Neurotheology
- Thread starter TealLeaf
- Start date
Yes. we have to discriminate between a natural mysticism, and a supernatural mysticism. As the French philosopher Henri Bergson noted, "Neither in Greece nor in ancient India had there been an integral mysticism ... The integral mysticism is, actually, that of the great Christian mystics".
Well here we need to proceed cautiously: a nature cannot transcend itself, as a nature cannot be other than itself. It might realise depths of itself that are new, or profoundly different to its common order of experience, this may well be an awakening, but it is not transcendental. The nature remains as it is.
A properly transcendent experience requires the action of the higher drawing the lower out of itself, into Itself, so that the lower sees with the higher's eye, as it were.
Agreed, but then the experiences themselves might not be religious, or not experiences of a supernatural order ... the Philosophy of the Sublime, which I dare say would encompass the vast majority of those experiences reported, is a natural philosophy, not a supernatural one.
Thomas
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
At the risk of exposing my youthful indiscretions, I have too. But frankly, I didn't experience anything I would class as metaphysical revelation. I didn't see Jesus, and I didn't talk to G-d. I didn't contemplate any moral contradictions, and I didn't become more acutely aware of ethical failings of those around me. I just enjoyed the pretty colors...
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
The term, "behaving like prophets" (Jer 29:26-27, 1 Sam 19) comes to mind.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Yes, they grow wild around here. Their use is not uncommon in this area.
I would not call the effects of their use a religious experience, by any means.
The study done at Johns Hopkins was done using subjects who already had spiritual or religious beliefs. I too took psilocybe mushrooms when I was young without experiencing anything particularly profoundly religious. It was however very insightful, life affirming and a great bonding experience for myself and my friends. Later in life after I had acquired a religious or spiritual orientation I found that when I took psilocybe I experienced the ultimate ground of the Universe and saw or rather fully felt the perfection and miraculousness of God's plan and creation.
In either event whether I was young or old, with a religious understanding or not, my experience with psilocybe seemed to have a very positive and long lasting effect on me for weeks or even months after I took them. This effect was not only apparent in that I felt more calm, satisfied and focused but it was also apparent in terms of my increased productivity at work and in my personal life.
It's funny there used to be a television commercial for coffee back in the 1980's with the slogan "Coffee gives you the serenity to dream it and the vitality to do it." It seems that something similar could be said about psilocybe. Perhaps that "Psilocybe gives you the vitality to dream it and the serenity to do it."
Getting back to the subject of the religious use of psychedelics it seems that there is precedent for their use in both the Abrahamic and Dharmic traditions in the form of manna and soma respectively. Some scholars believe that soma was a form of psychedelic mushroom and that manna was the flour of ergot inffected wheat. However, regardless of which particular substance manna was clearly God had given mankind a substance to consume that would bring him/her into closer communion with God.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
I cannot speak as to what soma is associated with, but I have heard many things associated with manna, not least coriander. While I *have* seen ergot implicated in historical events, those events are generally about mass paranoia...the Salem Witch trials and the French Revolution, specifically.
As for entheogenic substances, I think we are neglecting to consider fly agaric mushroom (of which I know Thomas has a cursory familiarity), peyote, and no doubt others that escape me just now. Even the lowly cannabis and its derivatives no doubt can be evoked to establish what can be perceived as metaphysical illuminations...to that I *can* attest, although I must agree with Thomas in that it was more of a "bottom up" realization rather than a "top down" one. Further, that was on very rare instances when considered with the overall usage, perhaps 1% (being generous).
What concerns me regarding advocation of entheogenic substances is that without a "proper" guide (shaman, or some type of spiritual leader to direct the experience), the "trip" is subject to a wide variation of possible expressions, few of which could be considered metaphysical illumination. In my experience, so many similar *religious* uses of organic substances for ritual have become b@st@rdized by consumptive cultures into a faint glimmer of their former selves. Instances include tobacco and alcohol (fermented grain, fruit and / or honey). Often such are or can be addictive when not used in a monitored and ceremonial manner. Ritually speaking, one poisons oneself with the antidote...
Something I have brought up in the past and I don't think has quite made the impact it deserves, is the relationship our own body chemistries have with grain. Our bodies did not evolve to eat grain, our constitutions are not set up to ruminate. So how did grain become such a crucial part of our diet? So much so that "bread" is now considered the "staff of life?" The chemicals evoked in the brain by grain are addictive, and historically human brain power has exploded with the agricultural revolution. The ag. revolution is the threshold marking so many of our modern advances...particularly for this subject the advent of religion as an institution. Hinduism, Zoroastrianism and Judaism all have their foundations in early agriculture. The early Semitic alphabet is based in large part on symbols derived from agriculture and animal husbandry.
Last edited:
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Breaking news regarding this:
Researchers Explore What Contemporary Science Cannot Explain
We'll have to wait and see if they come up with anything...
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Here's an interesting article that highlights the Buddhist tenet of "no-self" as a possible safety mechanism which might help to prevent schizophrenia in susceptible people:
Altered Brain Activity In Schizophrenia May Direct Focus On Self
Altered Brain Activity In Schizophrenia May Direct Focus On Self
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Thomas,
I think I understand what you're saying, but I disagree with this way of putting it. In fact, I strongly disagree.
An emphasis on G-d's Transcendence has the potential to obscure His Immanence. It also has the potential to obscure the very process of Creation and the Divine Victory that is the spiritualization of matter: "To those who overcome, I will give to eat of the tree of life which is in the Paradise of God." (Revelation 2:7)
Incarnation is not just the descent of the Divine into the world. It's also the transcendence of human limitations and mergence into the Divine Mystery. This transcendence partakes of the possibilities of Creation. It is through these possibilities that we overcome the fate of death. Faith reveals the possibilities for transcendence as being part of G-d's jurisdiction and organization in the evolving forms of history. I would say these possibilities are effectuated in the world as the Body of the Cosmic Christ, the matrix of spirit and nature.
Jesus' presence on earth was not the end. Rather, it was a new beginning. A fully realized-God-human would actually have been the end of Creation, as though the fate of death could be overcome by bringing Creation to a standstill. Jesus' presence signified the initiation of Grace as a driving force for human history in the direction of the Divine Telos, "so that God may be all in all" (I Corinthians 15:28):
So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Hmm...
Genesis 2:1-3
1 So the heavens and the earth and everything in them were completed. 2 By the seventh day, God completed His work that He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work that He had done. 3 God blessed the seventh day and declared it holy, for on it He rested from His work of creation.
Matt 12:1-81 At that time Jesus passed through the grainfields on the Sabbath. (A) His disciples (B) were hungry and began to pick and eat some heads of grain. 2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to Him, "Look, Your disciples are doing what is not lawful (C) to do on the Sabbath!" 3 He said to them, "Haven't you read what David did when he and those who were with him were hungry— 4 how he entered the house of God, and they ate [a] the sacred bread, which is not lawful for him or for those with him to eat, but only for the priests? (D) 5 Or haven't you read in the Law [b] that on Sabbath days the priests in the temple violate the Sabbath and are innocent? (E) 6 But I tell you that something greater than the temple is here! (F) 7 If you had known what this means: I desire mercy and not sacrifice , (G) (H) you would not have condemned the innocent. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath." (I)
Mark 2:
23 On (BF) the Sabbath He was going through the grainfields, and His disciples (BG) began to make their way picking some heads of grain. 24 The Pharisees (BH) said to Him, "Look, why are they doing what is not lawful (BI) on the Sabbath?"
25 He said to them, "Have you never read what David (BJ) and those who were with him did when he was in need (BK) and hungry (BL) &md; 26 how he entered the house of God in the time of Abiathar (BM) the high priest (BN) and ate the sacred bread (BO) —which is not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests (BP) —and also gave some to his companions?" 27 Then He told them, "The Sabbath was made for [k] man and not man for [l] the Sabbath. (BQ) 28 Therefore the Son of Man (BR) is Lord (BS) even of the Sabbath." (BT)
1 So the heavens and the earth and everything in them were completed. 2 By the seventh day, God completed His work that He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work that He had done. 3 God blessed the seventh day and declared it holy, for on it He rested from His work of creation.
Matt 12:1-81 At that time Jesus passed through the grainfields on the Sabbath. (A) His disciples (B) were hungry and began to pick and eat some heads of grain. 2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to Him, "Look, Your disciples are doing what is not lawful (C) to do on the Sabbath!" 3 He said to them, "Haven't you read what David did when he and those who were with him were hungry— 4 how he entered the house of God, and they ate [a] the sacred bread, which is not lawful for him or for those with him to eat, but only for the priests? (D) 5 Or haven't you read in the Law [b] that on Sabbath days the priests in the temple violate the Sabbath and are innocent? (E) 6 But I tell you that something greater than the temple is here! (F) 7 If you had known what this means: I desire mercy and not sacrifice , (G) (H) you would not have condemned the innocent. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath." (I)
Mark 2:
23 On (BF) the Sabbath He was going through the grainfields, and His disciples (BG) began to make their way picking some heads of grain. 24 The Pharisees (BH) said to Him, "Look, why are they doing what is not lawful (BI) on the Sabbath?"
25 He said to them, "Have you never read what David (BJ) and those who were with him did when he was in need (BK) and hungry (BL) &md; 26 how he entered the house of God in the time of Abiathar (BM) the high priest (BN) and ate the sacred bread (BO) —which is not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests (BP) —and also gave some to his companions?" 27 Then He told them, "The Sabbath was made for [k] man and not man for [l] the Sabbath. (BQ) 28 Therefore the Son of Man (BR) is Lord (BS) even of the Sabbath." (BT)
Hi Netti-Netti —
I would say that both God's transcendence and His immanence are 'exterior' relations, seen from the viewpoint of another; God utterlty transcends our nature, yet He is immanent to it. But God's nature is not our nature. and our nature does not partake of the Divine nature. Rather, by Grace, He is present to us immanently, furthermore He is the Presence which upholds our being in existence: "all things were created by him and in him. And he is before all, and by him all things consist" (Colossians 1:16-17). In the Liturgy we profess 'through him, with him, in him' .... but not 'of' him, that would be pan- or panentheism.
God's transcendence then is understood as being before all else, God's immanence then is a gift. There is no reason for a transcendent God to make Itself known to a created nature, other than through an act of Its own free will. Anything else places God as subject to a deterministic universe, and this is not the God of Christianity.
Earlier I said 'God's nature is not ours', which is self-evident. What is taken for granted however, is that our nature belongs to him, we are in His possession, we are His creation, His creature. we are His to do with as He wills.
The real miracle is that we are free. God could have created us as creature, with no awareness or cognisance of the divine. The fact that we are created 'capax Dei' — with the capacity to know God — does not mean we are created divine, or that we can possess that of which we know.
+++
We do not join to God in His divinity, we join to Christ in His humanity, and through His humanity, partake of His divinity.
I would suggest that 'neurotheology' doesn't even seem to understand the nature of mystical experience generally, let alone the nature of Christian mystical experience specifically ... looking at the external effects is not going to create the internal cause.
Again, in reference to our 'Mystery' discussions, only Christian mysticism, of all the mystical paths, ends not at God, but in God. The summation of the Christian Life is not extinction or non-existence, nor the 'drop in the ocean' analogy ... but participation, here and now in the Life, the Circumincession of the Holy Trinity — it is living our lives in God's life, but God living His life in us. This, for me, is the absolute idea of an "all in all" which does not diminish the integrity of every interacting element.
I'm not denying other orders of mystical experience, I'm simply saying that in Christianity the idea reaches its ultimate expression.
Thomas
OK.
Agreed, but neither must we let God's Immanence reduce His transcedence to a mode of relativity.
I would say that both God's transcendence and His immanence are 'exterior' relations, seen from the viewpoint of another; God utterlty transcends our nature, yet He is immanent to it. But God's nature is not our nature. and our nature does not partake of the Divine nature. Rather, by Grace, He is present to us immanently, furthermore He is the Presence which upholds our being in existence: "all things were created by him and in him. And he is before all, and by him all things consist" (Colossians 1:16-17). In the Liturgy we profess 'through him, with him, in him' .... but not 'of' him, that would be pan- or panentheism.
God's transcendence then is understood as being before all else, God's immanence then is a gift. There is no reason for a transcendent God to make Itself known to a created nature, other than through an act of Its own free will. Anything else places God as subject to a deterministic universe, and this is not the God of Christianity.
Earlier I said 'God's nature is not ours', which is self-evident. What is taken for granted however, is that our nature belongs to him, we are in His possession, we are His creation, His creature. we are His to do with as He wills.
The real miracle is that we are free. God could have created us as creature, with no awareness or cognisance of the divine. The fact that we are created 'capax Dei' — with the capacity to know God — does not mean we are created divine, or that we can possess that of which we know.
+++
Yes — by the Divine's adoption of the created, not by virtue of any intrinsic possibility within the created. "God became man, that man might become God" as the Fathers say. But without the Incarnation, that is impossible.
We do not join to God in His divinity, we join to Christ in His humanity, and through His humanity, partake of His divinity.
You talk of possibilities, but wherein do these possibilities lie? Not in human nature, Scripture is emphatic on that point. The possibilities open to us reside in the Logos, not in the individual logoi. "Without me, you can do nothing" (John 15:5)
So would I, but then I would say that the presence of the Body of the Cosmic Christ is the Church ... outside of that, the Body of the Cosmic Christ becomes an abstract with no actual existence.
For us. Jesus is, of course, Eternal.
Really? I rather see it as it's Perfection and Beatitude ... a true Theophany. I would have thought an end to creation implies there is no place for creation in the Divine Life.
I agree, but none of that is a given. The Gift of Grace is just that, it is a Gift to which we are called, and to which we have to give ourselves. Then it becomes our Cross, and willingly so.
I would suggest that 'neurotheology' doesn't even seem to understand the nature of mystical experience generally, let alone the nature of Christian mystical experience specifically ... looking at the external effects is not going to create the internal cause.
Again, in reference to our 'Mystery' discussions, only Christian mysticism, of all the mystical paths, ends not at God, but in God. The summation of the Christian Life is not extinction or non-existence, nor the 'drop in the ocean' analogy ... but participation, here and now in the Life, the Circumincession of the Holy Trinity — it is living our lives in God's life, but God living His life in us. This, for me, is the absolute idea of an "all in all" which does not diminish the integrity of every interacting element.
I'm not denying other orders of mystical experience, I'm simply saying that in Christianity the idea reaches its ultimate expression.
Thomas
As I have mentioned previously in another thread I am currently in the process of designing a new religion (Transparency/Nirmaladtha) that incorporates the use of psilocybe as sacrament. As of yet I have not specified a ritual context or method for taking psilocybe but I imagine that it might end up being similar to that which Aldous Huxley described in his novel Island. Either way the scientific studies with psilocybin that are being conducted at Johns Hopkins University and elsewhere will ultimately determine what the final process will be such that a positive and lasting spiritual effect is achieved.
From the studies/tests with this entheogen, this would be more like a baptism.
They've synthesised and isolated to the point where when they determine your body weight and composition, they can take you to the exact point of realization of oneness. Now folks see and understand oneness during this experience in different ways. Some see each other as pixelated and the pixels join others see threads between themselves, each other and all creation, others see a blending can't see the line where they end and something else begins, everything they touch blurs to be part of them and vice versa.
Those that are provided the accurate amount have no desire to see it again, they grok it, and feel complete in the knowing they are one with the father, with the universe and each other. The experience is all the transition they need.
I don't think that the Hopkins study has gone on long enough to say this. It may (probably will) turn out to be the case that it would be best if it were an annual rite analogous to the Easter Eucharist or to use a biochemical analogy you might need and annual booster shot.
Again, I'm not sure that this is the case. I have found it useful/healthy to repeat the experience periodically. Once every year or so seems to be in right ball park.
There was a recent discussion on neuroscience on the radio.
(BBC Radio 4: In Our Time — only available in the UK, I think, and one of the best things on the radio ever!)
One theoretical insight was based on experiments carried out which seemed to indicate that supposedly conscious decisions are begun in the unconscious areas of the brain before they become conscious.
The opinion was, in light of the evidence, that the conscious mind is involved with planning and broad outlines of things: "Today I will go the the library on the way to work; I will get the shopping on the way home" — almost everything else that we would assume to be 'conscious' is in fact sorted by the unconscious, and only becomes conscious when we're aware of doing it.
Like walking ... we do not think "lift leg, swing forward, shift balance, take weight, find balance, lift other leg, etc.," and we've all experienced that moment of having driven somewhere, then having no recollection of the journey "Did I stop at the lights, were they red?" ...
Rather, we do our daily thing, and as we become aware of it, we therefore assume we're conscious of it.
I would suggest we've al long way to go to understand the human neuro-systems, before we even start looking for God therein.
Thomas
(BBC Radio 4: In Our Time — only available in the UK, I think, and one of the best things on the radio ever!)
One theoretical insight was based on experiments carried out which seemed to indicate that supposedly conscious decisions are begun in the unconscious areas of the brain before they become conscious.
The opinion was, in light of the evidence, that the conscious mind is involved with planning and broad outlines of things: "Today I will go the the library on the way to work; I will get the shopping on the way home" — almost everything else that we would assume to be 'conscious' is in fact sorted by the unconscious, and only becomes conscious when we're aware of doing it.
Like walking ... we do not think "lift leg, swing forward, shift balance, take weight, find balance, lift other leg, etc.," and we've all experienced that moment of having driven somewhere, then having no recollection of the journey "Did I stop at the lights, were they red?" ...
Rather, we do our daily thing, and as we become aware of it, we therefore assume we're conscious of it.
I would suggest we've al long way to go to understand the human neuro-systems, before we even start looking for God therein.
Thomas
He's been doing it for decades. And both he and participants do say this. ie that they have no need for further trips, the 'religious' experience they had led them to a place of Knowing, knowing with a big K that didn't require them to revisit it.
Wil,
As indicated by other posts you have made in this forum you have no doubt had a look at my last post and had time to respond to it.
So what say you?
I have never read or heard anything similar to that which you have referred.
Teal Leaf
As indicated by other posts you have made in this forum you have no doubt had a look at my last post and had time to respond to it.
So what say you?
I have never read or heard anything similar to that which you have referred.
Teal Leaf