I would not doubt Cicero would have said that regarding Eleusian Mysteries. He was a politician during a time when the Caesar was worshipped as a god, and massive bureaucracies of priests evangelized his divinity as "Pontifex Maximus", highest priest of the Roman state religion. Like the Greeks, the Romans had similar initiation rituals and mysteries to inculcate the population into their mythologies espousing Caesar as god. To me, it sounds like Cicero is simply admiring the implementation of the Eleusian Mysteries, the result of which was a "cultivated", "refined", "happy" population -- all synonymous with an obedient population.

Regarding a citation of the Eleusian Mysteries ushering in the dark age, I don't have anything specific other than the fact that they were correlated in time. Since they were mysteries, the curators of which went to great lengths to guard their secrets, facts are hard to come by. Substitute Eleusis for Egyptian magic rituals, the Roman imperial cult, or other state religions, and I think you'll see similar patterns.

But I think it's useful to ask, why did these mystery religions use occulted knowledge? Why keep knowledge from groups of people, if not to keep them in the dark as a means of controlling them? Are these mysteries not akin to the noble lie which Plato discussed in The Republic?

Myths, combined with psychedelic drugs, which provide emotional catharsis and grandiose visions, are an effective way to /mystify/ people. Mysticism, by way of confusing, offers a means to control an individual by providing an opportunity to substitute or suggest the reality the hierophants want their initiates to believe.

This is the opposite of the scientific discovery, reason, and the challenging of traditional authority that marked The Enlightement.

Good point on Cicero's political affiliations. I'm sure that must have greatly influenced much of his writing.

I'm curious if you are at all familiar with the theories Micheal Hoffman discusses at his website egodeath.com

His ideas are extremely difficult to summarize, but they are of great relevance to the issues we are discussing (Eleusis, Egyptian mysteries, Roman state religion, Plato, myths, mysticism, etc)

http://egodeath.com/emperorworshipjesusfigure.htm

http://egodeath.com/index.html#_Myth-Religion_and_Mystic

http://egodeath.com/#_Entheogen_Diminishment_Fallacies_1

This intro page is his attempt at explaining his theory in broad terms: http://egodeath.com/EntheogenTheoryOfReligion.htm

He would probably answer your question "Why did they keep knowledge from groups of people, if not to keep them in the dark as a means of controlling them?" by saying that, while political control was, of course, a real thing in those times, the original function of mystery cults was actually to initiate participants into true knowledge of the transcendent through the use of ritual and entheogenic drugs.

You also might find this interesting: http://csp.org/experience/experience.html

Have you had a unity/mystical/transcendent type experience with chemicals or other methods?

Yes, I'm familiar with Michael Hoffman's egodeath theory, and I agree with many of his historical perspectives and interpretations of religious experience. Like you say, his theory is hard to summarize. Relating to this thread, I think psychoactives can be a double-edged sword used for good or evil. Quoting Hoffman:

> Given that the Empire used entheogenic mystery-religion initiation to dominate socially and oppressively, Christianity used mystery-religion initiation to emancipate/liberate ... The religions of Jesus and Caesar were in a battle over the meaning and application of mystery-religion initiation. It's a battle about what to do with the fact of mystery-religion initiation. [1]

Perhaps there were mystery cults with the best of intentions, such as the Gnostics for example, who would have had good reasons to conduct their initiations in secrecy to avoid persecution. And perhaps psychoactives can be used for "short path enlightenment" as Watts would say, as well as for political control.

What gives me pause for concern is the evidence of deep involvement on the part of the CIA with the drug counterculture. This is the same agency with a history of overthrowing democratically elected governments, conducting heinous psychological experiments on Americans, and not to mention torturing and murdering people around the world. They're simply not to be trusted.

Yet we find the fingerprints of the CIA all over the origins of the so-called psychedelic revolution, even carefully crafting the terms and definitions in which to frame the discussion:

> In the early years of research into these drugs, psychology researchers and military intelligence communities sometimes called them, aside from “hallucinogen,” by the name “psychotomimetic” –which means psychosis mimicking. The word hallucinogen, “to generate hallucinations,” came just a few years before psychotomimetic. The same year that psychotomimetic was created we also saw the creation of the word “psychedelic” – which means “to manifest the mind.” The last stage of this etymological evolution, as we’ll see, was the word “entheogen” – which means “to generate god within.”

The word "entheogen" was a creation of Wasson and Ruck [2], which has the intended effect of framing discussions about psychoactives as spiritual phenomenon. Like Leary said, it's all about set and setting.

Jan Irvin, a researcher in this field who I quoted above, has said that "mysticism is the tool of tyrants". It's hard to find cases in history of mysticism liberating individuals with so-called true knowledge. Usually, it's been the opposite: rational, scientifically-based discovery has been the liberator from superstition, ignorance, prejudice, and authority.

I'll definitely check out csp.org since this is an area of interest for me. And I'd be happy to talk about experiences via an email discussion with you at donald dot ness at gmail dot com.

[1] http://www.egodeath.com/SocioPoliticalResistanceAsThematicLa... [2] http://www.gnosticmedia.com/Entheogens_WhatsinaName_Psychede...

Nitpick: Cicero was murdered on 7 December 43 BC. Julius Caesar wasn't deified until 1 January 42 BC, several weeks later.

That's an interesting point. It seems that Cicero would have been between a rock and a hard place, on the one hand advocating republican ideals, and on the other appearing loyal to Caesar in the midst of imperial ambitions.