Saturday, January 19, 2013

the eucharist



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.