More ;-)

In my experience, such as it is, any spiritual experience that is not connected directly and causally to social action is bogus. Worse than mere onanism.

Actually, that’s an interesting word choice, because Onan wasn’t killed for masturbation, but because he used the customs of his tribe that were designed for the care of others to serve his own pleasure. So, Xanadu was right the first time, any spiritual experience not directly leading to social action but merely to self-aggrandisement IS onanism.

I must say I agree with Anonymous above. I have the same ‘problem’ with Pinchbeck. I appreciate many of the ideas he puts out there, but those ideas were already put out there by Mckenna, Leary, Wilson. He stays in the shallow waters in this movement and does not get deep or ask the deeper questions to his own brand. I do get a tinge of sensationalism on his part. Reality Sandwich often turns into a ‘Huff Post’ of the ‘alternative lifestyle’ community with it’s own set of irrationalities that it refuses to reflect upon. And like Anonymous said, that’s okay :) It’s part of a process that is occurring right now and a reflection of something higher which I deeply appreciate. i still go there and post a comment or two.

And Steve, I am new to your blog and writing. THANK YOU! You are a breath of fresh air and I am in gratitude for your work and insight.

What I personally have read of Pinchbeck is unimpressive – his writing is derivative and lacks digestibility and common sense, his powerful resentment towards women is quite possibly dangerous, his discernment is lacking. And you know what? That’s OK. None of us is perfect, and individual journeys through life are wonderful. Daniel simply seems to be on his journey. That’s not the troublesome thing.

What is troublesome is that he markets himself as a leader in troubled times, and is now viewed as the figurehead of not only a social movement, but the spokesperson for all things psychedelic, including ayahuasca. But the world he purportedly wants to create – a burning-man-esque work-free culture where everyone lazes about and does yoga and has sex all day – is not my ayahuasca culture, not my spiritual culture, not my anything culture, and I get annoyed that newcomers to ayahuasca get the impression because of Pinchbeck’s very public profile that that’s where ayahuasca gets you: sexy yoga life with scary visions and cool magic power.

That troubles me a great deal. A great, great deal.

The ayahuasqueros I have worked with always use that question with us: “Why drink ayahuasca?” I never have come up with a satisfactory answer with any integrity over time, so I won’t pretend to have one here.

What I am pretty sure about with spirituality and social justice is this: Once you have the awareness of injustice, harm, suffering…and how your actions contribute, you no longer have the excuse of “I didn’t know”. Ayahuasca most certainly lifts that veil of ignorance. Once you do know, you are obligated to act, to participate – small or grand, doesn’t really matter.

I have to say I kind of agree with Xanadu (minus the screed and screech, girl you’ll do yourself more justice by speaking clearly!). I don’t see much practical or pragmatic coming out of the Pinchbeck world. I see lots of wacky art and loft parties and hipsters talking about sex and alternative energy. I hear lots of talk and generally the less sense you make the more it’s thought you must be wise. But these are not the folks I see making much actual social change in the world. Selling art and throwing a party where you tell your already aware urban friends about biodiesel does NOT count as social change, people.

There’s a very practical, ordinary side to spirituality and social change. It’s not about crazy, far-out visions and who’s right about the end of the world as we know it. It’s not glamorous and fun.

Willing the change is about taking the conscious practical, pragmatic steps to care for the sick, the elderly, the people you don’t like. It’s about stepping into the schools to give urban blighted kids a leg up in a challenging world. It’s about making the hard choices to really do right by the environment, not just recycle your paper. It’s building community not just with the people you like and agree with and want to party with, but with e-v-e-r-y-o-n-e…even your Republican parents and your neighbor who drink Budweiser and drives a truck for Exxon. In the very wise words of Marge Piercy, “The work of the world is as common as mud”. I don’t see much mud in Pinchbeck’s arena, and that’s not good for someone viewed as a leader of social change.

I’m still not sure, but you are definitely extremely sensitive to think that my innocuous comment means your views are invalid because you don’t like Sarah Palin.

Of course, technically! But it’s TERRIBLE to censor ideas – IDEAS – when you bill yourself as a Leader at the forefront of forging an improved, paradigm-smashing world, no? You didn’t censor me, you answered me and expressed your point of view. We don’t have to agree. We can learn from one another.

I still wonder why my “personal attack” is perceived as a great sin and censorship/ misleading our doomed youth is okay. Harmful actions do not generate themselves.

* No, the questioned comment was directed at Anonymous, who implied that my views about The Barracuda invalidated my perspective on other issues.

* I think drinking ayahuasca (not that you asked) can be of world-changing personal and social value, but not when used as a status trophy like blinged-out Reeboks!

• I do not see how Xanadu has been censored. She has her own blog, on which she can say anything she wants. She has just not been allowed to say what she wants on Reality Sandwich, which belongs to Pinchbeck. He has every right to decide what gets to be said in his own house.

• I cannot disagree with the characterization of some of what Xanadu says as a personal attack on Pinchbeck. I do not see how this advances the argument, which is what, to me, is most interesting. I am just not interested in evaluations of whether others have failed to live up to someone else's standards.

• I am at a loss to understand this: A subset of that stump of a mindset is needing me to prove my Advanced Spirituality – as YOU define it – before what I say can *possibly* be worthwhile for your exaulted consideration. Hey, are you Pinchbeck? That’s HIS technique. If this is directed at me, I am confused. I simply cannot recall when I have attempted to define Advanced Spirituality. Certainly that has never been my intention. I would be grateful if Xanadu would point me to something I have said.

• As I wrote here, well-known DMT researcher Rick Strassman thought that spiritual transformation was the endpoint of the hallucinogenic experience, and that this transformation would be expressed in his subjects' personal lives — for example, by taking up a spiritual or psychotherapeutic practice, changing jobs, or increasing community service. He was personally surprised and disoriented by the frequently reported contact with other-dimensional beings. As I asked at the time: Is long-term personal change what DMT is even about? Perhaps DMT — like ayahuasca itself — is not a psychotherapist but a teacher, leading where it intends — not to some sort of enlightenment, not to self-improvement, not to community volunteer work; but into the dark and luminous realm of the spirits.

• I think a discussion of that question — why drink ayahuasca? why have spiritual experiences of any kind? — is worth having. I appreciate Xanadu's colorful language and passion, and I value the fact that she has raised this question.