nonduality | The ultimate and best and only really legit form of Eucharist is
the entheogenic form. Eucharistic doctrine is strongly formed
and constrained and shaped by the entheogenic nature of the Eucharist. If there
is an entheogen-shaped hole at the center of religion, this is truest
of Eucharistic writings. Where does Christian doctrine come closest to the
entheogenic truth? In the Eucharistic writings.
For example, the debate over the real presence of Christ in the
Eucharist is effortlessly solved by removing historical Jesus and replacing
him by the entheogen as the true "logos/word made flesh". In
*general*, it's very clear that true Christianity (and ancient and Judeo-Hellenistic
religion in general) was and is centered around the entheogen -- that puzzle is
solved, but a minor puzzle remains: why is there no *explicit* discussion of
entheogens in the Christian writings?
Writings on Eucharist are clearly talking about the entheogen,
but it's not clear why they always talk implicitly rather than
explicitly. Suppressing the open discussion of the entheogenic nature of Eucharist and of
Jesus "the drug of immortality", a financially profitable monopolistic
franchise was established. Entheogens evidently were widely known and
widely influential in Christian doctrine, but effectively suppressed.
