After reading a very impressive work written by Rick Strassman titled "DMT the Spirit Molecule" I decided to follow-up on his less scientific work "DMT and the Soul of Prophecy." "DMT the Spirit Molecule" is a very well written work detailing Strassmans studies with the endogenous and biologically ubiquitous compound dymetheltryptamine (DMT). The book details much of restrictions placed on research and use of DMT. It explains the permission processes and bureaucracy that prevent scientific advancement in relation to psychoactive compounds. "DMT The Spirit Molecule" focuses mainly on measurable details of DMTs effects. Keeping with the demands of scientific rigor Strassman does not detail any subjective information or opinions. Scientifically speaking this is very honorable and confirms his adherence to scientific rigor. His DMT experiments provided reams of "unscientific" information that resulted in his later "unscientific" publication of "DMT the Soul of Prophecy".
Strassman pushes heavily his monotheistic Jewish world view. He states "one of my goals for this book is to raise interest in the Hebrew bible as a spiritual reference for such a model." As meritorious as this sounds his relentless belittling of Buddhism and all "eastern religions" retracts from a proper sense of merit. He claims to have studied Zen and erroneously claims it to be representative of "eastern religious philosophies" as whole. He claims that a belief in a monotheistic creator is necessary to understand the DMT induced psychedelic experience. Simultaneously he claims the cultures who use DMT (shamanic based) are not equipped to confront the psychedelic experience. In one hand Strassman asks we interpret the visions and teachings of the Hebrew bible as actual experience with the godhead, purely based on their descriptions within the text, while in the other hand he dismisses shamanic DMT using systems themselves arbitrarily. He is willing to accept the ancient Hebrew texts (recorded from hearsay and long after the fact) at their word, but not the living shamans who are actively practicing today by their own words. This is erroneous because he refuses to take their shamanic cultures at face value and refuses to analyze their systems of belief in their own terms. A feat he is obviously capable of as he successfully analyzes his own Jewish world view by it's own terms. Pejoratively, he repeatedly implies shamanism is inferior to his own Jewish base world view. This is sadly typical arrogance common to the followers of Abrahamic traditions (including Christians and Muslims). He writes with pro-semitic biases sugar coated with new-age nebulisms and flavored with an aptness that falsely acquires an air of persuasion. I must say that Zen is no more representative of "eastern religions" than the Pentecostal practice of speaking in tongues is representative of Abrahamic religions. To focus exclusively on Zen is to ignore its own roots in pantheistic and polytheistic systems of Hinduism. In truth, his reasoning that a belief in a creator god is necessary aligns with the pantheism in the Hindu and many "pegan" religions, as well as Shinto and is in no way unique to his Judaism... maybe I'll have more on this later.
I'm forced to conclude that in Strassmans claimed "two decades" of "studying" Zen Buddhism he never actually learned anything about Buddhism let alone any other eastern religion. His dismissal eastern religions all together by his aversion to Zen is tantamount to dismissing all Abrahamic traditions over a disagreement with Mormonism. It is both short sighted and ignorant. Not only does his rejection of eastern religions short-sighted it is based on his assertion that meditation is all they have to offer. While meditation is the main focus of Zen practice it is not meant to be a psychedelic experience and is not sought as such contrary to his claims. Meditation can be psychedelic but is not fundamentally so.
Strassmans attempt to pin down the DMT experience with understandable "models" is a boring attempt to confine the limitless experience of reality to the limits of scientific formulae. It is also a weak attempt to validate his own cultural (mainly Jewish) world view. He claims that shamanism is not equipped to explain the DMT experience but do the practitioners of shamanism agree? I believe they do not. To say that shamanism is lacking such validity (as Judaism) is to challenge their systems of thought by claiming they're incomplete and inferior. Again, do the practitioners agree? Do they themselves see these systems of thought as incomplete or lacking in any vital way? No they do not. Strassmans' cultural biases only reflect his own inability to penetrate these systems and do not invalidate these systems themselves. That is to say, just because I myself do not understand subject A does not mean that subject A is invalid. This exposes the rigidity of his world view and the successful (monotheistic) inoculation against alternative systems of thought.
Consider a few similarities between Shinto, shamanism (including Odinic peganism). For example, animism and totemic representatives of spirits and a belief in a multitude of spirits among both the living and the nonliving. A lesson in Hindu and Germanic (Odinic) "pegan" religions provide an apt counter to monotheism. That is, among pantheistic religions "God" is the universe itself, existence itself, all things living and nonliving, material and spiritual, including the pantheon of deities, demons, and spirits, are collectively viewed as cells of the "God". This interpretation can be applied to both animistic religions and shamanisms. Unfortunately they all seem to lack a "god" figure when viewed through the bias eyes of a pure monotheist. In pantheism the sum of all spirits (and everything else) is god itself, but as we are forced to articulate particulars through the medium of language it is not possible to communicate without discerning parts of the system from the whole. That is, one cannot talk of or communicate about existence in its limitless vastness without some focus on specific parts. Concepts of 'existence', the 'universe', 'god', and 'nothing' are weak attempts to define the indefinable and set limits on the limitless. This point is the essential message of Buddhism and many corresponding philosophies. Here Zen may perhaps be the most distilled form of this idea.
If Strassman had picked Hinduism instead of Zen perhaps his desire for a creator god could have been better satisfied. His quest to find an adequate model of the DMT experience could have led him to a pantheistic model as easily as he derived his monotheistic model from Judaism. If Strassman had poured through the vast collection of Hindu texts or Buddhist texts as he seems to have done with his favored Jewish texts, he may have been equally foolish enough to interpret them as purely "true" or purely "allegorical". In the light of reading even a single Buddhist text, namely the 'Tibetan Book of the Dead', I must disagree with his premise that "eastern religions" lack a model of the psychedelic experience.
Strassmans' affinity for Jewish texts allowed him to connect quasi-historical accounts of contact with the divine to altered mental states (induced by psychedelics). While I agree with many of his conclusions, I see far too many cultural biases to accept his position as a whole. If his cultural background had been of Asian origin, he perhaps would have written a book with the subtitle of 'A New Science of Spiritual Evolution in the Tibetan Book of the Dead'. Any interpretation of the 'Tibetan Book of the Dead' grants ample room to capture an adequate model of the psychedelic experience. "Realms" of beings and existence in themselves constitute parts of the whole (cells of the godhead). The pantheistic model becomes equivalent to the monotheistic model. The actual existence of demonic "hell beings" or those beings existing as allegory or archetypes within the human psyche or as states of the mind (rage, jealousy, envy, fear, anger...) is entirely irrelevant when distinguishing between monotheisms and pantheisms. This is the meaning of the statement "if so, so what?" Repeatedly stated throughout his work and echoed in his perceived nihilism of Buddhist philosophy. The "so what?" Refers mainly to the distinction between "reality" and perception. The perception of experiencing god is indistinguishable from an actual experience of god. This is the essential message the Buddha tried to express.
He does touch on the writings of the 'Tibetan Book of the Dead" but only through the publication of "The Psychedelic Experience: A Manual Based on the Tibetan Book of the Dead." Here it seems he is willing to examine commentary on the book but not the book itself. This approach commonly results in blatant misunderstandings. Oddly and hypocritically, he is eagerly willing to do this very exercise with the Hebrew texts he references. That is, reading the actual text itself rather than a commentary written by someone who is not even a practitioner. Why is he unwilling to exerciser this very reasonable practice with eastern texts? Again this betrays his bias for his own cultural background and total failure to sincerely study "eastern" religions. Strassman says (regarding Buddhism) "if there is no self, there is no one to feel anguish and dissonance regarding the gap between inner ideals and the outside world. Therefore, one's own distress is meaningless. The best option is to deconstruct the illusory self that is responsible for that distress." This is merely a shallow nihilistic understanding of the philosophy. It is equivalent to reading the story of Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac, and seeing only horror in God's command then rejecting it before learning the sacrifice had been interrupted. Such a shortsighted rejection causes one to miss the point entirely. The teaching on dissolution of the self is not the end goal of Buddhism but a means to reconcile the dualities of self and non-self. His approach erroneously focuses on only part of the whole. Similarly any discussion on karma would be incomplete with out discussing reincarnation. Again he betrays his half hearted or even false claims to a study of "eastern religions."
Strassmans' discussion of the moral teachings in terms of "arguments among farmers" as a unique way to view spiritual nature "through social relationship and interaction." exposes his cultural biases. His claimed "two decades" of Buddhist studies should have taught him that the Talmudic "arguments" about tools between farmers have ample equivalents within the many texts of eastern religions (Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism). These arguments among farmers are not in any way whatsoever unique to Talmudic or Jewish philosophies. Any sincere study of Buddhism would have exposed him to such equivalent discussions. This adds doubt to his claim to have studied Buddhism for "two decades". Widely distributed and extremely common Buddhist texts such as the Dammapadha, do in fact contain nearly the same concerns of social relationships and interactions.
Strassman includes a small passage from "the Kabbalah of Envy" (by Nilton Bonder) about how one defines revenge and grudge. This passage he claims this is a "unique way to view our spiritual nature; that is, through social relationship and interaction." In a not so unique passage from the Dammapadha a similar sentiment about holding grudges can be found. "'He abused me, he beat me, he overpowered me, he took from me.' In those who bear these grudges hatred is not stilled." While this is not a definition of grudge it does reflect the essence of the subtitle of "the Kabbalah of Envy, transforming hatred anger and other negative emotions." Is a direct contradiction to Strassmans' uninformed claim of the uniqueness of Talmudic understanding. I do agree with Strassmans' assessment of the DMT experience as "interactive and relational, not unitive and transcendent." Here, I must point to the Hindu text of the Bhagavad gita, a mythical discussion that essentially defines "self" as relation to others. I must also mention the concept of karma as taught in Buddhism. Karma is never mentioned by Strassman, but is in fact fully dependent on interactions and relationships. The very concept of karma, which is a key pillar in Hinduism and Buddhism alike, relies entirely on the realization of the connectedness of the self and others.
Strassmans preference for the monotheistic Hebrew bible model results from a misunderstanding of both Buddhism and shamanism and his rejection of the DMT experience as "real." Shamans themselves see the DMT experience as an extension of reality. Similarly Buddhists would not reject the DMT experience as unreal but would conclude the experience as no more or less real than "reality". These are two distinct perspectives that Strassman simply does not consider. His largest flaw is the idea of inclusive verses exclusive thinking. A "this or that" dichotomy cannot easily be correct to a "this and that" duality. Again the reconciliation of dualism is a point he seems unable to include in his thinking. Saying "if reality is not real, why engage with it?" He asserts this is the Buddhist perspective without any corresponding or supporting definitions of reality. Again, the "if so, so what?" typifies the actual Buddhist perspective of "real vs unreal". This is not a negative rejection of mental states as unreal nor is it a rejection of reality as unreal. It is instead the acceptance of existence as it is regardless of considerations for what we choose to define as "real".
I find it interesting that he is willing to take up the relatively minor task of reading the Hebrew bible and conclude it is a superior (beyond adequate) DMT model. Superior that is to shamanism and "eastern religions" (though exclusively referring to Zen). I say a reading the Hebrew bible is a minor task, that is compared to the formidable task of reading the Buddhist cannon. A thorough reading of the massive collection of texts called the Buddhist cannon is nearly impossible for any single human. The sum of the Buddhist cannon is prohibitively enormous and much has not yet been translated from the Pali and Sanskrit into english or any other languages. His twenty years of Zen study is the most mild exposure to "eastern religions" that a person could possibly have.
His assertion that the Buddhist axiom "all forms are illusory" refers to a nihilistic belief in unreality shows the limitations of his understanding of Buddhism. The English words for illusion, emptiness, real, and unreal are not adequate translations from the Pali and Sanskrit. The Pali and Sanskrit vernacular are far more specific and do not have any true English equivalence. The English translations lack entirely the nuances of meaning, the diverse and/or specific concepts lost in any translations from their original language. He takes the trouble to define 'consciousness', spiritual, religion, theology, and metaphysics but never bothers to define 'reality'. Fortunately he admits "the Buddhist notion of "emptiness" may mean something quite different to someone steeped in generations of Adian culture and religion than to someone born and raised in a western milieu." I'll give him kudos for his minor point. But this shadow of translational ignorance should have taken more precedence over all of his refutations of "eastern religions".
His assertion that monotheism is an adequate model should include a comparison with polytheism as well as pantheism, but his omission of both further illuminates the biased inoculation against even the admission of such systems. In stark contrast, reading the works of Alexander Shulgin, one sees a vague openness to such belief systems that Strassman seems unable admit. In Shulgins magnificent work "TIHKAL" a brief chapter titled "places in the mind" has a wonderful discussion on this. A state Shulgin calls "Kali" is the example that best suits my point. Here he draws from the pantheon of Hindu gods to define a mental state and archetype. Unfortunately, I doubt Strassman has read "TIHKAL".
He calls the Buddhist practice of praying (to beings other than god) a cloaked "intellectual dishonesty." He continues by bashing shamanic invocations of spirits (and beings other than god). I wonder if he is aware of the Catholic tradition of praying to saints, or the Voodoo practice of praying to angels, demons, sprits... Though Catholics are monotheistic their prayer to saints is no different than shamanic prayer to spirits or Buddhist prayers to ancestors. In this dismissal of alternative prayer practices he is both insulting and ignorant.
The Abrahamic insistence and emphasis on prophecy has always seemed a desperate elaboration. Stating "the text's (Hebrew bible) power, popularity, and longevity started making sense. Its thousands of years of worldwide influence are the result of it being a product of prophecy." he seems to ignore the coercive nature of religious indoctrination. Of course a religion that recruits or converts others will be wide spread. And lets not forget that when any population systematically exterminates any other competing population, they also exterminate competing belief systems. Here then, the "worldwide influence" is merely a reflection of history and happenstance and not the merits of the beliefs themselves. Argument on "longevity" of the Hebrew texts as evidence for it's merit are nonsense. Again I must site the Hindu Vedas which predate written language itself and even the Jewish religion by thousands of years. Thus if longevity is grounds for merit, then Hunduism is many times more meritorious than Judaism. Putting longevity aside the claim that the popularity of an idea is a measure of validity is no less absurd. For centuries all humans on earth believed they were the center of the universe, but regardless how how many people believed this, it's simply not true. Strassmans' statement about the "power" of the text is utterly incomprehensible nonsense to me. I do not understand his meaning enough to interpret so I'll assume this is merely fluffy pseudo-academic page filling ink wasting gibberish. But this may be a reflection of my own ignorance, which I will happily admit.
I will not bother to comment much on his interpretations from the Hebrew bible itself. I do not preceptive any critical flaw within his analysis of the DMT experience in relation to the specific prophetic accounts he discusses. Within the single context of the Hebrew bible, Strassman is impressively informative and genuinely enlightening. As far as his work concerning DMT in relation to the Hebrew Bible, Strassman only errors in his dismissal of shamanism, and eastern religions, his assertion of Jewdaism as superior (to other belief systems), and his claim that only Judaism offers an adequate model for the DMT experience. If he had written this same book omitting the cultural chauvinism I probably would not have bothered to write this review. Instead, I would have read his book and passed it to my friends. And having learned a little more about the background and foundational works of a major world religion. Unfortunately, I found many of his statements to be both insulting and typically arrogant (typical for Abrahamic religions). As this book was not intended to be a scientific work I do not fault him for his unscientific approach. However, as Strassman is a technically skilled scientist, I would expect fewer biases and assertions.
END RANT.
