https://www.thedivineassembly.org

https://www.rollingstone...divine-assembly-1375027/

The website and an article about a new "magic mushroom church" founded recently in the United States.

It is largely linked to a very expensive psychedelic retreat/vacation company and does not actually have any religious teachings, precepts or practices other than to claim magic mushrooms as sacrament, which are largely used via Lemon Tek.

It seems strongly motivated by capitalism and that the church itself isn't actually a real church but a way to declaring religious intent in relation to mushrooms as a legal disclaimer.

It is largely just people gathering and getting high together and calling it spiritual and perhaps it is, but it doesn't seem to have anything in common with religious and spiritual psychedelic traditions with practices. Rather it seems built around recreational use.


The Church (literally) seems to be built around the recreational use of mushrooms by wealthy white people (in Utah) and those promoting it offer no actual system of belief.

They let anyone join, just send them a name and an email.

Their major event is not even listed on it's own website as affiliated with the Church, and is it a 3 day festival that people buy tickets for. This is the closest thing they have to an actual standardized meeting.

The last two links are the major commercial operations linked to the Church.

https://www.wildwellnessretreats.com
https://www.wellnessalignment.com


Like a televangelist but for new age religion and psychedelic capitalism.

Well, those are my thoughts and opinions regarding this matter.
What are yours?

I didn't know about this one in particular, but I agree with you. I find it disrespectful for the people who use these plants and fungi as part of their culture and spirituality.

On another thread I talked about a large organization that sells ayahuasca retreats here in Europe. They have websites and social network profiles where they do plain advertising, presenting ayahuasca as a miracle cure for everyone who is unsatisfied with their life, and try to bring people to their retreats where they have to pay a lot of money to take ayahuasca. Their founder even falsely claims to have been trained by a native South American people.

I am open to people using psychedelics both recreationally and in a religious context that they determine for themselves.

I suppose I am even open to the idea that psychedelics can be valuated and commodified to some degree without compromising their virtues and benefits, though I may not be particularly easy to convince that price tag spirituality is equivalent to devotional spirituality which refuses to be for sale.

I also appreciate the legal aspects of the Church of the Divine Assembly as a way to attempt to legitimize the safe recreational use of psychedelics in a group setting. It also has some concepts of how to avoid issues with individuals with messiah complexes and or narcissistic personality disorder, which are not uncommon in the psychedelic community. Just the fact that the group knows this is a problem and has ways of dealing with it is impressive.

I know what I believe but cannot say what others do or should believe.
I am not opposed to the Church of The Divine Assembly, but I oppose the commodification and valuation of religion, for me selling the gospel/Veda is a sin and in truth there are very few things I view as sins.

Putting a price on a spiritual teaching is evil to me.
Though I condone eleemosynary lifestyles for the devoted, such a life is not a business or meant to obtain profit or produce money. It is merely a means to subsist.

I haven't looked into all of the sources you've shared, but when I come across things others are doing that I don't agree with, I try to understand what brought them to the point of assessment and in terms of what's in question.

I'm not sure a lot of people possess the depth to take into consideration things that you've mentioned, such as the use of the term religion to further their own ends, neglecting the "legitimate religious use" and how their use can lead to a social consensus that creates a less respectful atmosphere for already established traditions.

Now, that's not to say that I think for them to establish a religious/spiritual community that is able to have all the rights that come with that for such a group is wrong. I don't think that anyone has to follow an established tradition. The substances we love so much occur with or without or use/knowledge of them, so there's some arbitrariness in our approach aside from being mindful, goal oriented, and consistent. It's why so many "established" traditions tend to be so dogmatic. But having certain traits for a practice are what make it a practice, so I do fundamentally disagree with the meeting-at-this-time-at-this-place-and-let's-just-trip-but-call-it-ceremony mentality.

I think many people act also out of influence of their culture. Many cultures tend to put people on pedestals for the things that they do that in some way invigorate the culture/s they occur in. Most people want to do "big things," "leave their marks," "make an impact," etc. I feel the question comes down to is this fueled by a true altruistically leaning desire, or out of a need of recognition and admiration by others?

And some people just have nefarious motivations.

One love

Excellent points VoidMatrix.

I think especially about seeking personal significance insofar as the whole Leaving a Mark observation you make.

I worry that I am overly dismissive of earnest and or sincere efforts in terms of spirituality and religious practice, regardless of if psychedelic plants are involved.

My anti-organized-religion Bias doesn't always work in my favor... sadly.

I think your self-awareness of this indicates you may curtail it better than you think and are probably opening yourself more than you think as well.

The bias is understandable all the same. I try to mitigate this within myself by remembering that nothing is all good and nothing is all bad (though any given thing may have more of one than another, perspective(s) pending).

And unfortunately, it seems we can never be completely free of bias, as it is a natural hueristic process that can be observed by our brains. It's best to just be as aware of them as we can be and mitigate them based on that awareness. And in a certain sense, our biases (especially cognitive biases) aren't good or bad either, as they are often right and their role in heuristics is to allow us to need less time to process lots of input information of various kinds.



One idea that is a bit inescapable for me is in considering the grand cosmic scheme of existence, how significant can personal significance really be? Subjectively huge, yet cosmically minute.

One love

i hate the idea of capitalizing on this, but there is one thing i hate more than that, that is the fact that we have to invent religions so we can practice our own ceremonies and be free to explore our own spiritual worlds.
the religion might be a farce, but the people taking part are all just people looking to explore their own soul and its spiritual connections. i would argue we are all following our own unique religion.
it is a weird concept to me that if our religion is not the copy and paste of a bunch of other people then we are not free to practice it. it feels like we have to select a spiritual belief from a set of pre-approved systems. sounds suspicious to me. since when did man know whats best in this department? in my experience when society presents me with options the correct decision is usually not one of those options.
loophole or not, the problem is not with this religion but with the system demanding its existence.

I'm very much in agreement with you and this is largely what I was alluding to in my initial response.

If we observe the behavior of people, we csn notice a strong drive to "know" and to be right while at the same time needing to be told what we should know and be right about without any analysis, assessment, or exploration of the ideals in question. Religion can help many find direction, peace of mind, inner security, etc. But any proponent of any religion that approaches their practice in an absolutist manner (which is a great many) seem be drastically "missing the mark."

This makes me think about the incessant and adamant need for people to go to South America to do Aya, stating they want an authentic experience, as if the way it's done in South America is the only right way. There can be more than one right way, evidenced by different Ayahuasceros having different approaches to their practices. So why is the experience I have secluded in my room any less "authentic?" Again, these entheogens exist outside our paradigms of their usage.

And I'm not admonishing those that have gone to South America to have these experiences. What I've mentioned may not have occured to them, considering the copious input data we receive in this existence. Many may have just felt more comfortable with some direction.

These things are reasons why in my guidework practice I try to teach my clients autonomy in these experiences.

One love

I was praying to the earth and eating mushrooms as a sacrament to affirm and strengthen my connection to nature in both a somatic and "spiritual" sense, on my own, alone before I turned 18.

It was certainly not legal, but I did not let that prevent me from exercising my religion and indeed I have my own (private) religious practices. (I practice religion but am not spiritual, which is a New Age thing, I don't concern myself with spirits or even believe in them per say, but I care about nature and my connection to it as a part of it and "binding myself to it" ergo my practice is religion but not spirituality, but in this sense Organized Religions are not true religions, but I don't argue this with their members)

Legality is not morality.

I have always felt free to practice religion on my own but if I hadn't perhaps I would feel differently about this?
I can't really know but it is interesting to think about.

Im wondering if a bias against NewAge approaches impacts your stating you're not spiritual, given that it appears that religion is an extension of spirituality, with spirituality being the attunement of and with oneself and existence. It appears the connotations you've developed around spirituality may be leading to some confusion.

This in no way challenges your practice, it just seems it may be appropriate to switch your use of terms "religion" and "spirituality." Really looking at semantics for understanding here.

And not all practices of spirituality involve spirits, though I understand why one may think that.

And i agree that legality and morality are not isomorphic nor equal,though they are certainly connected; it's amoral to kill, rob, rape, etc, and there's laws that reflect that.

One love

Interesting perspective.

The latin word religō means "I bind again" re-ligo (similar to ligature-again)

the Re part of Religion means to perform again and the Ligo part means to bind and the Ion part means "Pertaining to"

Re-Lig-Ion.

The word Yoga also means Yoke, which is a binding or joining.

Religion is a practice which binds the self to the divine or sacred in the most literal sense of the word.

I am religious but not spiritual.

Spiritual pertains to spirits, to the supernatural.
I have no belief in the supernatural nor am I supernatural nor do I practice supernatural things or have super-natural powers.

I connect to the Sacred Divine in Nature, hence I practice religion but am not in any way shape or form "spiritual" and more to the point most of those who believe they practice religion are not religious, they are spiritual and believe in supernatural things as separate from themselves. In fact many so called religions make claims that the divine is separate from nature, ergo supernatural, and this makes them spiritual and undermines them as religions.

Religion in the truest sense, in the literal sense of the word, is not something that exists, rather it is something that a person does, as an individual, there is no valid group one size fits all method to re-connect to the divine so far as I know.

I am not unfamiliar with the widespread and slang like connotations applied to words like Religion and Spiritual as they tend to be used today, but I am also aware of the history and meanings of the words in their original sense and I choose to use the actual definitions of words instead of relying upon the modern colloquial uses of them. The primary reason for this is that the literal meanings are timeless and the modern uses are era-specific and will be obscured by time.

It make make it difficult for some people to grok my words, but at the same time for those who know the words and the history and their meanings, my words have a precision that they could not have if I used the words in any other way. It is true this is lost on the vast majority of people, but that's okay. I'm not selling anything nor trying to convert people to my opinion, rather I am just sharing my own perspective and the reasoning behind it.

I am religious, but not spiritual.

I respect and understand your attraction to the etymology of the words in question, however, language and linguistics isn't that black and white nor cut and dry. Words evolve over time as people do and it seems you may be missing certain elements of other definitons and colloquial uses of these words. The root of a word does not relagate the word to such usage. It's how we grow to communicate better better over time. We gain new words as the species ages, as do some words gain more definitions.

And claiming something as the "truest sense" sounds like the top of the slippery slope of dogma.

And again, meanings of words evolve over time, so while i appreciate your approach, it may not be as strong as you think.

I am very very grateful regardless of the above because i feel i more fully understand and grasp your perspective on your specific "religion."

This is a great way to see how words always leave something to be desired from that which they are applied to.

One love

Edit: and apologies if my responses sound curt at all. I have a habit of responding while at work which can limit how I say things.

Edit: I'd also like apologize if I've offended you at all, as that is in no way my goal or intent.

Oh, not at all.

We just disagree about a lot of things, but we actually agree about many as well.

I do not use words the way you do, evidently, nor do you use them the way I do and I don't think that is offensive in any way.

It is why I asked if you had read Of Grammatology.

While there's some intersubjective reliance, there are certain arbitrary and ambiguous aspects to language and linguistics in general. Glad we have a sort of understanding.

And I'm familiar with it, though haven't read the whole things. Only excerpts.

One love

I read a lot of ancient literature and cannot use modern colloquial word meanings and connotations to do that. I need to use the language with a mathematical precision that considers the entire evolution of the meaning of the words involved. I would be unable to study the material the way I need to if I used words in any other way.

This will surely come up repeatedly and I am aware now that you may not be comfortable with me using words like math.

Maybe one day the connotative definition of 6 will be 7?

so 6+6 will equal 14?
But if and when that happens when people read math from back when the value of 6 was actually 6, they will not understand it. The situation with a tremendous amount of ancient literature is nearly identical.

Do you feel that such an approach has a large limiting factor?

One love

No more than mathematical precision prevents mathematical accuracy.

I think there may be some delusion here in that linguistics in a way transcends and has never had this precision you speak of...

One love

Saying that you think I might be delusional and then making a claim as a fact which is clearly just an opinion made me lose a tremendous amount of respect for you just now.

I won't even bother with you anymore.
You ventured into a passive aggressive insult because I had a different opinion than you.

And you are admin or a mod here?

I am disappointed.

I am also done here.
I won't be a part of a group where moderators insult members, even if it is in a passive aggressive and indirect manner.

Hm? Wasn't expecting this...

Given that no one knows everything, and no one is right all the time, then everyone has some beliefs that are false, unbeknownst to them. Such beliefs lead to delusion. Unmasking potential delusion is how one grows and removes said delusion... so was what I said really as much of an insult as you're taking it to be?

There's also a difference between talking about a specific instance of delusion and saying someone is delusional. I never said the latter...

I've watched you misinterpret people on this forum multiple times in the short time you've been here... slow yourself down. No one is trying to hurt your feelings.

And yes, I'm a moderator. You're free to do and think as you please and you are welcome here.

Do your thing around the forum, get to know other members, and I'll stay away.

Bear in mind, when you share something you open that thing up to responses from others. So if in some instance you didn't like a response, consider what you shared.

One love