Hello Everyone,

This is a topic I've been talking about with select parties in earnest for a little while now. If we are really serious about this work, then we should be able to unite some kind of effort to collaborate leadership, knowledge, and connect legal advisers, fund the movement, and so on. What is stopping us from forming a religious institution and begin the process of seeking immunity from federal prosecution? I don't think there is anything getting in our way besides the slow uphill climb itself.

Santo Daime and UDV have an established history and lineage doing this work, as well as does the Native American Church (with peyote). But they are all a little culty and not for everyone.

I have witnessed a practicing shaman immigrate from Peru to the US, and begin facilitating ceremonies for the NAC. They initiated him, and then he basically jumped into conducting their weekly ceremonies, just like that. Granted this is someone who had already been trained in the traditions of Lakota, so he had his foot in from the beginning, but still... To witness that process unfold opened me up to the possibilities here. This work is in demand. Even groups like the NAC could use help conducting regular ceremony. The transmission of this work is needed, and it comes through many channels.

What I feel we could do in the collaborative age of information is establish a retreat space within the US, create a panel of experts to oversee the happenings there, and open it to a variety of student-teacher relationships. If you want a shaman from a specific indigenous culture, you could do work with him/her there. We could host everything from meditations, to dances, to plant ceremonies. There could also be western holistic practices and therapies happening there. We could host talks, seminars, events of other kinds. In my humble opinion, all of this spiritual practice falls under the same umbrella of legal dialogue.

The intention is to create a safe space for ALL walks of life, not just those of one culture.

We currently have a major deficit in what is available in the US, and I feel we are waiting for the right leadership to rise up and make an argument for the rest of us. I believe it will come from the millennial generation, and if such a thing takes root in the US, it will grow and evolve to become it's own thing, mildly different from all other currently established lineages. MAPS is doing great clinical work, but that is only one side of the coin. We need to approach from the spiritual practice side and create a religious organization to contain it.

Thoughts, feelings, sentiment? I am open minded. Please don't hold back. If you are thinking it, spill it please, and thank you.

I do not believe in institutions. As long as entheogen use is illegal, entheogen users are more vulnerable in institutions than alone. For one, you can let a "cult" live for a while so it soaks up people, and then raid it and shut it down, taking everyone down in it, and dealing major damage.

Also, ultimately, Western entheogen use is exploratory, not religious. Many of us do not have fixed dogmatic beliefs. The DEA's criterion for religious use was specifically formulated to exclude "religions" that are primarily focused on drug use, and I believe that forcing native South American religious views onto people wishing to use entheogens is counterproductive.

It's contrary to the Western entheogenic tradition, and it also cheapens the native religions themselves, turning them into little more than excuses to "get high" (pardon my wording).

So no, I do not think this is a good idea at all. We need to fight for the decriminalization of entheogen use in general.

I answered "Yes, I would like to see that effort made" in the context of whether or not I think an organized entheogen-based spiritual practice is possible; but I'd have to agree with PsyDuck here. I'm not sure I want to see it happen nor do I think it would be very tangible in the long run. To me this sounds quite a bit like what Ayahuasca Healings is trying to do, and we all can see how much of a debacle that is.

I think it would be more productive to instead channel your resources towards drug policy and psychedelic research. An institution such as this might hold up for a short period of time, but unless you lay down the necessary ground-work and provide a stable foundation I can't see anything like this operating legitimately or effectively in the long-term. I would love to see it happen, but before it does I think we need to focus our efforts on more immediate goals. Baby steps.

Now if you wanna talk about organizing around decriminalization or something like that, I'm sure you could get a lot of support and do some great work.

we dont need it.

im for open source teks and open source use, with open source education.

allowing a all encompassing institution is like allowing agriz biz to take over food.
they have, and group think under an single umbrella is to reduce things to corrupt idiocy,
based on the bell curve alone.

agri biz, banks, and empire......
we all know what happens.
any all encompassing conglomerate is bad.
we cant accept the argument of social capitol gains for expedience.

decentralization or enslavement to dogma is the only choice here.
we are way better off as indies.

and lastly, during your last plus 5 adventure,
who says to you " we must join a group".....................

I have no interest in being part of any religion or institution.

Nature is a God given right (or a Earth given right, or a inherent right or whatever you want to call it). I have more interest in pushing legislation for protecting freedoms of individuals more then creating another church.

ICEERS has a cool project here that does not involve any religions but is more geared towards helping protect individuals: http://www.iceers.org/legal-defense.php

Wo|Men must be free. Religion and institutions are oppressive in their nature. So to hell with them.

lol,
you get the " blunt as annie award"
i love it.

the golden engraved extraction beaker is in the mail!

Thanks Annie I'll donate it to psychedelic researchers in need, if you don't mind. No need for gold and glitter here.

What are we talking about, here? "Religion"? Or Healing?

What are most people actually seeking?

And I'm actually gonna side with Anne, here. Maybe we have to ask ourselves: Do we need another institution to replace or contrast/contradict the current ones?

What if we allow the relative anarchy of the internet foster a kind of self-organizing movement with no centralization?

...At the same time, I'm gonna have to disagree with myself, here.

In-person relationships and public speakers are indeed important for defining (and un-defining) the boundaries around the growing psychedelic/entheogenic movement. Let's not forget, we here on the internet have the illusion that we are able to see most of the movement from this vantage point, when in actuality, that is far from the truth. There are so many users and seekers and psychonauts who rarely, if ever, touch base with the internet. More than half of the world's population does not use the internet.

If we are going to define anything about the psychedelic/entheogenic movement, (and refusing to define is a kind of definition) we have to consider those who don't see it as part of their path to go to the internet for valuable information, as hard as it may be for you to grasp that concept.

~~~

Okay, ONE more thing. I think we can have the best of both worlds. We can have a movement and advocacy without falling into the many pitfalls of institutions.

If we are going to create or rather, cultivate the movement properly, we have to question *everything* with the kind of clarity that psychedelics often bring about.

That means totally rethinking academic, medical, and scientific paradigms. These paradigms are based on the impetus for (and some may call it an illusion of) control. Whereas plant medicines are about... anything but. When you scrutinize the ayahuasca experience through an academic lens, or with sterile hospital protective wear, or wearing scientific goggles (all metaphors, of course), you're going to run into problems. What is arising is not some movement to replace another, or some other choice of lifestyle, but a way of thinking that questions everything else.

I think what we are dealing with is so much bigger than just "plant medicine work." It's hard to think about it in small terms, imho. That's why, I think, it's scary to consider institutionalizing it.

~~~

PS- Maybe I should include "legal" in my list of paradigms that plant medicine use inherently questions.
...
I'll leave you with a question I am currently chewing on: How has prohibition been good for the growth and expansion of plant medicine, psychedelic use?

I can't really say I disagree with any other the comments.

Although I would never join a religion I am not necessarily against them. I think it is a relatively cool idea especially if there are people supporting it. I, however, would not join.

I do really like what Praxis said though. There are a good amount of people gathered in forums like this one who would gather around a decriminalization movement or something similar. Perhaps just a bump down to schedule 2 for research and medicine?

There are a lot of good groups already pushing this forward and I think getting a large group of people to help push it along, especially the people going into colleges, could help very much. I am sure a lot of you have seen this but if not I will share the MAPS research page for psychedelic assisted psychotherapy.
[MDMA]
[LSD]

Not sure if this is really what you were interested in Warrior but it is definitely something I could see being a positive project on the Nexus!

Didn't answer - but if people want to get together and make an entheogenic church, that's there business. It's certainly not for any of us to tell them how to use their drugs. I won't be attending, but I hope it makes them happy.

Blessings
~ND

Like a Walmart?

MAPS is like the turtle with a friendly face turned toward the government while gazelles make a run for it, in terms of exploration, research, development of healing modalities.

Because they are caught up with dealing with bureaucracy of legitimization, their progress falls outside of actual healing. We already *know* that MDMA treats PTSD, and we already *know* that LSD helps alcoholics. They're just involved in the business of legitimization in the public eye. I think we have to look beyond MAPS for real, on-the-ground healing. The growing epidemic of chronic mental and physical diseases can't wait around for scientists and politicians to sign lil pieces of paper.

I hope I'm not on a tangent, here.

i could go for a union of psychonauts IF,
it was purely safety/ health/ and honest practices statements.

^ but even then , i have doubts , as things degrade with time into "institutions"


nexus is more thoughtful and thinking than other forums.
were not the norm for forums.
however, that probably wouldnt extend beyond our server.
we have all seen other forums where a " consensus" is limited to the status quo,
based on outdated hierarchys and practice.

any groups formed, would be subject to the same pitfalls naturally.
this is why i opt for open source indie free for all, with a safety encouragement vibe.

Lao-Tzu is sometimes credited with having said when rebels grow up they build institutions.

We are human beings. Human beings accumulate knowledge, and openly or selectively share the wealth that comes from the education process. Human beings build institutions. We are human beings.

If we are not building this up to the level of our surrounding societal structures through legitimate avenues, what are we doing? Hiding out and avoiding the main activities of the human game altogether? Maintaining or strengthening Us Vs. Them boundaries?

We have an obligation to live up to our full potential as human beings and advance the dialogue of understanding.

One of my first struggles growing up was overcoming a speech impediment, which was a stutter. Long after the problem was gone, I still was more likely to remain silent in groups because I was afraid to speak up and risk making a fool of myself. Having struggled with this conundrum of remaining silent versus speaking out, I have come to believe it is worse to remain silent. Bad things only happen when I contain what I know inside and do not participate in the social world around. People loving hearing me speak, that's the craziest part of this.

What if you realized all your feelings and thoughts were legitimate and competitive among the movers and shakers of the world--wouldn't you feel like you should get out there and participate in what you know to be a personal area of expertise?

What if your full potential is to show the western scientific-medical world that there is a way to integrate everything we know in a unified way that accepts and accommodates all walks of life, from all backgrounds? If you can clearly envision it happening, and other people you talk with agree.... What are we doing here?

The purpose of what I describe is open-ended and exploratory in nature. For some people the purpose will be more specific.

The machine will burn, with or without the plants.

Let it.

This is a good point.

If this is something that excites you I'd say go for it, I think there is a large need for legitimate spiritual outlets in the context of psychedelic exploration--so my apologies for jumping the gun.

of course people can worship with drugs as they wish.........

id just hate to see several dogmatic groups waving flags, bug eyed stoned,
on an apocalyptic landscape , trying to gun each other down,
in a dispute over ram dass and tim learys legacy as the chosen ones............

keep in mind, any holy books that come out of all this,
are gonna be viewed with suspicion at best.
the authors would have to be tripping.

the key here is the bell curve.
about 30% of the people are always gonna be pretty cool with hallucinogens
about 30% unchanged and the same boring proles......
and about 30% wavering on dangerous.

the remaining 10% , would be divine or devilish.
hardly enough to sustain a movement.
they would be crushed by the lower 60%, who couldnt have a clue to the difference,
just out of witch burning ignorance..........


anything cool,
ultimately would degrade to " planet of the apes on acid"
people just arent that evolved.
it could turn out no better than mainstream religions are today.
except on drugs.

we deserve way way better.........didnt the aztecs try this already?
( hmm now that im thinking about it, public monuments would get ALOT more interesting)

I'm not hiding. I'm out being a human and doing what I can, while being part of an underground, clandestine movement of enlightenment.

The best and brightest are of us. Aldous Huxley and Steve Jobs were psychonauts, and I'm sure many other famous visionaries used psychedelics without the world's knowledge.

We're walking in the footsteps of the great artists and philosophers of the past who clandestinely held religious, scientific and philosophical views that could have condemned them to prison or death if publicized. They too, were feared by the common folk, and remembered as heroes and geniuses.

They sure lived up to their full potential.


Let's posit that you succeed (even though I seriously doubt it), and you create a Church / Institution of Plant Medicines or what the something. It's now legal for members to use psychedelics under strict supervision, but people outside are still imprisoned for psychedelic use.

You are now a gatekeeper for psychedelics. You have the power to decide what psychedelics can be taken, in what dosages and combinations, in what sets and settings, by whom. You have the power to deny or grant access to psychedelics to groups or individuals on a whim. You'd have the power to associate psychedelics with a specific ideology, be it religious or political, and enforce this ideology upon all who wish to be "legitimate" users. Would you want that power? I sure do not. I don't think anyone should have that power.

There aren't many answers...
If it were an option, I would have chosen "No, but I'd like to see that effort made".

Also, I don't think we can foresee what the world will be like in 1000 years, so the first choice is just a given.