the points you choose, you’re not listening, you’re living in a world where only you and those that agree with you make sense.

            Come into the world, take some risks.

          • Max Freakout

            “Come on, please, you only respond to the points you choose.”

            I have only been making one simple point in my last few points, which you have not responded to. Im not going to get drawn in to an ego battle with you by responding to your baited questions when you wont at least acknowledge or respond to the one simple point i have been repeatedly making in response to your posts.

  • NeuroticExLOL

    Thank you for your thoughts!