Taves and Breau Further Entrench the Wrong, Unity Model of Peak Mystic-State Experience, while Critiquing Stace/Pahnke’s Neo-Advaita, Positive-Unity Model

Michael Hoffman, draft 6:37 p.m. November 28, 2025

Contents:

links work in desktop Edge/Chrome:

Motivation for this Page

My article prior to Merkavah is about Pahnke 1962/1963 PhD Good Friday, and contains this 3-article content, that doesn’t fit best in the Merk or Stace-specifiec article.

Moving that content to this new page.

Studying these 3 papers together has been rewarding, a leverage point.

Dump on Shamanism & insult and reject it; reactionary pushback against the dominant paradigm.

Dump on Eastern Phil o Religion [disparagement of Boomers’ [ie 20th C] Orientalism]; reactionary pushback against the dominant paradigm.

Advocate Western mysticism / Western Esotericism as (relatively) superior.

Laugh at Psychedelic pseudo science and the Deserved Hopkins DISASTER.

Move writers from Centering Positive Unity, to centering eternalism-driven control-transformation.

Neo-Platonism = Neo-Advaita

The closest thing Western mysticism has to Pop Modern Advaita’s negativity of expression and glorification of being inarticulate, is Neoplatonism and apophatic theology.

Oneness per Neoplatonism, or Unity per Neo-Advaita, are a part of Transcendent Knowledge & mystical experience.

Oneness and Unity are a false model of the central experience of mystic-state transformation. Papers such as Pahnke & Breau explicitly state and emphasize, that Unity is the essence of mystical experience.

The essence of mystical experience is eternalism-driven control-transformation. Mysticism is actually from psychedelics, not “traditional methods of the mystics” fabricated by academics; and the essense and characteristic hallmark of psychedelic experience is encountering eternalism instead of familiar possibilism — the eternalism state of consciousness. Not, as Breau writes, “the Unity state of consciousness” — a charged, telling phrase.

The Foo state of consciousness.

What word you use for Foo, is your paradigm and proposal for the central focus.

the Eternalism state of consciousness

the Unity state of consciousness

the altered state of consciousness [general; particular isn’t specified; altered in what essential way?]

Image: Pahnke, Taves, Breau Papers on Neo-Advaita Premise Driving Psychedelic Science

It is so profitable critically reading these 3 papers together, I’m considering making a page covering the set of them. Taves and Breau tinker with fine-tuning the Unity model, but they merely develop and entrench the wrong, Unity model.

Between 1500 and 1687, the geocentric model lost its hegemony but people didn’t yet settle on the heliocentric model.

Model 1: Unity-Centric: Stace 1960 / Pahnke 1962

Pahnke start of psychedelic pseudo science 1962 incorp’ing Stace 1960 (Unity per Neo Advaita).

Model 2: Unity-Centric: Ann Taves 2020

“We should study negative ego dissolution boundary ailment; negative Unity, not only positive Unity which = mystical experience. We should study alterations of sense of self.”

Model 3: Unity-Centric: Jeffrey Breau 2023

Breau advocates:

“We should not only study the Neo-Advaita brand of Unity; we should study ALL brands of Unity.

Neo-Advaita is bad, it’s only one interp OF UNITY, OF THE UNITY STATE OF CONSCIOUSNESS, = perennial philosophy, armchair philosophy.

Unity is good, experiential, we need to model Unity better than Neo Advaita does.”

The Egodeath theory equates the Unity paradigm = the Neo-Advaita paradigm [= Neoplatonism in Wester armchair philosophical ‘mysticism’].

Breau acts like Neo-Advaita isn’t the exact same shiite as the Unity model altogether.

Breau rejects Neo-Advaita yet totally affirms Unity – which, re: essential central emphasis, is same thing as Neo Advaita.

Model 4: Eternalism-centric: Michael Hoffman 2025

Psychedelics and myth (Western culture’s mysticism) are centrally reporting eternalism transformation encounter, not Unity.

Sledge equates mysticism with Neoplatonism, and says Merkavah mysticism isn’t mysticism if we define “mysticism is Neoplatonism”, but says obviously Merkavah mysticism is mysticism.

Neo-Advaita & Neoplatonism Are Irrelevant Armchair Philosophies Useless for Actual Psychedelic Altered-State Experience; Myth Is Closer and a More Trustworthy Description

Neoplatonism is wrong, a false, poor model – misrepresentative – a poor explanatory framework, delivering little explanatory power, with LOW RELEVANCE to actual altered-state experience.

Diagrams: 4 Models of “Mystical Experience”; 3 Center Unity instead of Eternalism

back page of printout of Taves 2020 article, probably Sunday, Nov. 23, 2025

transcription below

Top of Diagrams Page

transcription:

[key strategy: pay total attention to the] Emphasis [in the various writers’] Use of Unity

Breau [says we should] include dualistic [relational mysticism]

who wrote Stace is covert Christianity? Breau p. 14 bottom: Mosurinjohn & Girn 2023

My [work is like a dissert for] PhD proves Eadwine [Great Canterbury Psalter] threat-driven 2-level, dependent control / eternalism-driven control-transformation, vs. [Breau] only have POV of possibilism / monolithic, autonomous control, including Unity Advaita pantheism with carrying a load of [arbitrary metaphysics additions such as “pure consciousness” – but that’s a mere side-concern which Katz latches onto in order to refute – instead – the common core Unitive theory of mystical experience]

Stace/Pahnke 1960 (Diagram): Neo-Advaita’s Unity Paradigm

Main, Outer Circle: The Center and Boundary of Stace/Pahnke’s Conception of Mystical Experience

Positive Unity

per English Advaita 19th-20th Century Advaita Vedanta Hindu Pantheism.

A Contained, Subset Circle: Where Unity Functions within the Stace/Pahnke Paradigm

No contained circle. Positive Unity is the entire extent of the model.

Notes to the Left of the Stace Diagram

“Western mystical union, Abrahamic, is inferior, indirect; Advaita is superior, direct: Unitive/Unity”

Notes to the Right of the Stace Diagram

Positive Advaita Unity, along with “pure consciousness” , Metaphysics, subtractive explanation; Paradigm.

Notes Below the Stace Diagram

Advaita’s positive unity = mystical experience. “Advaita”, including theory-traits:

  • subtractive explanation
  • a particular, elaborated Metaphysics
  • pantheism

“Phenomenology” According to Neo-Advaita’s Unity Model of Mystic-State Experience

(to the lower left of the diagram)

The “phenomenology” of Positive Advaita Unity; Neo-Advaita: armchair philosophy model treats mystic-state phen’y as nothing other than Positive Unity; the experience of cessation of the mind constructing the self/other boundary experience.

This cessation (this boundary alteration) is Transcendent Knowledge, revelation, gnosis, satori, etc.

The center and boundary: Unity, Unitive, union.

Taves 2020 (Diagram): Unity Includes Negative Valence (Ego Dissolution) as Well as Positive Unity; also Altered Sense of Self Other than Unity

Main, Outer Circle: The Center and Boundary of Tave’s Conception of Mystical Experience

experiences of altered sense of self

Her nominal outer circle is broad “altered sense of self”

Taves gives a few sentences worth of lip service to experiences outside of the Unity paradigm – which she expanded from only positive Unity to also negative Unity ie ego dissolution.

But in practice, her paradigm is nothing more than [expanded] Unity.

She continues centering Unity as the main mystical experience.

A Contained, Subset Circle: Where Unity Functions within the Taves Paradigm

separate alterations in sense of self from valence
+ also negative unity/ ego dissolution, positive unity , valence: positive / negative Unity

the “mysticism” construct

alterations in sense of self

unusual sense of self

change in sense of self

altered sense of the self/world boundary

key word: valence [as in, assumed-positively experienced unity vs. assumed-negatively experienced ego dissolution]

Notes to the Left of the Taves Diagram

Critiques centering “boundary” alteration, like she critiques centering Unity; she wraps “boundary” and “unity” in scare-quotes (which is good to do; a very good sign).

Notes to the Right of the Taves Diagram

  1. Positive Unity
  2. She first adds: Negative Unity [eg ego dissolution] [she clearly does this]
  3. She then adds: Any altered sense of self [not just versions of Unity experience. she’s hazy and advocates this, but doesn’t propose any specific substance – b/c she’s actually limited to the Unity paradigm.]

Notes Below the Taves Diagram

see Phen’y section below

“Phenomenology” According to the “Positive Unity, Negative Unity (Ego Dissolution), and Other Alterations of the Sense of Self” Model of Mystic-State Experience

The “phenomenology” of (nominally: altered sense of self) positive unity and also add negative unity

compare per the Egodeath theory: transformation from:
literalist ordinary-state possibilism with autonomous control
to:
analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control
(actually includes the first, ending up w/ 2 POVs)

Breau 2023 (Diagram): Unity Includes Interpretations Other than the Neo-Advaita Interpretation of Unity

Main, Outer Circle: The Center and Boundary of Breau’s Conception of Mystical Experience

Unity [is the whole circle; the whole of mystical experience: central focus & boundary]

Dualism (relational mysticism); mystical union [emphasiszes “union” to force this into the Unitive paradigm], Abrahamic mysticism & pantheist Unitive

A Contained, Subset Circle: Where Unity Functions within the Breau Paradigm

Neo Advaita (a contained circle eg merely 1 interpretation of Unitive)

One instance of the Unity model (one circle within the global Unity space) is Neo-Advaita.

Breau thinks that Unity is the case, and that Neo-Advaita is to be rejected or demoted as merely one interpretation of “the Unity experience” and not the best interpretation.

But Breau doesn’t suggest any other specific interpretation of “the Unity experience”, which is a red flag proving that his favored concept, Unity, is identical with Neo-Advaita’s notion of Unity.

It’s nonsensical for Breau to reject the Neo-Advaita interpretation of Unity, while advocating some vague, unspecified “real, correct” interpretation of Unity.

Neo-Advaita is precisely the wrong selfsame model as Unity in general, against Breau.

Rejecting Neo-Advaita is practically the same as rejecting the Unity model.

What’s wrong is not merely Neo-Advaita’s interpretation of Unity; what’s wrong is the Unity model altogether.

The Unity model doesn’t need broadening or adjustment; we need to stop using Unity as the model of mystical experience, and put eternalism-driven control-transformation in place of Unity.

Breau wants to broaden — thus entrench even deeper — our commitment to the Unity model, retaining the Neo-Advaita interpretation of Unity, along with any and every other (vaguely hypothesized) model of Unity.

Notes Above the Breau Diagram

[Breau advocates:] “Don’t only focus on Advaita-styled Unity

[when writers employ the Neo-Adv model, they] must explicitly state [that they are using the Neo-] Advaita interpretation, [as an eliminative] subtractive filter [ie elim ASC experiences that don’t fit the Neo-Advaita model, as “non-mystical”].

Notes to the Left of the Breau Diagram

“the Unity state of consciousness” [vs. saying “the Eternalism state of consciousness”]

What does Breau do with negative, challenging experience? negative unity, ego dissolution

Notes Below the Breau Diagram

Mystical experience = the Unity state of consciousness, all versions, not only the Advaita version ie Pantheist Unitive per Advaita

eg union dualistic relational per Abrahamic religions

“Phenomenology” According to the General Unity (not only Neo-Advaita’s) Model of Mystic-State Experience

missing, intended: “phenomenology” of what, in this paradigm? Of the Unity state of consciousness.

Breau critiques using only the Neo-Advaita model of Unity, advocates considering other models of Unity other than Neo-Advaita’s model of Unity – but doesn’t suggest a different model, because in fact, centering Unity is the same thing as Neo-Advaita.

Hoffman 2025 (Diagram): The Central Focus of the Best Mystical Experience is Eternalism-Driven Control-Transformation, not Alleged Eventual Unity

the Hoffman (Eternalism/ Control) Paradigm

Main, Outer Circle: The Center and Boundary of Hoffman’s Conception of Mystical Experience

eternalism-driven control-transformation
eternalism-driven control-transformation
mytheme analogy
2-level, dependent control
best is via psychedelics

A Contained, Subset Circle: Where Unity Functions within the Hoffman Paradigm

Unity [ie, minor, incidental, included but not central nor boundary]

visual distortion

Notes about why have circle showing visual disotrtion: ie, Unity is as unimportant and non-central to mystical experience as mere visual distortion

key, to make sense of OAV dimensions:
Ocean = positive unity;
Angst = negative unity = ego dissolution;
Vision = perceptual distortion

Unity is minor, incidental, included but not central nor boundary.

Unity is as unimportant and non-central to mystical experience as mere visual distortion.

Notes Above the Hoffman Diagram

The essence of mystical experience = eternalism-driven control-transformation

Notes to the Right of the Hoffman Diagram

the Egodeath theory

analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control

Notes Below the Hoffman Diagram

the Egodeath theory

eternalism-driven control-transformation

“Phenomenology” According to the “Eternalism-Driven Control-Transformation” Model of Intense Mystic-State Experience

“phenomenology” of what, in this paradigm? of psychedelics, depicted in the best religious mythology & art & Metal lyrics.
not of cave meditation sensory deprivation;
not of armchair philosophy;
not of academics’ fantasized, outsider constructions.

About the 4 Models of Mystical Experience

In my characterization of the dominant, Unity paradigm, I put ‘Advaita’ first, before ‘Unity’, b/c this model is intensively a whole raft of specific arbitrary philosophies per the neo-Adv. package deal, eg fused with “pure awareness” — such that Katz doesn’t attack unity; he attacks ‘pure awareness’ as a proxy, changing the subject from Unity to awareness.

We can often simply critique “Advaita” instead of “Modern Advaita”; discussing Pop Advaita in current culture. My shorthand for Pop Neo Modern Advaita is just “Advaita”. Actual traditional Advaita is lower relevance for this critique.

It is NOT necessary to deeply analyze Neoplatonism or Advaita in a generous and charitable way, to reject and critique them & how they are used as a safe neutral dummy substitute for the intense mystic altered state.

No matter how great “real Neoplatonism” or “real Advaita” are, they are bogus in that they are used to replace intense mystic altered state by armchair philosophy sky-castles, an avoidance tactic.

The dirty strategy of Neo-Foo is to get rid of the hardest part of control transformation, the mythic peak part, replacing it by elaborate philosophy model of the alleged final, eventual, ultimate, end-state, of positive Unity or harmonious mystical Union.

They are dirty attempts to get God’s mercy, without God’s wrath.

Selling Positive Unity by Censoring Negative Drama of Transformation

Everyone in psychedelics agrees that we need to address risks and not whitewash them. Every article does give some attention to risks – but the Unity paradigm ends up eliminating the risks, exactly as we see in phase 2 of how the the Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) was constructed.

In phase 1 of making the the Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) (“initial item pool”), there was balanced attention to risks.

In phase 2 of making the the Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ), the risks were simply discarded by the Marketing dept, so that the Scoring appendix shows that only 3 of 21 Angst items from OAV 1994 were retained, and there is no explanation of judification of omitting 18 of 21 challenging effects — so they silently deleted eg:

  • OAV 1994 Item 54: I was afraid to lose my self-control.
  • MEQ147/129 per Pahnke 1962: Item 15: Fear of losing control. Deleted from MEQ43, and diluted as an item in the broader SOCQ which had 57 distractor items; the item was replaced by a lame distractor item.

todo: MEQ30: are there now 70(!) “distractor items” in the SOCQ that contains Grifty’s shrunken MEQ30?

ie 30 “mystical” items + 70 “distractor” items = 100 items in revised SOCQ?

This item always silently goes missing:
Dread ETCLOC: the experience of the threat of catastrophic loss of control.

Neoplatonism and Neo-Advaita sell and market God’s mercy and blissful positive Unity/union, by deleting the scary central part – passing through the threat-guarded gate – and denying God’s wrath.

Positive Advaita Unity, along with “pure consciousness” (an arbitrary addition), and a particular entire Metaphysics brand, bolstered by impotent subtractive explanation (and “ineffability” as an excuse, which even Stace couldn’t swallow and he wrote ALLEGED ineffability.

This “Unity” (covert Neo-Advaita) is an entire, narrow, particular Paradigm, a bad, package deal.

Translating OAV’s Dimension Names, to Expose Dittrich’s Use of the Same Old Unity Paradigm

To make sense of OAV dimensions, “decoding” their coded language into what the writers are actually thinking:

Ann Taves exposes that “ego dissolution” is actually firmly conceptualized within the Unitive paradigm; it’s “ego dissolution” as an inexplicable, “negatively valenced” side-effect that often occurs within the Unity experience/ state of consciousness.

The clueless writers in the Unity paradigm attempt to explain ego dissolution — = what we dread = in terms of the Unity paradigm.

O = Ocean = positive unity per the Neo-Advaita model.

A = Angst/Dread “of ego dissolution [sic]” = negative unity = ego dissolution (for when the Neo-Advaita model CONSTANTLY FAILS in actual, psychedelic practice – the inexplicable bad trip is explained as, “it’s your fault, for resisting unity and cessation of the self/other boundary illusion” (per a recent paper)).

Vision = perceptual distortion (the theorists don’t attempt to force visionary perception into their Unity paradigm; these items/effects are treated as non-Unitive)

Walter Stace 1960 Insults and Disparages Western Mysticism, Elevates Crude, Inarticulate Eastern Religious Philosophy Instead

Exposed by Jeffrey Breau 2023 article. Against Mosurinjohn’s 2023 article that claims that Stace overly favored Christian mysticism.

I don’t have her article he cites; I expect it to be as mediocre as a recent Mosur. article I wrote about (probably in email).

Articles Reference:
Moving Past Mysticism in Psychedelic Science (Article Debate Series)
https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/05/15/moving-past-mysticism-in-psychedelic-science-article-debate-series/

Houot Insults and Disparages Western Mysticism, Elevates Crude Sham Instead

Shamans have control in the Psilocybin state.

Western mystics fail to have control in the Psilocybin state.

How do we assess “having control”? Apples and oranges. I assume Western mysticism runs circles around shamanism re: height of development represented in the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}, and in Merkavah mysticism.

Theory-Driven, not Crude Notion of “Evidence” Driven: Reconceiving “Evidence” and “Theory”

I aim for cartoon approximation that has great explanatory power.

I don’t care what happened historically. I’m a theorist, not a historian. Good historiography first needs a good, sound, compelling, coherent theory. Not “more evidence”, crudely conceived.

I’m against dumb focus on “evidence” done with crude Theory.

Critique of the “Positive Unity” Model of “Mystical Experience” vs. the “Eternalism-Driven Control-Transformation” Model

A Development: Instead of Hazily Dismissing the Pop Positive Unity Model of “Mystical Experience” as “a Mere Beginners’ Experience & Model”, I Now Appreciate the False, Unity Model as a Fully Articulated, Detailed, Particular, Dominant, “The Old Theory” (per Thomas Kuhn’s Model of Paradigm Replacement)

It is useful for the Egodeath theory (analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent, 2-level control) to define a specific “the old theory” to help define “the new theory”.

I previously posted a ton against Amanita, Secret Christian Amanita Cult, Eleusis, ergot, … in favor of Explicit Cubensis paradigm;

Canterbury replaces Plaincourault

Forget the Amanita-based proxy lone art, Plaincourault fresco.

Replaced by Great Canterbury Psalter & the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}; following Huggins call for a new proxy image: bet everything, on the single image: Day 3 of Creation, folio f11 of Great Canterbury Psalter by Eadwine.

Mythology, Classic Metal, & the Medieval Art Genre of {mushroom-trees} Corroborate Eternalism-Driven Control-Transformation, and Disconfirm Hindu, Indian, Eastern, Orientalist, Neo-Advaita Vedanta

Everything disconfirms Neo-Advaita.

Many things confirm the Egodeath theory and disconfirm the “Positive Unity” model that’s all-dominant and entrenched (and produced garbage like the Hopkins Religious Leaders study with its Conflicts of Interest section; fake Science for purchase):

  • religious mythology
  • acid Metal
  • Merkavah mysticism
  • the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}

Attack on Neo-Advaita: Anti-Rationality; Inarticulate; Useless; Fantasy-Based; Orientalist; Subtractive Explanation

People are understandably going insane from Pop Advaita propaganda that doesn’t even try to explain anything, like:

  • you don’t exist
  • nothing is real
  • eliminate thinking
  • the mind is an illusion
  • the world doesn’t exist
  • everything is unreal
  • eliminating the self/other boundary = Transcendent Knowledge & enlightenment.

It’s beyond parody.

Subtractive Explanation Is Failure of Model Specification

My term subtractive explanation: Neo Advaita SUCKS because it communicates in vague, inarticulate ways:

“X doesn’t exist”

“the self/other boundary is an illusion that ceases being projected by the mind”

True explanation – a real explanatory model – speaks positively.

Fake pseudo-explanation is parasitical and destructive: it takes mental constructs and then smashes and deletes them, replacing them with inarticulateness, giving the EXCUSE of “ineffable” and “beyond description”. FAIL.

Ways of Thinking of Eastern Peoples (Nakamura, 1981)

Ways of Thinking of Eastern Peoples: India, China, Tibet, Japan
East-West Center Press
Hajime Nakamura, 1981 (revised edition)
https://www.amazon.com/Ways-Thinking-Eastern-Peoples-Translation/dp/0824800788/

My mood or inspirational mood lately is to DUMP on [Psychedelic] Sham [anism] narrative, and DUMP on Eastern religion.

I want to cast Neo Advaita in the worst possible light, which is all too easy.

Against Ken Wilber (Yet More Covert-Advaita)

Given that what Ken Wilber is selling, a bunk product, is Neo Advaita, it’s bad that he doesn’t make that clear.

Even before my Jan. 1988 breakthrough — since 1986 — it was obvious that Ken Wilber had severe limitations.

Wilber presents an elaborate, 16-stage developmental model built around a bunk engine, of covert Neo Advaita.

Advaita = Pop Nonduality; Late 1800s Covert Transnational Political Unity Disguised as Mystical Experience

‘Advaita’, especially Modern Advaita or Neo Advaita, means a certain particular package deal of Eastern non-thinking; Advaita means non-duality, of a very particular brand and flavor with a ton of useless and alien metaphysics]

text messages today, Nov. 26, 2025, [todo: Turkey emoji] sent to A. about the comeuppance and poetic justice, the Hopkins disaster article about 2015 psilocybin Religious Leaders study:
https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/11/27/metal-merkavah-mysticism-the-perfect-antidote-to-fake-neo-advaita-positive-unity-sledge-2025/#text-message-thread-wed.-nov.-26-2025

“Author Disclosure Statement” Section of Hopkins Religious Leaders Study

Would you like to purchase some Science Conclusions?

The psilocybin was ingested in 2015 [confirm].
The article was published in May 2025.

Copy/pasted from .pdf, formatting added:

Article title:
Effects of Psilocybin on Religious and Spiritual Attitudes and Behaviors in Clergy from Various Major World Religions

Author Disclosure Statement (p. 17-18)

“The Johns Hopkins Medicine Institutional Review Board (JHM IRB) conducted an audit of the JHU site (IRB00036973—“Effects of Psilocybin-facilitated Experience on the Psychology and Effectiveness of Professional Leaders in Religion”) and concluded that the following must be reported to all journals and disclosed in all publications where data related to this study may be published:

(1) There were two unapproved study team members, one who was also a study funding sponsor, directly engaged in the research.

(2) There was an additional approved study team member whose role as a
funding sponsor of the study was not disclosed to the IRB and who directly led the qualitative analysis.

(3) Conflicts of interest related to the two individuals who were engaged in the research and also served as funding sponsors were not appropriately disclosed nor managed.

(4) The funding sponsorship for this study was not disclosed
to the JHM IRB.”

Planned/Needed Posts

Inventory of {balance scale} Motifs in Great Canterbury Psalter

https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/06/11/eadwine-images-in-great-canterbury-psalter-commentary-interpretation/#balance-scale
Sunday, Nov. 30, 2025: I finally added pictures in that section.
todo: each folio image (8x) should have a detailed zoom crop and the full image crop.

Conflicts of Interest (“Author Disclosure Statement”) in Hopkins “Religious Leaders Study”

Maybe post an article specifically about the Conflicts section of Hopkins article, it’s that much of an important milestone for Kitchens to document psychedelic pseudo science. See present article, section:
“Author Disclosure Statement” Section of Hopkins Religious Leaders Study
Would you like to purchase some Science Conclusions?

Slagging on Ken Wilber

I’m slightly disgusted (since before 1988) with Ken Wilber. A long time ago (though seemingly recently), I posted at Egodeath Yahoo Group revealing that Ken Wilber is nothing but warmed over, junk Advaita that totally fails to deliver its vague, mirage-like, ever-receding promises.

Wilber’s airplane never gets off the ground, and never can, inherently, because his engine is bunk: Neo Advaita.

The Death of Hopkins Psychedelic Mystical Science Is an Opportunity for Eternalism-Driven Control-Transformation

December 1, 2025

Don’t battle competitors; wait for them to fail on their own, just keep standing while the bad theories fall.

The Advaita Positive Unity model of “mysticism” is a bad, failed, irrelevant, useless theory with a hidden political agenda, lacking psychedelics (Vivek 1893 – Stace 1960, taken up by Leary/Pahnke 1962, through Griffiths 2025 TERMINUS). My collegauees …. 3 names I try to recall:

Wm Richards (w/ W Pahnke)

Thom Robts – i preordered his book and “hated” it; puzzled over why does this book leave me utterly cold? Doubt I posted a review at https://www.amazon.com , b/c I couldn’t figure til lately, why I hated it. Recent answer: b/c it’s Neo Advaita Positive Unity, a false model of Transcendent Knowledge.

CSP

I now relate to the article title “Moving Past Mysticism” in a new way: we in Psychedelic Science indeed must move past “Mysticism” Misconceived as Centered on Nondual Unity.

I’m firmly committed to maximal entheogen theory of religion. If it’s not psychedelic, it’s not real religion.

Any exceptions prove the rule.

Spare me the cliche from every lame academic, “other methods can/ could/ might/ may produce same effect as 10 hits of acid” – to the extent that’s true, that’s irrelevant and inconsequential, and beside the point.

By far the main point of reference is ingesting the flesh of Christ, the Teacher of Righteousness.

I made that move in 1997 summary spec, listing psychedelics alongside schizophrenia.

I am hypocrite but I can justify why I wrote that, better justification than other writers have.

My 1988 theory, summarized in 1997, is FIRMLY from study of psychedelics, NOT substantially coming from meditation or drumming (rhythmic driving) or dancing or hyperventilation or not of hyperventilation during cave meditation sensory deprivation while dancing, chanting, and drumming after fasting [I here mock by piling up & summing, every stupid academic theory at the same time].

My point, and view, didn’t change from 1988 to 1997, and that remains a fair point.

I don’t deny that other ways sometimes produce same effect as high dose psychedelics – but that’s of little importance or relevance.

I do not give a public professaion of faith like every academic, for purpose of appeasing critics.

Unlike academics, I don’t “punch radical” by saying “Some ppl go too far by saying only psychedelics work; other ways can/ could/ might/ may produce psychedelic effects.”

I don’t market myself as more trustworthy and moderate, by lowering psychedelics and elevating other ways. I loathe that strategy and self-marketing.

I am committed to being the most radical and extreme, not allowing evil future-me to be more radical.

Other ways give a tiny glimpse of a weak psychedelic experience, no more than that.

Non-drug methods fail to deliver the full eventual control transformation that psychedelics potentially deliver and sometimes do deliver.

I hold, in 2025 as in 1988: the best mystics, best art, best myth, best shamanism, comes from none other than psychedelics.

That’s the best shape and balance of the best theory of entheogen scholarship and mental model transformation.

It is indeed noteworthy that the mind can produce same state — to some extent — without psychedelics, but that is no more than a minor side point, and we MUST keep the focus firmly centered on none other than psychedelics.

Do not elevate other ways to same high level as psychedelics; do not lower psychedelics to the same level as other ways. Psychedelics utterly and totally tower over other ways.

Johnson’s right that psychedelic pseudo science must move past “mysticism” – b/c every time any of those articles say “mysticism”, they do not mean mysticism; they mean Neo-Advaita.

I mean Neo-Advaita in a looser, more informal sense than the Wiki article of that title, that’s more narrow and specific.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Advaita

Deliver a Successful Explanatory Model of Psychedelic Eternalism-Driven Control-Transformation [PEDCT]

For that purpose, chronology revisionism (subtract 700 revolutions of the Earth between 1 AD & 2000 AD) is outer periphery, non-essential. Inner periphery: …. revisit the 4 onion layers now with failure of Hopkins in mind.

Ahistoricity of religious founder figures is peripheral not Core, for the Egodeath theory. Add Mister Jesus, and the Egodeath theory remains basically the same.

The Hopkins Faceplant of Psychedelic Pseudo Science Is an Opportunity for Transformative Rebirth of the Field of Cognitive Psychedelics

December 1, 2025

The Doorway / Guarded Gateway of Cognitive Psychedelics is, experience of the threat of catastrophic loss of control.

Replace Neo-Advaita’s Paradigm/ Worldview/ Project by Plain Scientific Model of Possibilism experiential mode psychedelic eternalism eternalism-driven control-transformation Steering by the Stars of:

  • Psychedelic Experience (More Like OAV [Ocean/ Angst/ Vision] 1994 than Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) 1962) and
  • The Best Religious Mythology (including the best religious art ie the art which best analogizes psychedelic eternalism-driven control-transformation.

Stace 1960 Positive Unity model of “mystical experience” is an entire Game: with its own internal

  • system of value judgment; its own
  • definition of the goal of the game;
  • what are we to aspire to;
  • what’s the goal of Transcendent Knowledge,
  • what’s the standard reference to look to, to define what Transcendent Knowledge should be? A paradigm; worldview; game; value-system; purpose in life.
  • A set of questions, answers, standards of reference, objectives, rules, and end-state.

Why are we here?

  • Per Neo-Advaita: to experience lack of self/other boundary.
  • Per the Egodeath theory (psychedelic eternalism): eternalism-driven control-transformation; mental model transformation from possibilism to eternalism (to end up w/ 2 POVs).

“The best religious mythology” includes the best religious diagrammatic art, ie:

  • Great Canterbury Psalter – eg f134 row 1, left 2/5, ie, what John Lash uploaded around 2008, re-found by me mid-Nov 2020: that portion in particular was a God-send, confirming the Egodeath theory — like what I wished for from Jesus & Paul in 1998 before those figures instantly became mythic-only.
  • the medieval art genre of {mushroom-trees}
  • branching-message mushroom trees;
  • {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs

[funny, i only remember the finger muscle memory of [m b h s] keyboard shortcut – i remember the location of the keys, not which letters or motif-words]

Text Message, December 1, 2025

final nail in coffin, for Pop Psychedelic pseudo science, as far as im concerned, is the conflicts of interest in the Hopkins Religious Leaders Study – where the industry leader, J Hopkins Medical, faceplanted-to-death.

that failure, like an ego death, cleared the way for what regrouping/ reframing/ rebirth opportunity?

past tense: what WAS the Vivek/ Theosophy/ Stace model of “mystical experience”?

A life philosophy, set of values, outlook, & transnational political philosophy; a Trojan horse, grand narrative that took advantage of / leveraging “mysticism”, up to Stace 1960

Pahnke 1962 folded that model (master narrative of What Transcendent Knowledge Is All About) into psychedelic science

the latter agenda is, according to Christian whistleblower /critic/ watchdogs, to replace Christianity by a new, global religion

Phase 1: engineer a political-tuned scheme around “mysticism” – culminated in Stace 1960. book Phil & Mysticism (out of print, its so outdated)
Phase 2: add: psychedelic, leveraging Big Pharma; started with Pahnke 1962.

am i merely, narrowly quibbling over what “mystical experience” should most accurately mean? or, replacing an entire covert-agenda PROJECT of social engineering??

what should we care about, in mysticism / psychedelc alt-state/ religious mythology?

what is the best source of truth for defining what sort of scope of theory to construct?

Discard the Theosophy Modern Advaita Agenda & its value-system (killed by Hopkins Religious Leaders Study fiasco a few months ago); replace that by a sufficiently encompassing paradigm that sails by the stars of:

psychedelic experience (per OAV 1994 questionnaire)

religious myth as analogy describing the best, peak asc

Since the English-translated, Transnational paradigm died in Johns Hopkins (even the topmost inner circle of Roland Griffiths & Matthew Johnson imploded!), what replacement opportunity is there, to Reset?

[WHAT DATE OF DISASTER HOPKINS ARTICLE? May 31, 2025 – same day as my church’s inaugural yurt gongs event!
https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/05/15/moving-past-mysticism-in-psychedelic-science-article-debate-series/#Effects-of-Psilocybin-on-Religious-and-Spiritual-Attitudes-and-Behaviors-in-Clergy

The day the Psychedelic Nondual Unity model of “mystical experience” died.]

Form a model of how the mental world model transforms, centered on the transformation process – not centered on the idealized, alleged, final, ultimate, tranquil Unitive nondual state.

In Jan 1988, I said: Here is a way to absolutely cancel egoic thinking and transform to another specific model, far more than the [Theosophy] Neo Advaita brand of “nondual Unitive” concern that’s driving the Journal of Transpersonal Psychology & Ken Wilber.

Separation = Bad Trip = Ego Dissolution = Non-Mystical Experience, in Breau’s Paradigm

If mystical = positive Unitive, non-mystical = negative Separative.

Every word, as used by a paradigm, is a paradigm-loaded code word:

  • “multiplicity”
  • the self/other boundary
  • self = boundary = the separate self
  • mystical experience (= the Positive Nondual Unitive experience, AS conceptualized by Theosophy Neo-Advaita – welded together, as a package deal, with a Trojan horse-load of arbitrary additional metaphysics premises: “pure awareness”, “ineffability”, “common core” [a good idea, badly implemented]; “the perennial [armchair] philosophy”, etc.)

Every word and phrasing that I employ, is loaded carrying the Egodeath theory.

See Also

Walter Pahnke 1962/1963 PhD thesis
Asserts the 1960 Stace narrow concept of mystical experience; asserts Neo-Advaita nondual, suspension of the self/other boundary = mystic-state enlightenment & Transcendent Knowledge.
Unitive Mysticism, shuts out Relational Mysticism [eternalism with 2-level, dependent control depicted in Great Canterbury Psalter f177 and f107 (lifted up by God/Christ)]
Drugs and Mysticism: Psychedelic Drug Experience and the Mystical State (Pahnke, 1963)

Alan Houot 2019 Masters thesis
Asserts: Shamanism good, mysticism bad
Toward a Philosophy of Psychedelic Technology: An Exploration of Fear, Otherness, and Control (Houot, 2019)

Ann Taves 2020
Asserts: Mystical positive unity should be considered together with non-mystical, negative, ego dissolution [resistance to removal of the self-other boundary]
Mystical and Other Alterations in Sense of Self: An Expanded Framework for Studying Nonordinary Experiences (Ann Taves, May 2020)
https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/05/15/moving-past-mysticism-in-psychedelic-science-article-debate-series/#mystical-and-other-alterations-in-sense-of-self-an-expanded-framework-for-studying-nonordinary-experiences-taves-2020

Jeffrey Breau 2023
Psychometric brahman, psychedelic science: Walter Stace, transnational Vedanta, and the Mystical Experience Questionnaire (Breau & Gillis-Smith, Nov. 2023)
https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/05/15/moving-past-mysticism-in-psychedelic-science-article-debate-series/#psychometric-brahman

Unknown's avatar

Author: egodeaththeory

http://egodeath.com

Leave a comment