All DMT experiences are spiritual. You are literally entering another dimension. If you don't breakthrough from my experiences is other beings are entering yours. You might have different experiences but that is always mine. You don't have to even see the spirituality, but it's always there. (Because it's everything)

What am I?
as in when you say "you are literally entering another dimension"
My body does not go anywhere, so it can't be the dimension in terms of physics.
But you also imply I am not my body, so what is it that "enters" another dimension?

Why use the word "entering"?
Can one go to this dimension and live there forever and never return?

Why is it that some people insist on telling others what they experience, and deny the experiences of others based upon their own experiences? Why is it that the people who do this do not see the hypocrisy it involves? It is another form of fanaticism, those who have different experiences and or conclusions are singled out as being unable to see the emperors clothes.
I don't tell other what they experience, rather I share my own experiences, and yet others insist upon telling me what I experienced. Why are the minds of so called believers so closed?

You never know what people don't say or share

Korey, your post is brilliant and forthright. Thank you.

You are an extension of your higher consciousness, which is an extension of the source, which is everything, past and future, other dimensions, everything.
You have different bodies, astral, energetic, physical, and more. You use them in different ways, there is another thread about astral projection for instance. That's one case of using your astral body to exit your body and travel. This is all out of body experiences.

With DMT, it seems to me, that you are basically getting a concentrated dose of a natural chemical you already have. This chemical can be controlled with practice, whereas things like DMT become unnecessary, for entering this dimension, but probably would help you to do more things than you can at first. That's uncertain. I consider it spiritual because it involves something outside of the physical. For me that instantly makes it spiritual for many reasons that I can go into if you want.

This is something I know to be true so I say it like it's true. I know it based on the countless experiences of myself and the many people I've spoken to about it, and all of the things I've seen or read. This is just what I gathered from everything and put together that made perfect sense that also ends up in the best results I've heard or imagined. I'm sure I don't know everything about it, but I do know what I know and that is one thing that I know. The more I know the more I don't realize I know very much at all.

I apologize if I offended you in any way. I said in my post that it was based off my experiences. I also never denied anyone's personal experiences, nor did I single anyone out. You asked a question, I answered it the best way I could. My use of 'you' in my original post was used for everyone since it's what I consider a spiritual experience (refer to above definition) and since you were not asking about yourself.

Please forgive me, I forgive you and myself
Love and light

No worries.

I can make drinking a glass of water a spiritual experience via my intention, but that does not mean that for me drinking water is spiritual. In my experience DMT is the exact same.

However I believe that the effects DMT has are easily explained in terms of biochemistry and physiology. If it was a spiritual substance, why must it interact with specific receptors? Why does changing it a little bit change the effects? Work with RCs shows us a great deal about the nature of structure and activity of psychedelics. It is a physical/electo/chemical interaction that results in the effects of DMT and related compounds. I'd expect that a spiritual substance would be made of spirit and not physical matter. When the body clears the substance the effects go away... this to me says that there is no other dimension involved. Hyperspace should be a place, not a short lived effect. An effect wears off, a location does not.

Also having had out of body experiences I cannot say that DMT is anything like those in my experience.

You have not offended me. I like what you have shared.

Well, not necessarily. Tuning into Hyperspace could be like tuning a radio to a station. The station is already there broadcasting constantly, and only when the instrument is tuned to the correct frequency can it be perceived.

What you describe as a physical/electro/chemical interaction may only be tuning the old grey matter to a specific frequency. Who is to say that there is not more going on?

It is a bit of a leap to claim that all of this is well explained by neuro-receptor activity and whatnot. I saw a documentary a while back about a man who had a rare kind of encephalitis that ate his brain down to the size of a walnut... and yet, not only was he not cognitively impaired, but he was still having an IQ over 140. There are a number of cases in the records of people with almost no brain to speak of still having consciousness and being functional.

What I am saying is that just because neuro receptors affect consciousness doesn't mean that they cause it. There are a ton of other possible explanations.

Furthermore, just because something is material, does not preclude it from being spiritual in substance. For all we know, material things could be just a low vibration of spiritual energy. We know that matter is just energy now. And we know that it is shockingly empty with only little blips of probability at its core. Who is to say that it isn't all just mindstuff or spirit stuff.

It is rather easy to cling to a purely material view and believe that our current science has it all figured out. This simply isn't the case, though... as any competent scientist will tell you.

Anyway, all the best Al.
HF

I totally agree.
There is far more that is not known, than there is that is known.

Still designer drugs and the structure/function relationship should not be ignored and it provides a lot of information.

Does each designer drug have it's own hyperspace? Consider the 2C series. You change one little thing and the effects vary, so does each little molecular modification access a different place?

Is there a 2CB hyperspace, a 2CI hyperspace, a 2CT-7 hyperspace etc?

It can be all to easy to invoke religious concepts to explain things we don't fully understand, a witch caused our crops to fail, an evil shaman made our boy sick, DMT takes you to another dimension etc.

Some will always default unknown concepts with a spiritual explanation, often this leads to them ceasing to investigate, because they have an explanation they are happy with. If you think a witch killed your crops, you are not going to look and see if there was another cause like a disease of the plants. This same issue takes place with psychedelics, often those who settle on a metaphysical or supernatural answer cease to consider evidence altogether and assert that they know the truth. We found the witch and burned her and the next year our crops did not fail, so we know it was her...

The 2c family has never taken me to hyperspace. They can be fun, for sure... very useful substances, even if none of them make my top 10.

It certainly may be possible for there to be an infinite number of frequencies to tune into, though... if that is indeed how it works. Given the kind of vast realms of possibility being talked about with M-Theory and whatnot, it seems that if the dimensions being talked about are, in fact, real... then it is not a matter of if, but rather a certainty that a myriad of hyperspatial realms must exist.

Remember, when we talk about things like all possible timelines of all possible universes, anything you can imagine must actually exist somewhere.

I agree. Which is why I left it open. We really can't say what is going on here exactly.

I don't believe in time-lines or even in linear time.

I don't agree that anything I can imagine must exist somewhere. That strikes me as egocentric, though that is my impression and it may not be that way for others. I don't like how arrogant our species is, we think we are the center of the universe and existence! So many of us espouse a concept of a final cause or purpose, which inevitably centers upon human existence and some concept of becoming, attaining or improving. We have psychological reasons for thinking this way, but I think we are an incredibly ignorant and naive species that is looking to justify our existence by saying that there is an ultimate reason or purpose for it. However there are a lot of problems with this. It is like we see a shape in a cloud and insist that the cloud is that shape on purpose. Then if someone else sees a different shape than we did, we tell them they are wrong...

I don't even believe in hyperspace as a dimension, for me it is a dose dependent effect, not a location. I've seen a great many people use DMT and breakthrough but still be there, often speaking or mumbling incoherently, it is clear that their consciousness has not separated from their body. Though perhaps they are tuning into something, though I do not believe this is the case, I think it is more akin to a signal flange or phase shift than anything else.

I don't believe in or disbelieve any of those things, as there is no way to prove them.

To disbelieve something without evidences is no more critical than to believe without evidence. Which is why I am always shocked at how sure atheists are that there is no G*d. They don't seem to realize that they are engaging in a faith based belief system no less than the theists. Agnosticism is generally much more honest of a stance.

As for the arrogance of our species, you'll get no argument from me. And, I'm certainly not saying that any interpretation or belief is wrong. Just that there is no way to know.

My experiences lead me to doubt the whole "signal flange or phase shift" explanation. While this kind of rationale might explain the effects of the 2-c's or even LSD in lower doses... it doesn't explain, even remotely, the experiences I and others get from entheogens. I seriously doubt that signal flange could create the impression of hyper-intelligent beings who know things that one has never learned previously.

Anyway, you are entitled to your beliefs. Just recognize that they are just that... beliefs. The fact that you seem to want to convince others to accept your beliefs is akin to your shape in the cloud metaphor, only you are the one telling others that they are wrong.

Maybe not the best place to put this, but I was thinking about this the last time I tripped (last Sunday).

The first time I had the experience of hyperspace, there was no doubt in my mind how real it was. It was realer then the reality of me sitting here typing this message. I was so excited about this, I ran off at the mouth to everyone I knew and told them how, in some way, DMT and psychedelics are the keys to unlocking the part of us that is connected with source (or god whichever you prefer). I was met with many a strange glance from those closest to me, so I sort of decided not to share anymore with people who hadn't had the experience. Once I found the Nexus I just knew I was home, so many people were reporting the same things that I experienced it MUST be a sign of something larger at work.

But now having been here for awhile, I can't seem to get over just HOW MANY people have this experience and STILL try to explain it using the existing paradigm. The experience, at least to me, is paradigm SHATTERING, there is no way to incorporate the entirety of what's going on with what little we know of conciousness and neurology.

I've been skipping a lot more threads around here lately just because it seems to me that looking at this experience from a strictly rationalist viewpoint is about as complete a worldview as creationism. Both are so locked in their way of looking at the world, that even when presented with new evidence (and if a level 5 reality shattering DMT experience isn't at least personal evidence, then I don't know what else is) the common recourse is to revert to a defense of the existing mental framework.

Not getting down on you OP, I really appreciate everyone who brings their ideas to the table as there are no wrong ideas, this has just been on my mind awhile and I just thought this was a decent place to share my feelings on the subject lately.

I don't believe any experiences are inherently spiritual any more than I believe any experiences are inherently emotional, or intellectual. For some, losing a loved one is a wrenching emotional ordeal, for another a fact of life and for yet another an opportunity to cash in on the will; the reading of an elegant mathematical formula may be an intellectual exercise for some, tedious and obvious for those well versed in mathematics - and nevertheless utterly incomprehensible, and thus unintellectual, to many others. We bring to bear our own interests and passions and beliefs (not to mention limitations) to all our experiences, and even in the span of a lifetime, or a week or an hour, an experience may change from the spiritually ecstatic to the mundane.

Neither DMT, Church, whirling (dervish style), prayer, self-flagellation nor starving oneself in a desert before a bush are activities with any innate spiritual, emotional or intellectual content. All may be imbued with any or all, in varying degrees, and are arguably more prone to eliciting a spiritual reaction than other experiences, but none are "spiritual" in and of themselves ( IMHO, of course ).

JBArk

"I don't agree that anything I can imagine must exist somewhere. That strikes me as egocentric"

I dont find it any more egocentric than the statement you just made. I think that is more based on how you are viewing the situation than anything else. For one thing everything and anything you can imagine already exists somewhere..inside of your head..and you are a part of the universe so anything you imagine, that exists in your own psyche DOES exist in the universe. You can counteract this though by saying that you imagine a world where pink elephants fly existing OUTSIDE of your own psyche..but even then there are some problems with such a statement..

If the universe is infinite(you can argue it is finite but then you need to explain how that is ever possible) than there is an infinite ammount of possabilities. If there is an infinite ammount of possabilities than anything you can think of must be possible. However, how can a set of infinite possabilities ever be realized(even within infinity) since the set is infinite and therefore by definition, never ending?

You see how something like infintiy makes very littel rational sense..in the same way that the idea of finity makes just about the same ammount of sense. Neither of them make sense rationally, and both of them basically require one to exist on some level to validate the other one..how can you talk about infinity if there is no concept for finity? You cant.

You can replace the word finity with limited and infinity with unlimited..and basically say that one who assumes everything is not possibel somewhere takes a "limited" stance..and those who assume anything is possible take an "unlimited" stance..but it is the same discussion that comes down to an endless game that is limited to the rules of a dicotemy.

See this is something that the rational mind just cannot grasp becasue there is NOTHING at all rational about the idea of a finite system or an infinite system. Nothing about any of it makes any sense and talking about it is like a descent into wonderland. To say that you dont think anything is possible is equally as egocentric as saying everything is possible..becasue basically it is the exact same dicotemy with different words and nothing else.

You have no more evidence to suggest that anything is not possible somwhere than other people do who suggest anything is possible somwhere..to really say one paradigm is more egocentric than the other makes little sense.

Only the ego would side either way..as there is not enough data to even come to any sort of rational conclusion.

Sorry if that got sort of off topic from the OP.

I am merely sharing my opinion, as are you, who have I told that they were wrong?

You have your beliefs and I have mine, it doesn't mean we are or are not right.

The idea of hyperintelligent beings that know things that one has not learned previously is interesting. I've used entheogens for more than 15 years and have never had that happen. Do you have any evidence of it? Like an example of what was learned? I do know people who have had entity experiences who actually introduced me to the flange shift idea, which I find tenable.

You are right that the signal flange does not explain those types of experience, but they sound a lot like dreams going through a flange shift. Not everybody has entity meeting experiences on DMT.

Jbark, I agree with your observations.

Tek, it is a great place to share that.
Have you ever had a dream you were so sure was real?
A dream where you did not know you were dreaming?
I have, including daydream like events while tripping.


I agree that psychedelics are able to help us reconnect with that sense of source and oneness, but I have had that sensation and euphoria from it far more without psychedelics than with. Meditation and spiritual practices do that for me, and I can do them while tripping, but it isn't automatic.

I believe in out-of body experiences and have had them. I believe in spiritual experiences as well. I believe in a form of God. I've taken psychedelics hundreds of times over more than a decade, and yet I do not believe in hyperspace, I have no reason to.

Can someone propose why not everyone has the same experiences?
Many famous ethnobotanists like Schultes never had any spiritual experiences involving psychedelics.

Someone I am very close to has had entity experiences involving mushrooms, and yet having taken mushrooms many times I never have. Likewise that person does not consistently have such entity type experiences, it has happened twice to them if I recall correctly. She reported that it felt real, but she is willing to say that the sensation of something like that being real does not mean it was. Still it has deep personal meaning for her.

I am not a rationalist by any means, nor an atheist. I believe in many things that science does not affirm. However people have varied experiences and it strikes me as unwise for anyone to take their own experience and propose that it allows them to understand what it is like for others.

Since a lot of people who take DMT repeatedly never have a spiritual experience or meet entities, and some consistently do, and other only occasionally do, is it wise to dismiss any view? Especially those you do not share? I don't think so.

It is finite in terms of energy cannot be created or destroyed.
There is no net gain or loss.
As for infinite possibilities, I do not find that to be tenable. I believe that nature is the way, not in the possibility for example that it is not the way.

There doesn't seem to be any real evidence that the universe is infinite in an absolute sense where everything imaginable will be.
Can you explain how infinite possibilities are possible?


I don't see.

I find some concepts of infinity to be incredibly rational, the same with finity, they are to me two sides of the same phenomena and mutually entail one another.

But I don't believe in linear time, so infinity for me is a constant, an instant and a singularity, that is that it has finite and infinite properties that beget each other.

Consider the 2D shape of a ring, it is finite and infinite, but it is not "unlimited" and I do not view infinity as unlimited. Consider the value Pi, it is infinite and yet a single finite value, it goes on forever but is not unlimited. For me unending does not mean limitless.


To me it makes a lot of sense. To say the universe will contain anything we imagine places us at the center of existence. It makes sense that one can imagine infinite things that can never be, and infinite things that can be, but not that all that one imagines will or will not be.


It is a welcome deviation.

I do think that there is enough data to come to rational conclusions about many things, including infinite and finite values and their relationship to one another.

I find any belief that supposes that we determine the nature of the universe to be egotistical. We certainly influence, but I do not believe we are here for existence or that existence is here for us. This is what I believe.

I can imagine many things that cannot and will not be. But then I have already shared that I do not view infinite as unlimited in an absolute sense. The linear number system goes on forever, thus it is infinite, but it is based on a procession of simple units of 1, if it was unlimited in an absolute sense then there could be a number value in the sequence that is not made by adding 1 to the previous number, but this is not the case. The infinite is based upon the finite, all numerical values are composed of singular parts and a singular whole.

There is the classic argument of taking a single given space and dividing it in half, and halving the halves etc, that this division can be made theoretically infinitely. The mistake is to assume that there is then, in a single increment of space; infinite space. Logically it is said there can be because one can theoretically divide it into infinite sub-units, however there is still no net gain or loss, being able to divide the space into infinite sub-units does not mean the space is unlimited or limitless. Rather it is precisely because it is finite and limited that it can be divided. If it was an infinite sized space, it could not be divided at all because half of infinity is still infinity.

"Consider the 2D shape of a ring, it is finite and infinite, but it is not "unlimited" and I do not view infinity as unlimited. Consider the value Pi, it is infinite and yet a single finite value, it goes on forever but is not unlimited. For me unending does not mean limitless."

The only thing that could be truely unlimited or infinite about that is if something was traveling around the ring..then you can say that it is unlimited in it's trajectory around the ring..it can go around and around forever or until it has used all of it's energy available to do so.

The ring itself is neither unlimited or infinite in any stretch of the word. I dont care what semantics people want to use in a classroom to try to rationalize this. It just is NOT unlimited or infinite. The ring in the example you gave is very clearly limited and finite. Just becasue you join one end of a line to the other end to make a ring in no way whatsoever now implies that the thing is infinite. This is a poor example of what I was referring to.

My whole point was that that is all people can come up with to explain infinity/finity(examples that are more akin to weird semantic offshoots)..and you just proved my example. It makes little sense to act as if that is infinity.

Also about energy not being created or destroyed..what about before the big bang? What about outside of this universe? If you only concider everything after the big bang(whatever that even means) and within this universe than sure..but that is not a fully encompassing take on reality IMO.

Also, using the example that energy can neither be created or destroyed is fine..but that bings up a number of questions..

Like where did that energy then come from? Saying it cant be created or destroyed implies it is finite in one sense due to it's limits-it cant be destroyed or created..but also that it is infinite becasue it cannot be destroyed so it exists forever..

But that makes little to no sense.

People like to compartmentalize these things and then talk about it as if it just "happened" by some strange miracle..and if you accept that than everything else within that little tunnel vision of a box is okay and accepted..how rational is that?

Again..where has any of this come from?

It can only be finite to the extent that we are looking at the situation from inside of the system set up(we can only assume) at the time of it's conception..but the fact that it even exists implies that it must have come from SOMEWHERE..so it implies a larger system for it to have arisen out of, which basically changes the discussion so that we can only talk about the finity of such a system as a sort of throught experiment where we pretend that this system is whole unto itself and not just one part of a larger system.

basically people talk about this stuff on levels..often times ignoring the validity and implications of other levels just to validate a certain point of view. I am doing the same thing here but trying to be more onbjective about the whole thing and taking into account the obvious observation that you dont get something from nothing..or at leat if you do than we need to approach this thing from an entirely different angle.

This should be a very simple and obvious observation for anyone to make. The problem is that more often than not these questions are avoided and instead people go off on random tangents about little parts of a system ignoring the questions everyone must be asking.

Here is my question..

What are the possible implications of the questions noone is able to answer?

With all due respect Jamie I think you are using the word infinite to mean eternal - while related, the two are not interchangeable... Something eternal may be infinite and something infinite may be eternal, but are not of necessity or by definition. You may argue that this is merely semantics, but if we do not agree on accepted definitions we will be turning in circles ad infinitum.

Not if time is a non-linear field.


No it doesn't.
You see the problem of ultimate origins destroys that idea.

It comes from somewhere you say, but then that somewhere has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere has to come from somewhere, this problem goes on forever and that makes no sense. The problem is identical for science and for religion. What was before the before, what created the creator etc?

All that it existing actually implies, is that it exists, no more, no less.

There is an explanation, but it is that time is not linear. I have a feeling it is not worth sharing right now but I will share a little bit. What we call the past is a relative position, not actually an event that happened and is over, just one that relative to our position is past from our perspective.

There is no eternal ongoing aspect, existence is an instant and a constant. There is no problem of origination because there is no beginning nor is there an end, at least not in any ultimate sense. The linear aspect of time is due to relativity and position, but there is still the singularity of time, we call it "now" and it is instant, not eternal.

This idea of "where did it come from?" is silly, so is "where will it go?"

It is but not was and not will be, was and will be are nothing but semantics without a defined context.

It is originating as it ends, right now.
It did not originate, it will not end.

It is really hard for animals like us to understand.

I haven’t followed this thread closely, but reading this resonates with me.

We talk about the past and future as if they actually exist, yet all any of us has ever experienced is the present. The inescapable, eternal, conscious present.

There is not one moment of consciousness that exists outside of the present. So what does that say about the “past” and the “future”?

Right now we are pretty far off topic, but I don't mind.

As for the question of what that says about past and future, though it is a seemingly rhetorical question I would like to try to answer it.

The singularity of now says that "past" and "future" pertain to measurements of distance.

This actually relates to the topic insofar as the sensation of oneness that many associate with psychedelics and altered states is akin to feeling the truth of the singularity of all in now.
This is an insight that is commonly associated with psychedelics, as well as spiritual understandings.

Tao and Veda for example contain this teaching.
The names Kala and Kali have meanings of "beyond time" and also pertain to wuji/ain-soph in Taoist and Kabbalic traditions.
The attributes of Amitabha Buddha, and Vishnu as beyond time, as the jewel upon the lotus, pertain to this.

The manifestation of the first triad/trinity of the sephirot and their properties are identical to the trimurti of the vedic teachings.

Many people have experiences that inform them of this fundamental truth, some call it spiritual, others would call it philosophical. Unity is vital to specific concepts of physics, such as bosonic unity, so it can even relate to science.

The issue with velocity and position can be found to arise due to the singularity of now as well.

My "spiritual" experiences of oneness, both involving psychedelics and usually involving only meditation (often mantra meditation) involve this same insight. It relates to the idea of original mind, or the unmovable aspect of mind. The present is a great word for it, in every sense of the meaning of the word.

Even my signature here is based upon this insight.

For me the most important truths are spiritual, scientific and philosophical all at once, so to speak. But then this is my own experience and opinion, nothing more than that. For me it makes perfect sense, it may well not make any sense for some people.