Why Am I Not Surprised?

"High" on Mount Sinai, Moses was on psychedelic drugs when he heard God deliver the Ten Commandments, an Israeli researcher claimed in a study published this week.

Such mind-altering substances formed an integral part of the religious rites of Israelites in biblical times, Benny Shanon, a professor of cognitive psychology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem wrote in the Time and Mind journal of philosophy.

"As far Moses on Mount Sinai is concerned, it was either a supernatural cosmic event, which I don't believe, or a legend, which I don't believe either, or finally, and this is very probable, an event that joined Moses and the people of Israel under the effect of narcotics," Shanon told Israeli public radio on Tuesday.

Moses was probably also on drugs when he saw the "burning bush," suggested Shanon, who said he himself has dabbled with such substances.

"The Bible says people see sounds, and that is a classic phenomenon," he said citing the example of religious ceremonies in the Amazon in which drugs are used that induce people to "see music."

He mentioned his own experience when he used ayahuasca, a powerful psychotropic plant, during a religious ceremony in Brazil's Amazon forest in 1991. "I experienced visions that had spiritual-religious connotations," Shanon said.

He said the psychedelic effects of ayahuasca were comparable to those produced by concoctions based on bark of the acacia tree, that is frequently mentioned in the Bible.

****** whoops. I posted this because I find things like this funny. But Dr. Datanah took the opportunity to make some interesting counter-points so I'm adding them here:

I read your latest post on biblical drug shenanigans, and I want to comment on the many and varied types of mystical experiences. (see below a brief look at some of them)

At the outset I want to take task with the inherent criticism of the Israeli cognitive psychologist who, coming from his empiricist position, turns out to be an intellectual reductionist who dismisses the power and consciousness-expanding properties of the true mystical experience.

I concede that the problem with many drug induced experiences is that they are transitory and do not promote genuine shifts in consciousness, but that is often the problem with the intention and consciousness of the people going into the experience, and not with the mystical experiences themselves. And in defense of the indigenous traditions that use and honor ayahuasca and other plant "teachers" in controlled sacred ceremony, mystical experiences induced this way can, and have through the centuries, had profound wonderful lasting effects on the consciousness of the people involved. Please note too that the "religious" interpretation of Judaism is worlds away from the deeply spiritual experiences of the Jewish mystics ....and that is true of all traditions.

As for the drug criticism, we have to question whether it really matters whether an experience is mediated or not (e.g. drug or trance induced.) Surely it is the wonder of the experience itself, and the beauty of the connections and interrelationships and understanding that come as a result of the experience that are important?

I am convinced that as we come to know the richness of life through our understanding and acceptance of the gift of the experiences and perspectives of others, we shall come to an honoring place. We are all, in all our varied and complex experiences of the world, intimate and ongoing participants in the creation of the universe. When we remember who we are, however we get there, we will meet each other from the beauty of the wider place, and create a greater society.

“In this is the lovingness of the spiritual family.” (Ibn Arabi)

Mystical experiences Explored

Many mystics, when they relate their experience, talk in terms of having a direct experience of Ultimate reality.

Its important to note that many traditions acknowledge an ontological creation in the spontaneity of diversity. This ontological slant has shaped large portions of the world’s mystical literature. In the Judeo Christian religions, God is seen as the Ultimate Reality, the uncaused creator, ground of all existence, excellence and goodness. God is experienced as a personal force in the world and in human life, but is also felt to be ultimately beyond human comprehension.

Many mystics describe their experience of Oneness in terms of a perennial philosophy which is a term coined after a book by Aldous Huxley, and is used to define the One Essential Unity behind the diversity of life.

When mystics subscribe to the idea of a perennial philosophy, they experience their union with the same Absolute, whatever their religion. For example, Pir Vilayat Inayat Khan, Head of the Sufi Order of the West Sufi, is talking about the One Absolute God when he speaks of “That which transpires behind That which appears." In the Sufi experience of “fana al fana” all contradictions disappear.

For Advaita Vedantans, God, Ishvara, Brahman is also non-dual unity. It is the substratum of all phenomena, the Self, or Atman that is Brahman. It is not to be mistaken for that which changes in this time/space dimension, and neither is it separate from it, much as the wave is not separate from the ocean. The reality of Self is the reality of all Being-ness. It is the substratum of existence that gives the ever-changing world its reality. It is experienced as solid, calm, loving, expansive, balanced, benign, ultimate and intimately familiar.

There have been Christian mystics who know Christ as themselves. The Christian mystic Meister Eckhart experienced himself in a state of pure consciousness or transparency as the transcendent. Eckhart returned from a state of pure consciousness or transparency-as-the-Transcendent, “as a translucent medium of expression for that Transcendent.” It was from this place that he could express his life in terms of the creativity, compassion and justice that is the very nature of the Ultimate Transcendent.

Buber spoke of the community in-between as being the true place of spiritual realization. Some scholars state that the type of mysticism that a mystic experiences is dependant on the religious or cultural context of the mystic. They feel that religious communities exert a powerful influence on the kind of mystical experience that a mystic has, as well as a way in which the mystic responds to that experience. They insist that it is a mistake to see the mystic’s experience as disconnected from his particular culture and history, but rather suggests that the type of experience will be contingent on it.

Others suggest however, that the mystical drive to live in the presence of God is in fact to be found at the core of all religions. They note doctrinal differences as well as differences in symbolism in the experience of mystics of the differing religions, but, nevertheless suggest that there is an identifying moment in which all differences converge. They suggest that to the extent that mystical states are all described as ecstatic, and transitory, they are all identical, but that they differ only in the interpretation of the experience.

And what of those mystical traditions that do not find an essence that exists independently of this immanent world? Madyamaka Buddhism, for example, promotes the knowing of no-self. Reality is seen to be ultimately processive, non-static, non-stable, non-substantiative, and not fixed. Nothing can be found that is ultimate in the flux of things. What is important in Buddhism, and in the training of the Buddhist mystic is not the search for the ultimate reality but for the relief of suffering. Both Madhyamaka and Yogacara Buddhism state that there is nothing that is not empty and therefore there cannot be any underlying reality that is fixed. Yogacarans do acknowledge the quasi-substantial reality that is seen by the ignorant self, and the Madhyamaka insists that one should abandon the quest for ultimately reality including the idea of Dharma and enlightenment. And then what you are left with is the changing nature of things, and the pragmatism and compassion with which one engages a life well lived.

Ken Wilber in his Spectrum of Consciousness creates a hierarchical map of mystical experience. According to him there are different levels of psychological and spiritual development. He calls the different levels holons, which are levels that are both whole entities unto themselves and that also incorporate lower levels, much as nested boxes include smaller boxes. He sees the ultimate stage of mystical realization as non-dual mysticism that includes all other stages. For Wilber mysticism therefore is an evolutionary process. He notes at least four different stages of transpersonal evolution. These he calls the psychic, the subtle, causal and no-dual stages. Each stage, or fulcrum as he calls them, has a corresponding form of mysticism – nature mysticism, deity mysticism, formless mysticism and non-dual mysticism. An important part of his theory is that each fulcrum has different cognitions that support different moral stances and different senses of the self. Wilber sees the great wisdom traditions of the world as providing a map for the different stages of growth.

• In the psychic stage there may be an increase in paranormal experiences, such as transcendental phenomena including shamanic visions and voyages, the disclosure of subtle energies in the body, and spontaneous spiritual awakenings, but the defining characteristic of this stage is awareness beyond that of the individual ego. There may be identification with the natural world, where there is a profound experience of a union with nature that Wilber calls the eco-noetic self. According to Wilber at this stage, one does not identify oneself as a strand in the web of life, but one experiences oneself as the entire web.
  
• In the subtle stage, mystical perceptions may include interior luminosities and sounds, the experience of archetypal seed forms, subtle bliss currents, and expansive affective states of love and compassion. It is here that Wilber finds that individuals experience archetypal forms that correspond with their culture for example a Christian might experience an encounter with Christ, and a Buddhist with the bliss body of the Buddha. Wilber sees these archetypal figures as the first forms to emerge out of emptiness.
• In the Causal stage as the Witness touches the very source of being, no objects arise in consciousness at all. This, Wilber says, is not a state of mere blank, but a fullness of Being that is both empty and full. In this state the mystic experiences freedom from identification with time and space. There is no separation at all between the Witness and that which is witnessed. The seer can’t see the seen. It is in this state that Wilber suggests there is total union with the ground or essence of Being.
• The final non-dual stage is not technically a separate stage, but rather the reality of all states. It includes and transcends all states of being. Here consciousness and its display are one.

It is important to note that experiences of so called lower levels after a person has experienced higher levels are not only common occurrences, but in fact are important for spiritual transformation. The spiraling path leads the ego to meet and integrate lower repressed material in the psyche that is important for spiritual growth.

Mysticism can be said to consist of two domains. One domain of phenomena that can be caused by human effort, such as drug inducement or trance dancing, and one that cannot be caused by human effort.

Whatever the circumstances that engender the mystical experience, one should note that mystical experience is at heart one of pure receptivity and the perfect correspondence with the essence of things.

Interesting points, no? Does it matter that drugs can induce what people interpret as religious experiences? For that matter, does it matter that scientists can now stimulate certain areas of the brain and trigger a religious experience? They are still our experiences. Subjective, yes, but what else are we to go on? And is it all part of a beautiful and complex creation? Does the fact that there may be biological reasons for a transcendent experience make them any less valid or beautiful? Does knowing that it is a bio-chemical reaction in your body make you love your partner any less? Should it?

I think at this point, for me, it is like watching a beautiful sunset. Because I know the tricks of refraction and diffusion of light in the atmosphere, do I enjoy it any more than someone that just 'thinks it is pretty?' If not, then who cares? At some point, you've just got to enjoy the beauty.