DMT is not a spirit molecule

[clouds]

I first heard of DMT while listening to Terence McKenna, back then (2007) I had a spiritual crisis. I was attracted to new age psytrance music. I listened to many recording about pleiadians, numerology, drug-gurus, alien UFO's and conspiracy theories. I was in a process known as "awakening". This awakening was influenced by the use of empathogens and hallucinogens and my particular "awakening" process lasted about 1 year and a half. In this process I was being very receptive about spiritual things and counter-culture ideals. I also had ego-trips in which I was trying to figure out if I was "the one" or "the chosen one" to defeat the system in one way or another.

Listening to Terence McKenna I started to believe that science was somehow wrong and that shamanism was the way to go. I felt more-less happy about that idea (being Mexican - it's was easier for me to pose as a shaman and later become one), but since I have an "occidental mainstream" background and not an "indigenous shamanic" one, it was difficult for me to pretend to be a shaman. I have a family and a job, friends and responsibilities... I wasn't just gonna go to the Sierra and start eating plants and go signing. Money and responsibilities were an issue, and at that time... it sucked.

In my experience, hallucinogens and empathogens DID make a great difference in my life (a positive one). And even on an LSD trip (I suppose it was LSD, it was on a blotter, now I'm not that sure it was) a thought and a CEV came to my mind: A molecule accompanied with the thought that "Drugs are the gods of the future." Why? At that moment I guess I was sure that experience could defeat belief and it didn't necessarily meant that "religion/God/spirituality" was dead. I mean, after all, the drug was delivering an amazing experience... and in my life, religion and praying have not.

Then I started (it was inevitable) to read about psychedelic chemistry and not only psychedelic philosophy. My mind was blown by the amazing number of FACTS in chemistry against the philosophy. You see, in chemistry BS doesn't work, and in philosophy everything in permitted. You don't have to be smart to be a philosopher, you don't even have to study... you can say anything and some people will believe it. On the other hand, in chemistry you better be bright and clear (intelligent) to get your "truths" working, and people don't even have to believe it if they don't want to, it'a a fact anyway... if DMT can be synthesized a certain way then that is a FACT... or if MDMA activates certain areas in in the brain, then that is a FACT. And thanks to facts, humanity progress in the scientific endeavor.

So as I was seeing that, I was astonished and in a middle of a dilemma... So what is the right way... Science or Spirituality?
Both are important, but Science is better. Just because it's searches for the Truth in essence and in an objective way. And that is beautiful, but more importantly, you can prove it. And proof is something spirituality cannot give... but... then we have DMT.

And I have not tried DMT but I have the intention to do so. Why? Because according to McKenna and several others, this is one of the (if not THE most) amazing experience to discover and explore spiritual realms. So, in my psychedelic experiences I have learned to try to keep an open opinion and to acknowledge that I can always be wrong, about anything. I would never say that I know The Absolute Truth, but I also know that there are FACTS and that these facts have been throughly studied by people that are smarter than me (even if McKenna says that nobody is smarter than me). I know there are people that are smarter than me, regardless of what McKenna says. I cannot just throw science to the garbage and believe whatever I want if I want to know more about life, the universe and the mind.

So what do I mean?

I mean that I think DMT is not a spiritual molecule. It is a molecule, it is a hallucinogen, it is a drug. That (according to most people) opens spiritual realms. But in that case DMT is a key, a code.... that opens a door, a program. So what is the real sacred thing then? The molecule or the brain? The key or what is behind the door? See what I mean?

How can a drug be spiritual or sacred if its not doing ANYTHING but activating your brain so you can hallucinate?

What if humans are the "sacred" ones and not the drug?

Some people here show a tremendous respect for a drug and not so much respect for a human!
Are we worshiping inanimate objects and not respecting the things that have the ability to experience this "sacred" realm?

Sasha Shulgin always emphasizes this. In each and every interview I have seen about him, he always says that it's not the drug the one that has skill, powers or sacredness, but that is actually the individual the one that is capable of doing THAT.

burnt gets angry because some people suggest that rock may be conscious.... and most people agree that thinking rocks are conscious is stupid. But what about a rock the size of a fist that is made of pure DMT? Is not conscious... right? Is that rock sacred?

All I'm saying is that in my process of awakening I believed almost anything. And now that I am past that, I can clearly see that Science is the most ethical way to try to discover things and FACTS. And in science drugs are not sacred. Drugs activate. And DMT is a drug. I really feel weird when I see that people here have so much RESPECT for rocks of DMT but not for other persons. I'm not saying we should all have a giant cyber.hug and PLUR and that stuff... all I'm saying is I don't think drugs are sacred...

..I think that if something is sacred at all, then that thing would be the brain. And the ones getting the respect should be human beings.

I would also like to add that I think that when facing real life problems, drugs are not THE answer, but they can HELP YOU finding it.
And I would also like to finish this writing with this quote from a person waaaaaay smarter than me:


"Drugs don’t do things, they only catalyze what’s already there. No drug has skill. It’s you who has skill. You only have to know it." - Alexander Shulgin

 

[jamie]

I dont think you understand what mckenna was really trying to say. Which of his books have you read?

 

[gibran2]

A very nice post – lots to think about:

You see, in chemistry BS doesn't work, and in philosophy everything in permitted. You don't have to be smart to be a philosopher, you don't even have to study... you can say anything and some people will believe it.

I think you may be using the term “philosophy” in a general colloquial sense. In fact, philosophy doesn’t permit everything – one “goal” of philosophy is to better understand what is, what might be, and what cannot be. Philosophical arguments generally must be logical and consistent. There are many Ph.D. philosophers who would beg to differ with you regarding the requirements to be a philosopher. Intelligence, years of work and study, and tremendous intellectual investment are required to be a good “professional” philosopher.

So what is the right way... Science or Spirituality?
Both are important, but Science is better.

A false dichotomy! Why can’t people see that? You don’t have to abandon science in order to accept spirituality, and you don’t have to condemn spirituality in order to appreciate science. Spirituality cannot answer questions about the physical world in which we live, nor can science answer questions concerning the big “whys” of existence.

I mean that I think DMT is not a spiritual molecule. It is a molecule, it is a hallucinogen, it is a drug. That (according to most people) opens spiritual realms. But in that case DMT is a key, a code.... that opens a door, a program. So what is the real sacred thing then? The molecule or the brain? The key or what is behind the door? See what I mean?

I think you’re taking the name “Spirit Molecule” a bit too literally. DMT is a chemical compound, one of many thousands. But not every molecule allows us to experience what DMT does. I don’t think anyone here “worships” DMT any more than they worship Sodium Bicarbonate or Carbon Dioxide or any other chemical compound. But many respect the powerful effects that this molecule has when coursing through our systems.

How can a drug be spiritual or sacred if its not doing ANYTHING but activating your brain so you can hallucinate?

What if humans are the "sacred" ones and not the drug?

I think you’re exactly right. No chemical compound is sacred (unless we accept that all of creation is sacred). Human beings are sacred.


If you want to understand the DMT experience, then you must consume DMT. There is no other way.

 

[DMTripper]

... So what is the right way... Science or Spirituality?
Both are important, but Science is better.

Science and spirituality are not ways, they are tools. Tools for different purposes, or should I say worlds. Science can teach you about this world, the physical one but spirituality is for other worlds.
Science is built on the laws of the physical world and can not explain other planes of existence.

So how is science better? It's like saying tomato soup is better than airplanes. Yes for eating but not for traveling.

And you also don't get the idea of philosophy. You can't just say whatever and that's philosophy and people will believe you. What do you mean by that?

 

[jbark]

I agree with gibran2. Philosophy is a term that has been misappropriated, overused and dragged through the mud. It is actually a rigorous discipline based as much on proof as any scientific discipline. It is, in fact , mathematical. One has only to take a brief undergrad course in deductive logic to understand this.

Because of the nature of the discourse it encourages, the proof behind the arguments is at best invisible and at worst forgotten or ignored. Leading a lot of people to refer erroneously to their point of views, their musings and their arguments as philosophy.

JBArk

 

[jamie]

I think the whole post is just a biased rant..you dragged mckenna's name into it implying a link between him and certain ideas that I would def not link to him..you dont seem to have a full grasp on what philosophy is and are grossly over-generalizing.

 

[clouds]

Yes, I took philosophy 101 in high school, and as far as I know Buddhism can be a philosophy. Also Hinduism philosophy and many other ways are "philosophies" and they not necessarily are based on mathematical logic. (I know what Logic is). What I'm saying is that if a man goes around preaching ideas and concepts that are widely or moderately accepted by a community then it becomes a philosophy or a way of living or whatever you want to call it. But people can believe whatever they want to believe.... that is Freedom. I don't have anything against that. And yet I think that thinking that drugs are sacred is a mistake. I also think that believing rocks are conscious is a mistake. :?

I don’t think anyone here “worships” DMT any more than they worship Sodium Bicarbonate or Carbon Dioxide or any other chemical compound.

Are you sure of that?
I've read terms like "disrespecting the molecule" instead of "disrespecting yourself" and similar stuff.
How can one disrespect dimethyltryptamine?

I think the whole post is just a biased rant

This is what I'm talking about... someone tries to see things in a rational way and suddenly its a biased rant.

I am not saying that spirits don't exist or that related things are not real.
Jesus, All I'm saying is that a chemical compound is not a holy object... I don't see why that is a "rant" pal.

 

[HyperQuill]

Why must it come down to belief in one or the other? Why can't you apply the scientific method to explore your spiritual side without "believing" in science as the end-all-be-all explanation of everything around us? No need to throw the baby out with the bath water regardless of which path you choose...

 

[jamie]

yeah, theres a diff between A philosophy and philisophical thought/method in general..you again overgeneralize. High school philosophy?..that kind of overgeneralizing wouldnt cut it in college.

I also wouldnt call your post rational. It seems very biased and basically just a rant.

I still dont get the mckenna connection either..mckenna was neither against science or for some over-spiritualized idealization of psychedelics. Did you actaully read his books?

 

[jbark]

I think the whole post is just a biased rant..you dragged mckenna's name into it implying a link between him and certain ideas that I would def not link to him..you dont seem to have a full grasp on what philosophy is and are grossly over-generalizing.

couldn't all posts that express an opinion be categorized thus, fractal?

JBArk

 

[jamie]

no

 

[Jin]

its all one ,god,science,spirituality,this planet , the universe,dmt ,you and me
science is not anti-spirituality,science is the pursuit of truth and that is what spirituality is ,two paths to the same destination,
dmt may or may not be the spirit molecule but who or what are you ,what am i or what is humanity ,what is the universe , who is God
thinking for 10,000 years straight will not even bring you an inch closer to the truth and that is what it is ! a mystery forever
for a million miles around this planet there is no life all in this solar system what breaths is earth , what is it coincidence , chance , miracle , or a cosmic joke
whatever it is ,its here and we are in it , i call this place planet magic , for life is no less , to be able to exist in this place,live,breate,see,hear,taste,touch and feel what is this if not magic
from what i understand spirituality has to walk hand in
hand with science and so does science , for facts change all the time as everything changes,it was a fact that once you were a child and that fact is no longer valid
so go search for what never changes for that is the truth
i call it the great Spirit for in it is everything you can see , you , me and everybody

 

[jamie]

there is no science that doesnt lead into philosphy..and philosophy is what bread science. You cant sit here and discount one of them and put the other up some some pedistal.

 

[jbark]

no

uuhhh.....ok....

Clouds:

"Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[1][2] It is distinguished from other ways of addressing fundamental questions (such as mysticism, myth, or the arts) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.[3] The word "Philosophy" comes from the Greek φιλοσοφία [philosophia], which literally means "love of wisdom".[4][5][6]
wikepedia

 

[clouds]

I did not post this thread to discuss Philosophy vs Science.
My arguments are there in my first post and everyone can comment about it, I already replied to that.

My main point is that I don't think drugs or chemical compounds are sacred.
I think that if something is sacred at all... it's the human brain. Not an unconscious pile of DMT or MDMA or Psilocyibin.

 

[gibran2]

Philosophy has several definitions. The one I’ve referred to is “the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct” or “any of the three branches, namely natural philosophy, moral philosophy, and metaphysical philosophy, that are accepted as composing this study”.

You seem to be defining it as “a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs” or maybe “a system of philosophical doctrine: the philosophy of Spinoza”.

I don’t think anyone here “worships” DMT any more than they worship Sodium Bicarbonate or Carbon Dioxide or any other chemical compound.

Are you sure of that?
I've read terms like "disrespecting the molecule" instead of "disrespecting yourself" and similar stuff.
How can one disrespect dimethyltryptamine?

...

I am not saying that spirits don't exist or that related things are not real.
Jesus, All I'm saying is that a chemical compound is not a holy object... I don't see why that is a "rant" pal.

I don’t think that anyone here reveres any molecule as a Holy object. Maybe I’m wrong. All I can say is that I don’t worship DMT or any other compound. I may use a phrase like “respect the molecule”, but I could also say “respect a loaded gun” – that doesn’t mean I worship loaded guns. It’s a linguistic idiom.

 

[universecannon]

How can one disrespect dimethyltryptamine?

Once most people see the mind numbingly bizzare places that dmt allows you to access- along with the pesonal awarness, growth, and healing that it can catalyze- they tend to regard things like selling dmt on the street corner in exchange for crack, or smoking it all day while binge drinking and watching alladin to be disrespectful when considering the neurotransmitter opens you up to. No offence, but i think the thread title and conclusions your coming to in general about dmt are odd considering you havn't experienced it yet.

 

[jbark]

I did not post this thread to discuss Philosophy vs Science.
My arguments are there in my first post and everyone can comment about it, I already replied to that.

My main point is that I don't think drugs or chemical compounds are sacred.
I think that if something is sacred at all... it's the human brain. Not an unconscious pile of DMT or MDMA or Psilocyibin.

good point clouds. Back on track .

I don't revere the object, i revere the subject. Sometimes that means my neural pathways and the thought processes that endeavour to understand the experience (i.e my brain, or mind), but most often i mean the experience itself. So i agree with your initial point, despite my eager sidebar!

JBArk

 

[universecannon]

I did not post this thread to discuss Philosophy vs Science.
My arguments are there in my first post and everyone can comment about it, I already replied to that.

My main point is that I don't think drugs or chemical compounds are sacred.
I think that if something is sacred at all... it's the human brain. Not an unconscious pile of DMT or MDMA or Psilocyibin.

Well dmt is in the brain soooooo
it must be sacred then according to your definition atleast :lol:

But seriously, just because someone called it "the spirit molecule" doesn't imply that you have to treat it like a deity now. It manifests aspects of the psyche and much more, so that definition works for me and my view of it all. To each their own. The debate of its sacredness is useless, its all personal opinion.

 

[jamie]

This post would also not make it too far in an anthropology/social sciences classroom..who are you to think you can tell other people what is or what isnt "sacred" to them? You are not them..so how the hell can you know what is sacred to them? Sacred is a highly individualistic and subjective category to place something in..Your post just sounds highly egotistical and anthropocentric.

Things are sacred to people subjectivly becasue of the way they calculate into their personal worldviews..thats what I dont think you understand here. You seem to think that every single person is just like you..or sees things exactly the way you do..well im sorry to tell you that the world just doesnt work that way. There are all kinds of people who believe all kinds of things. Money is sacred to some people becasue of the way it fits into their view of the world..doesnt mean its sacred to me though..but just because it's not sacred to me doesnt mean that my world view somehow applies to them.