The term entheogens.

In 1957 H. F. Osmond baptized a wide range of substances

psychoactive - including those discussed in the previous section -
under the name "psychedelics." Later, in 1979, C. A.
P. Ruck, J. Bigwood, D. Staples, R. E. Schultes, J. Ott, and R. G.
Wasson coined the term entheogens to refer to the so-called
psychedelics, including those I designate in this book as EQVE.
The reasons why I reject the etymology of the term entheogens
and I argue against its use can be inferred from what has been said about
the
theme up to now, since it reinforces and consolidates the confusions
reported in the previous section. The English language version
from the online encyclopedia Wikipedia defines the term
entheogens as follows:
The word entheogen is a neologism derived from ancient Greek:
ἔνθεος (entheos) and (genesthe). Entheos literally means
"God (theos) within", but may be more loosely translated
as "inspired." The Greeks used it as a term of praise
towards poets and other artists. Genesthe means "generate." So
Shamanism and Dzogchen

thus, an entheogen is "what generates God (or divine inspiration)

within a person. (…) The literal meaning of the words is «what
that makes God be within an individual. Sometimes it is offered
as a translation 'create the divine within', but it should be noted that
[the term] entheogen does not even imply that something is created (such
as
opposed to perceiving something that is already there) or that what is
experienced
is within the user (as opposed to having an existence
Independent).

This implies that those who coined the term had in

mind substances with the power to induce "internal" experiences
in which something that they experienced as divine was manifested.
For the Judeo-Christian tradition, God is self-sufficient and found in
full coincidence / identity with himself - so that the
qualities of God in this frame of reference are the same as
those of the non-static nirvāṇa in the "higher" forms of Buddhism.
Thus, from this perspective, consider that something generates the
experience
the presence of God is equivalent to considering that the
psychedelics can induce experiences of non-static nirvāṇa88 -
which is what many Westerners with a vague knowledge of
Asian spiritual traditions believed that they made the substances
that expand the focus of conscious attention and thereby induce
states of apparent cosmic union and the like.
Our question is, therefore, the one that gives the article its title
by Roger Walsh (2003), «Entheogens: true or false?»: if it is
or not legitimate to apply the term to EVDs and other drugs universally
considered psychedelic. Being a believer in the indefinite
psychedelic religion, Walsh replied in the affirmative. Now
to. In Sanskrit. apratiṣṭhitanirvāṇa; in tib. minepee myangdé (Wylie, my
gnas
pa’i myang ’das); in ch. (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúzhù nièpán; Wade-Giles,
wu2-chu4 nieh4-p'an2).

The term entheogens

Well, as already noted, God, as conceived by the Judeo-Christian-Muslim
tradition,
is an uncreated creator and, as such, as
happens with the renewal of our true condition in the
nirvāṇa not static, it cannot be produced by any means - ni,
still less, by the mere ingestion of a drug. In what
It concerns feeling the presence of God thus conceived within an individual,
according to Christian belief this can only result from grace
divine nature and therefore cannot be induced or produced in
any way. In short: the Christian God or His presence within
an individual, as with non-static nirvāṇa, simply
cannot be generated and therefore contrary to opinion
from Walsh, this makes the substances under discussion false
as entheogens - at least in both Christian and
Buddhists (the latter, in case by theos we mean "nirvāṇa
not static ').
Stating that “[the term] entheogen neither implies that
something is created (as opposed to something that was already there) or
that is experienced is within the user (as opposed to his
have independent existence) »the author of the Wikipedia entry
replied preemptively to objections that could be expected
of those who: (1) postulate the existence of a self-existent Creator
and uncreated; (2) consider that their presence can only be felt
as the fruit of His grace, and (3) they conceive said Creator as external
to the human individual. Of the two parts of said statement,
the first —that the term entheogen does not imply that something is
believe - can also be used to answer the objection
raised in this book, according to which non-static nirvāṇa does not
can be caused or induced, for according to Buddhism this would make
was produced / caused, composed / conditioned / constructed /
to. Pāḷi bhūta; Skt. nutpada or nutpatti; Tib. kyepa (Wylie, skyes pa).
Shamanism and Dzogchen

made / intentional / fabricateda or bornb, and therefore not

any kind of nirvāṇa, but something conditioned by avidyā and
belonging to the saṃsāra - this being the reason why, as
The Dzogchen teachings make it very clear, their obtaining only
it can occur beyond the cause-effect relationship. However,
to say that the so-called entheogens do not create something contradicts
diametrically the etymology of the term entheogens and, therefore,
Therefore, it invalidates its use to refer to psychedelics. Indeed,
a neologism is coined to designate something when its etymology
responds to what it designates; consequently, if it becomes clear that
its etymology does not correspond to the latter, it invalidates it and,
therefore, the neologism must be discarded. Furthermore, the effect of
substances under discussion contradicts the denial that it is believed or
produce something, for the expansion of the realm of consciousness and
of space-time-knowledge is certainly induced or
produced by the substance.
to. Pāḷi, saṅkhata; Skt. saṃskṛta; Tib. düché (Wylie, ’dus byas).
b. Pāḷi and Skt. jata; Tib. kyepa (Wylie, skyes pa)