I. The evolution of religion: A brief perspective on the relation between psychedelics and spirituality on the collective strata

Entheogens, the chemicals commonly known as psychedelics in our modern American culture (such as cannabis, psilocybin and mescaline) have been used for ceremonial religious purposes by indigenous peoples for eons, possibly thousands of years. Yet our monotheistic, or monistic religions of the last few millennia, which are basically philosophical, reject this notion. But are not these religions of an essentially different nature than the dusky, archetypal, nature-based shamanic religions? The figure of the shaman contacts the other world and returns with knowledge, albeit of a non-rational type, and this in turn  provides the power to heal the individual as well as the collective. Entheogens are woven seamlessly into a worldview, a living cosmology that also includes folklore, music and medicine.

Such was the prototype for the spirituality of the late 1960's, with the discovery and widespread use of the prototypical psychedelic, LSD. Every facet of culture was affected, every vernacular aesthetic was transmuted. Ultimately, this movement failed to weather the cataclysm which resulted from its head-on collision with bourgeois reality. The same could be said of the re-emergence of psychedelics and the rise of MDMA use within the Rave culture decades later. The proliferation of a lifestyle and a progression that lacked any logical conclusion once again defeated itself. That is, there was nowhere to go from psychedelics, except of course to take more psychedelics, and when the chemical wasn't available, what then?

The spirituality of native tribes is of an order which is, or was, relevant within the context of their life, culture and consciousness. The use of entheogens by said peoples serves a definite purpose within the context of native spirituality. But the knowledge resulting from any such use has been lost in the epochs that have passed. And even so, the trajectory of development from that age to the current age has disintegrated the relevance of such knowledge, as the old type of spirituality gave birth to the new type. The old type serves, or served, its purpose; yet, the passing of the torch of mystic fire to intellectually and emotionally based religion rendered the old type impotent; that is, it is not enough to have mere awareness of spiritual powers- they must be understood insofar as they can. The mystery has not been lost- as a matter of fact, our collective conceptualization of this mystery has deepened and grown more deft.

The psychedelic mysticism suffers from the same spiritual deficit as secular Buddhism- is not Spirit something of an order higher and more Divine than the mind? Is not Spirit beyond the mind? Is not Spirit of an ontological, and not merely psychological nature?

II. Entheogens and mysticism: A brief perspective on the relation between psychedelics and spirituality on the individual strata 

The psychedelic drug user experiences many things that he or she never would have without chemicals, both qualitatively and in terms of magnitude. Yet these experiences, from the most transcendent to the most mundane, are at best simulation. For spiritual realms, other-dimensional, surreal realms, though they do exist, cannot be contacted by altering neurochemicals, because spiritual realms are not produced by neurological, or even psychological events or changes, but rather have a metaphysical nature and existence of an order all their own. What psychedelics can show us, is what it would be like, phenomenologically to commune with such places and beings, which could be useful in a manner similar to a flight simulator, as well as open new windows of dimension and attribute within our own world. However, the use of said chemicals is ultimately harmful, because they alter our sense of meaning and our threshold of the profound, and for this reason, nothing experienced under the influence of psychedelics can be claimed to be real, or have foundation in reality, whether this reality or any higher one, aside from one's own mind. 

I have been neglecting my page here for quite a while, true, but I  will probably update it soon...

Honestly, I'm not a huge fan of the change. For one, I don't like the new age connotations that the name carries. I joined zaadz as an esotericist, artist and musician. A panENtheist, monist/monotheist, I don't subscribe to pantheist candyfloss. I DO consider myself environmentally-conscious, but I'm not a vegan. I'm not even vegetarian (gasp!). I do not like the Ken Wilber/Eckhart Tolle/The Secret superficial spiritual teachings. The earth is a spiritual thing, but it is an approximate reflection of something much more sublime. We can find God in it, we can see God in it, but it in and of itself is not God. That is the flaw in the Gaia meme. Period. And no, I'm not associating Wilber with this Gaia thing, his thought has barn-sized holes of its own.

I always liked the zaadz (seeds) name because it implies that all the members are working for change, rather than suggesting that they all subscribe to a particular pantheist philosophy.

Needless to say, I was taken aback when I typed in zaadz.com and got to the Gaia page. I thought there was a mistake! And frankly, I'm wondering if I still have a place here at all. I never was a typical zaadz-user, but I felt at home there; now, who knows?

Definitions Of Mysticism And Theosis:

Mysticism is a particularly difficult concept to frame in language; it is implicitly ineffable, like the concept of "God," and any attempt to define imposes limitations which aren't reflected in the Reality, the true nature of mysticism or God. The likeness in difficulty between the two terms exists because mysticism implies a contact, connection or union between the created and the Uncreated, that is, humans and God. Nevertheless, the dictionary definitions of mysticism are well-constructed. Below, I have compared these with some of my own attempts to define the terms "mysticism" and "mystical:"

Dictionary definition of mysticism:

"Any seeking to solve the mysteries of existence by internal illumination or special insight."

My definition of mysticism:

Direct contact or union with the unknown, the Divine, God or things of a mysterious nature; the knowledge that occurs as the result of any such contact or union.

Dictionary definition of mystical:

"Beyond the scope of human experience; pertaining to a spiritual event, intuition, or insight which defies comprehension; related to a spiritual communication or contact with God."

My definition of mystical:

Beyond the realm of appearances and the physical as well as the realm of analytical thought; spiritual; possessing a strange, ecstatic, extraordinary and/or otherworldly quality or character.

Theosis, on the other hand, is an even more difficult term. As a technical theological term, it is not usually included in common lexicons. Roughly synonymous terms include deification, divinization, Sri Aurobindo's term "supermentalisation" (also "supramentalisation"), and the alternative term I personally prefer, spiritualization. The difficulty of this term results from its conceptual attempt to refer simultaneously to two radically divergent levels of existence (matter and Spirit) and the merging or oneness of these two, either now or at some point in the future. So there must be either an elevation of the mundane pole of existence to the level of the transcendent, or a "bringing down" of Spirit to the level of matter, or possibly both reciprocally and at once.

Some schools of spiritual thought hold the belief that the duality between the two realms is illusory. In this case, theosis becomes about the awakening of consciousness. In my own understanding, matter and Spirit differ in their degrees of Divinity, their degrees of unity or oneness and their purities of being and consciousness. As a result, there appears to be a duality between matter and Spirit, and although, primordially speaking, this is not so in Reality, the appearance of the duality is crucial. Neither one is more "valuable" than the other, for you see that both are part of the same spectrum of being. So matter and Spirit are one, but they are also distinct. Otherwise, what makes "Spirit" spiritual? It would just be matter. The apparent gulf between the two will be reconciled; this is precisely what theosis is. It is the Kabbalistic Tikkun, or reparation of the vessels which shattered during the initial influx of God's power (Shefa). However, this "Fall" was not an accident, but rather a necessary requisite of creation*.

Theosis is also referred to in Sri Aurobindo's The Life Divine, though he uses his own unique terminology to explain how beings will gain awareness of realities that are far beyond the current mental faculties of humans. But this in and of itself is no different than any other mystical theology; what makes Aurobindo's thought "theotic" is that the physical world is transformed spiritually rather than being abandoned. Christian soteriology and eschatology refer to the Kingdom of God on earth and this is theosis through and through. The esoteric Christian theologian Teilhard de Chardin created the concept of an "Omega point," which is a radical new level of consciousness that results from the union of creation with God through Christ.

In most Western explanations of theosis there is a messianic figure who arrives to awaken matter and/or to heal the ailing cosmos. The Gnostics spoke of the arrival of the Savior, who would free the spiritual particles from the matter they became trapped within, a process called Apokatastasis, or reintegration. This is really just another perspective of the concept of theosis.

Another interpretation of theosis is teleological. At some theoretical point, material existence reaches its ultimate state of being, and this state is identical with Spirit, which from the beginning was perfect and merely veiled itself within, or away from matter. The veiling, known in Kabbalah as Tzim Tzum, is often interpreted to mean that upon the act or thought of creation, God retreated into a realm inaccessible to us. What it really means is that before creation occurred, all was One with God, but now it is necessary for God to be less than perfectly present in certain things, namely matter, or at least appear to be so**. The crucial concept here is that matter and Spirit are becoming an inseparable Whole as they were in the beginning, with one important difference: the awareness gained through matter's evolution.

Manifestation or emanation is God's procession. Mysticism, illumination and enlightenment on an individual scale are functions of reversion. But this reversion is not just the opposite of the procession, because an essential change has occurred within that which reverts, whether it be an individual, a collective or the cosmos as a whole. This difference is not a physical difference but an ontological difference in the purity of consciousness and being. And the universal reaching of this point is why God proceeds in order to create in the first place; it is the grand purpose of all creation and existence.

And it is also not enough for the individual to retreat to a realm of pure Spirit, a Moksha or Nirvana. This is mysticism but there is a level of spirituality beyond that: theosis. In a way, theosis is mysticism and emanation simultaneously. This spirituality also must occur on a collective or universal, and not merely individual scale. The transformation encapsulates not only human consciousness as a collective, but all beings, and all matter, space and time as well. It is a total transmutation of all physical and mental existence, it is a return to a primordial state of being as well as a new, unseen and unparalleled state of consciousness. It is a radical revolution of all centers and circles of being and consciousness, it is an unforeseen unity and an ultimate fulfillment of purpose.

So with this still inadequate explanation, I close with my personal definition of theosis:

The unity of all beings with one another and with God, through love, the awakening and spiritual transformation of all beings, at all levels of consciousness, through truth, and the spiritualization of matter itself, as well as time, at all levels of existence, through Spirit.

* The cosmogony of how and why these vessels came to break also explains the problem of evil. The break was out of necessity for Creation. In order to serve its evolutionary purpose of ever-increasing consciousness of God's love, the free play of all creative possibilities is required, leading to duality as is a requisite of love itself. One cannot love, there must be two, God and human, as it were. Knowing leads to loving, which in turn leads to more knowing, and so on, ad infinitum. Then as love is perfected, two become one again, which is theosis. The Fall is an important part of the great plan, and it is the work of the Savior to heal the distress that the Fall causes to the individual as well as the collective universe.

** A note on Tzim Tzum: Tzim Tzum is actually a contraction, according to Lurianic Kabbalah. In the beginning all was God. As a prerequisite of the creative process, God withdrew Himself from a certain place in order to make it possible for the physical universe to exist as it does. But I think this definition of Tzim Tzum causes one to feel like God is somehow far away and/or unreachable, which is valid in some capacity, but easily misunderstood, leading to a particular existential crisis. I prefer to define Tzim Tzum as "veiling," because God's Presence is never absent, it only appears to be so. In truth, God is hidden but never missing.

Aside from my esoteric studies in the area of spirituality, I am also an expert in the esoterics of rock n' roll, alternative and power pop. So, inspired by the book "Music Lust" by Nic Harcourt and the movie "High Fidelity," I will be posting here some preliminary lists and fragments of a book I'm starting. As a power chord junkie/guitarist I have discovered many little correspondences and recurring elements within power pop, and using Weezer as the archetypal alternative power pop/rock band, this very short book will sketch an outline of this genre of music that I love so much. Coming soon...

Holy fire, violet-white fire:

I contemplate the essence of love

and the layers of appearance peel

away as an onion, transparent;

what I find there is increasingly subtle

and ever deeper;

my heart, electric with Divine music,

I commune with God

and the true nature of God is revealed unto me,

awake once again, beyond, within;

not of words nor images is your Presence passionately.

your communion itself is knowledge.

your very touch brings Divine consciousness.

still together

You and me

already together

us and we

always together

through prema, bhakti.

As promised:

There are several specifically-Christian aspects of this writing; I'm omitting most of these for the time being.

-Although the Divine may be considered in multiple aspects for purely-philosophical purposes, in reality and Essence, God is One.

-The Unity of Faith: Each sincere religion is God's appropriate revelation to the people of a distinct era and locale.

-The Continuity of Personal Revelation: As the authors of the Bible were inspired by God to write, so were the authors of all the Holiest scriptures (the Gita, the Quran, etc.) Divinely illumined; we as well are driven by the same personal spiritual vision, guided by God's Spirit of Truth.

-God reveals according to the capacity of each individual's consciousness and understanding.

-There is also spirituality in itself of which each religion is an inadequate expression.

-God manifests to the world, and within the individual, as Love, Truth and pure dynamism.

-Each individual person contains, through Christ and under the guidance of God's Parakletos, an inner spiritual aspect, through which personal spiritual vision and other revelation might be given.

(The last of these is influenced by George Fox of the Quakers.)
More to come...

The majority of this article is coming soon (I left my journals elsewhere...)
But for now:

It is interesting how my spiritual studies always lead me back to Christianity. Not too strange, I was raised Lutheran, but there's more to it. For my interest in religion in itself has always greatly trumped my interest in any particular religion. During my late teens and early 20's, when my seeking took me away into Buddhism and Taoism and later, into Hindu beliefs, I had to think, wait a minute, isn't the same spiritual essence also right there in Christianity? And it was. I just didn't "feel" Christianity the same way I felt the Eastern religions. Strange how I had to dive into other beliefs to understand the ones I was supposed to or told to have.

As a tangent, I now know that I always had mystical experiences, I just didn't know what they were when I was young.

Anyway, a few years later I adopted the perennial standpoint, that there is a pure spirituality of which all the religions are dressed-up, inadequate expressions of. Yet each religion also contains something special, a piece of the puzzle, a perspective of a larger object, although all the pieces together still cannot contain the object they set out to clarify. During my second (post-Eastern) encounter with Christianity, I heavily studied the big 5 of Christian mysticism: Pseudo-Dionysius, The Cloud Of Unknowing (unknown author), Meister Eckhart, Teresa Of Avila and John Of The Cross. The last two of these are good but heavily-Catholic, something I have no affinity for.

And this in turn lead me to an undefined, syncretistic, mystical form of Christianity, which is where I'm at now. I have a very high opinion of Advaita Vedanta, and that's most of all what I've chosen to incorporate into this new vision. But it's also a very personal vision on which I rely to a great extent upon the Paraclete, God's Spirit Of Truth, the Divine illuminator, who inspired all the Holiest scriptures and illumines each and every one of us. This inspires me much more than any book or belief.

I have a very strong interest in Martin Luther, though I've read he was quite anti-mystic, and George Fox, the organizer of the Society Of Friends, or Quakers. Other Christian mystics I recommend are William Blake, Eckhart's friends Suso and Tauler, Julian Of Norwich, Hildegard von Bingen and the great, great mystic master Jacob Boehme, but he's a bit more far out than the others. And who would I be if I didn't mention Teilhard de Chardin? I love his ideas but his writing is hard for me to read. There is also a whole group of mystic thinkers who infuse Christianity with Kabbalah, Neoplatonism and Alchemy, see my teachers list.

Gnosticism is important to understand if you want to fully grasp Christianity, and Muslim theology provides an important critique of Christianity. There are also important re-workings of Christian theology found in Roman Catholicism, Unitarianism, the Processeans, the IAM movement, the Church Universal and Triumphant, Christian Scientists, Mormonism and the Jehovah's Witnesses, though I don't endorse any of these, they are at the very least interesting to study.

The 5 Dimensions Of Awakening
by arachnid

The practice of mysticism/contemplation is all-encompassing; every part of the being grows, awakens, deepens, clarifies, transforms, is transmuted, except of course for that absolute aspect that is beyond all change. There can be no concrete definition of such a sublime transformation; there is no dialectic process that occurs. Nonetheless, awakening glimmers with the following radiant, transparent facets:

1. Contact & 2. Union: Contact is the first touch of, the first awareness of the presence of the Divine. Union is contact plus an awareness of the similitude of substances; it is a deeper mode of contact. Another description of this is Sri Ramakrishna’s classic distinction: contact is “tasting the sugar,” union is “becoming the sugar.” Both contact and union designate an intimate relationship between the mystic and God.

3. Knowledge: This refers to the knowledge that occurs as the result of union. This knowledge can be of four types: intellectual/analytical, emotional, intuitive and spiritual. Intuitive knowledge is an amalgam of the intellectual and emotional types of knowledge and it is a precursor to spiritual knowledge, which is beyond all the other types.

4. Mystery: Mystery is an awareness of the inscrutable, incomprehensible nature of God. In a larger sense it refers to anything unknown or anything possessing a strange, ecstatic, extraordinary and/or otherworldly quality or character, though here it is a specific quality of the Divine.

5. Revelation: This is the mechanism through which the awareness of contact, union, knowledge and mystery occurs. In and of itself, revelation is a more advanced mode consisting of simultaneous union and knowledge. Mystery is reciprocal with revelation; a deepening in the awareness of one always leads to a deepening in the awareness of the other.

Ecstasy and rapture are not only vehicles for awakening, but also constant companions during all modes of mysticism.

These five dimensions detail the transition from mysticism to theosis, collective awakening and the transmutation/spiritualisation of matter itself. The four dimensions of theosis are unity, being, consciousness and emptiness.

I just read a book about southpaws and it said that most people who identify themselves as left-handed are actually switch-handers in disguise. And that's certainly the case for me. I call myself left-handed but only because I write with my left. Actually, I have developed a limited ambidextrous capacity, but that was only through my own hard work, and that doesn't matter for the sake of this digression.

So, yeah, I do some tasks with each hand out of necessity, and this caused me to question why. If you are left-handed you are more oriented toward your right brain, which is more artistic and intuitive, if you are right-handed, you are more oriented toward your left brain, which is more logical. You know the old stereotype that says that left-handers are more artistic or creative? I don't think there's any proof of this, yet for me personally, it seems to contain a grain of truth.

If I were to throw a baseball, for example, I could only use my right hand. Okay, that's not logical, but nonetheless it is purely physical, not the type of thing you typically associate with the right brain, and this makes sense, because I must use my right hand/left brain. Now on the other hand (pun intended), I am an artist and anything artistic, from writing (creatively), drawing, painting, even playing guitar, I have to use my left hand. I'm not sure if this means anything.