marijuana and energy

[Cruel Tendencies]

Well, marijuana and energy work is like this... Extreme meditative states are often referred to as "ecstatic" or "ecstasy" and it's because we're the most receptive to influences and forces when we're feeling good.  The extra dopamine that marijuana brings out actives your "pleasure/receptiveness" system, so you can better feel the underlying current of the world.  

Your psychic faculties open up -- you can feel the energy more powerfully, you can receive more creative thoughts and feelings.  The downfall is, of course, one can easily become dependant on it in order to access those states of consciousness.  The benefit of training the mind to enter those states without the use of drugs not only means you're not dependant on anything, but that you can also focus and control the forces you're receiving, instead of just being open to them.

In my opinion, since the topic of ethics is being touched upon, there's nothing wrong with smoking if that's what makes you happy.  It just so happens, though, that generally as one progresses along whatever spiritual path they've chosen, things like drugs and temporary altered states lose their appeal as real happiness and joy are experienced more and more.


Paul

[beavis]

Reason _{We can't see atoms. But how do you explain an atomic bomb? From your reasoning it seems you don't think atoms exist... come on. How do you explain scientists knowing that water is made up of 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen atoms? How do you explain any of the sciences?}

Probably something that behaves like atoms exists, but many things could exist that act like atoms but are not atoms, like a simulation of an atom in "the matrix".

_{While you are at it, why don't you tell people who they can't prove love. Tell people how they can't prove sadness. Tell people they can't prove any other emotion that everyone on earth experiences because there is no math and logic explanation, the lifeblood of you're reasoning.}

I dont require math, logic, or proof to think something exists, but it helps. I think you misunderstand what I first said about math and logic: Nothing can be 100% proven except purely theoretical things = math or logic.

_{What is wrong with the question "What if?" Doesn't it make more logical sense that someone created the universe then all by chance? Do you think that the universe just popped into existence out of nothing? If you see a rabbit hop around you do you think that it just popped into existence, or do you think that it came from it's hole? Take this into account.}

I dont have a problem with "what if...". I do have a problem with blind assumptions. No I dont think it makes more sense to have a creator. There are assumptions for that to make sense that I dont assume: Time exists everywhere. AND There was some time that nothing existed. AND Things must have a reason to exist.

_{Why must there be a first cause? Because if there isn't, then the whole universe is unexplained}

Better to be unexplained than explained incorrectly. I think it is likely that this is true: Time is a specific shape of a network of connected energies, but other energies of the same type can be organized nonlinearly into something that does not resemble time. In this network, cause/effect does not have to exist. Your examples do not contradict this. They only apply in our locally linear part of this nonlinear network. The linear part is not a good place to look for information about the nonlinear (biggest) part (where it came from, etc).

_{"I was making a blanket statement. It is never true that I must believe something because everyone else believes it."
I agree, but does that mean that the belief is not worth your time? It seems you are implying that it is not.}

It is less likely to be worth my time.

_{I agree that you shouldn't trust anything off the bat. But I can hardly believe that you are asking me to prove that the earth is round. You are fighting an uphill battle. Please, admit this to me, you do believe that the earth is round right?}

Earth is probably round, but it is possible earth is flat. Have YOU seen its roundness with your own eyes?

_{I am thinking to myself right now of something I can't prove with logic. I am talking good logic here by the way. I can't think of anything right now. Why don't you use your logic and admit that things without math can be proven.}

Here's something you cant prove:
Prove that time goes forward instead of backwards, because it could be this way:
All the laws of physics are the reverse of what we think.
The future is set and our experience, actions, thoughts, and anything else that appers to react in a forward time direction, are dependent variables on the future that already exists. The past is the independent variable. The timeline is built future to past. Because everything is reversed, there is no perceptual difference between this way and forward time.
Prove its not true.

[Reason]

"Probably something that behaves like atoms exists, but many things could exist that act like atoms but are not atoms, like a simulation of an atom in "the matrix"."

The word atom is just the name we chose to call these things.  Just like a spanish would say frio and an english person would say cold.  Why not make things easy for yourself and call these things that "act like atoms" atoms.

It seems as if you don't trust your own senses.  You taste/smell/feel/hear/see things but it seems as if you choose not to trust any.  That seems a bit absurd to me.  If one can't trust the tools they use to perceive the real world, then what can they use?  As you said, you don't trust outside sources, and now it seems you don't trust your own senses.  It doesn't make much sense to me.

These are statements that I quoted from you in your previous posts.

"I dont require math, logic, or proof to think something exists, but it helps. I think you misunderstand what I first said about math and logic: Nothing can be 100% proven except purely theoretical things = math or logic."

And

"It has been proven that nothing but math and logic can be proven, therefore, proof is irrelevant. It can only be shown that one thing is more likely than an other."

It seems as if you are on both sides of the fence, pick one.  First you say that proof is irrelevent, but then you say you don't require proof but it helps.  I give you proofs and you say that they are irrelevent.  You tell me my proofs are "blind" and "easy to refute", then you come back to me and say that proofs can help.

"I dont have a problem with "what if...". I do have a problem with blind assumptions."
What blind assumptions are you speaking of?  What I have said thusfar makes logical sense.  If you don't believe me, read the quotes again and actually think about it.

"No I dont think it makes more sense to have a creator. There are assumptions for that to make sense that I dont assume: Time exists everywhere. AND There was some time that nothing existed. AND Things must have a reason to exist."
Firstly, why don't you think it makes sense for there to be a creator?  There is a beginning to everything, right?  You read the analogy I quoted about the train having to have an engine pulling it right?  It makes sense.  

Please answer me why you don't think that time exists everywhere, and that there was a time that nothing existed, and that things must have a reason to exist.

"Better to be unexplained than explained incorrectly."
I disagree, atleast if we explain things we have a chance to learn from our mistakes.  Take Edison for example.  Better yet, let me quote him.
"Results? Why, man, I have gotten lots of results! If I find 10,000 ways something won't work, I haven't failed. I am not discouraged, because every wrong attempt discarded is just one more step forward....  There are no rules here, we're just trying to accomplish something. Surprises and reverses can serve as an incentive for great accomplishment."
When we are given explanations, they can either make sense or they don't make sense, they are either correct, or incorrect.  These explanations are worth having because it gives us a chance to think about something we may have never thought before.  We have a chance to make the wrong explanations right, or the right ones better.  

"Time is a specific shape of a network of connected energies, but other energies of the same type can be organized nonlinearly into something that does not resemble time. In this network, cause/effect does not have to exist. Your examples do not contradict this. They only apply in our locally linear part of this nonlinear network."
I don't fully understand this statement, if you could break it down for me, I would appreciate it.  

"linear part is not a good place to look for information about the nonlinear (biggest) part (where it came from, etc)."
Well given that we human beings live in a linear world, wouldn't it be a good place to start?

"Earth is probably round, but it is possible earth is flat. Have YOU seen its roundness with your own eyes?"
Yes, I see the roundness all the time, but since the curveture of the earth is so miniscule to my field of vision I wouldn't actually see the curve.  Take an iceberg for example.  It moves all the time, but you can't see it move because it moves so slow.

Also, you want proof that the earth is round?  Start from where you live and walk/swim/whatever in a straight line, after a certain amount of time I guarantee you that you will end up in the same spot.


"Here's something you cant prove:
Prove that time goes forward instead of backwards, because it could be this way:

All the laws of physics are the reverse of what we think.
The future is set and our experience, actions, thoughts, and anything else that appers to react in a forward time direction, are dependent variables on the future that already exists. The past is the independent variable. The timeline is built future to past. Because everything is reversed, there is no perceptual difference between this way and forward time.
Prove its not true."
You can't prove that it is true, that statement is just conjecture at this point.

You just did remind me of something though that really intrigued me.  I was thinking of the akashic records, and about other places where you get glimpses in the future from.  I was thinking, how can I be shown the future?  What if it has already happened and I am yet to play out the part which has already been set?  

Of course when you see the future, it is subjective, especially when you have doubts, and/or preconceptions, and even high hopes.  But still, if the akashic records is a record, as the name implies, when I get  a prophetic message from it that really happens, could it be possible that it has already happened as I am getting the message of the future?

It is very interesting, and kind of scary at the same time.  It makes me feel like Neo in The Matrix when he talks about how he doesn't like the idea of living a life where he isn't in control of his destiny.

[beavis]

Reason _{The word atom is just the name we chose to call these things. Just like a spanish would say frio and an english person would say cold. Why not make things easy for yourself and call these things that "act like atoms" atoms.}

Many kinds of things can "act like atoms" but only 1 kind of thing can be an "atom".

_{It seems as if you don't trust your own senses. You taste/smell/feel/hear/see things but it seems as if you choose not to trust any. That seems a bit absurd to me. If one can't trust the tools they use to perceive the real world, then what can they use? As you said, you don't trust outside sources, and now it seems you don't trust your own senses. It doesn't make much sense to me.}

When new measuring tools (like microscope or particle collider) are invented, old tools that were thought to give accurate results are understood to not be accurate or only give an interpreatation. My senses are measuring tools. I dont need to wait until new senses are available to know the current senses are not accurate.

<sub>These are statements that I quoted from you in your previous posts.

"I dont require math, logic, or proof to think something exists, but it helps. I think you misunderstand what I first said about math and logic: Nothing can be 100% proven except purely theoretical things = math or logic."

And

"It has been proven that nothing but math and logic can be proven, therefore, proof is irrelevant. It can only be shown that one thing is more likely than an other."

It seems as if you are on both sides of the fence, pick one. First you say that proof is irrelevent, but then you say you don't require proof but it helps. I give you proofs and you say that they are irrelevent. You tell me my proofs are "blind" and "easy to refute", then you come back to me and say that proofs can help.</sub>

Proof (the 100% kind) is irrelevant because it doesnt exist, so i cant require it. The Proof that "can help" is not proof but is similar to proof (99% proof). That kind of proof can make me think something is more likely.

_{Firstly, why don't you think it makes sense for there to be a creator? There is a beginning to everything, right?}

I do not agree with your ASSUMPTION that there is a beginning to everything. I've already explained my theories about time.

_{Please answer me why you don't think that time exists everywhere, and that there was a time that nothing existed, and that things must have a reason to exist.}

By default, I think NOTHING. That is all the reason I need to not think those things. If I go to a few other star systems, and a few more places in astral and see time in all of them, I will think it is more likely (but not proof) that time exists everywhere. But I have seen that time doesnt exist in some parts of astral.

_{"Better to be unexplained than explained incorrectly."
I disagree, atleast if we explain things we have a chance to learn from our mistakes.}

Its ok to be wrong or guess, but you shouldnt say that you're right.

_{I don't fully understand this statement, if you could break it down for me, I would appreciate it.}
It would be very hard to describe exactly what I mean, but here's an analogy instead: Linear time is similar to a chain of neurons in your brain. One leads to the other. It is certain which neuron causes the next to fire. The nonlinear network is similar to the whole brain frozen in 1 instant of our time with all its levels of charge in the neurons. We have no idea which neuron caused what charge in that single moment that it exists.

_{Well given that we human beings live in a linear world, wouldn't it be a good place to start?}

Can a mouse know how a bird flies by thinking in terms of its hole in the wall? Start with the mousehole. Its the best place.

Humans already started thousands of years ago. If that was the best place to start is not relevant. Where should we finish/continue?

_{Yes, I see the roundness all the time, but since the curveture of the earth is so miniscule to my field of vision I wouldn't actually see the curve. Take an iceberg for example. It moves all the time, but you can't see it move because it moves so slow.}

You didnt see the roundness. I dont care why.

_{Also, you want proof that the earth is round? Start from where you live and walk/swim/whatever in a straight line, after a certain amount of time I guarantee you that you will end up in the same spot.}

How do I know its the same spot if its different when I get there? It must change some in the time it would take me to walk 24000 miles. How do I know I didnt get lost and turned around? Its a long distance and I do that at least every 500 miles. But I dont have time to investigate every little theory. Some people think earth is a cube. I'll investigate that one first if I investigate any of them.

[Reason]

"Many kinds of things can "act like atoms" but only 1 kind of thing can be an "atom"."
True, but, since the properties of an atom that we know thusfar are how we define and catagorize an atom, what is wrong with calling the thing that fulfills all of these definitions and catagorizations an atom?  


"When new measuring tools (like microscope or particle collider) are invented, old tools that were thought to give accurate results are understood to not be accurate or only give an interpreatation. My senses are measuring tools. I dont need to wait until new senses are available to know the current senses are not accurate."
I highly doubt that in our lifetime we will be given new senses that will improve how we perceive our world, so wouldn't it make sense to do with tbe best that we have now?  If the only way to perceive things that are firsthand is with our senses, be it our normal 5 or the other ones that we use with our metaphysical work, wouldn't it make sense to trust them?  It is all we have to go by, so we may as well trust them.  Even you said that you don't trust outside sources.  The thing that you can trust the most is your senses, so you may as well trust them, since they are all you have got.  

Firstly, it seems you contradict yourself.
"Nothing can be 100% proven except purely theoretical things = math or logic."

"Proof (the 100% kind) is irrelevant because it doesnt exist, so i cant require it."

Secondly
"The Proof that "can help" is not proof but is similar to proof (99% proof). That kind of proof can make me think something is more likely."

Doesn't make sense after you say that

"The Proof that "can help" is not proof but is similar to proof (99% proof). That kind of proof can make me think something is more likely."

because:you are saying that you cannot truly prove anything.  I believe you can prove things, as I mentioned before, love for example.

I don't believe that this:
"Can a mouse know how a bird flies by thinking in terms of its hole in the wall? Start with the mousehole. Its the best place."
is a good analogy.

First, there is no motive behind a mouse wanting to know how a bird flies, given the mouse actually has the intelligence to want to know something like that.  The only things a mouse would probably want to know is how to get food, where to sleep and where to get a partner.

"Its ok to be wrong or guess, but you shouldnt say that you're right."
I don't recall ever saying I was right.  The statements I have made are what I believe to be right, but I know that I am not infallible.

"Humans already started thousands of years ago."
According to your logic, it wouldn't matter if humans started last year or a thousand years ago.
"I know pictures of things that dont exist can be created with photoshop. People can lie to your face or in a book. Without using any people, books, or pictures, (because I dont trust them)"

"If that was the best place to start is not relevant."
I don't know why you would say that the best place to start is not relevent.  In any sort of investigation, the starting point is very important.  If you wan't to know about the nature of the crime, you would probably go to the crime scene.  If you wanted to know what a persons traits were you would probably look into records of some kind.
Without the starting point a search for an answer is nearly impossible.  For example, how much luck would you have of finding a video game in a victoria secret store?  Close to 0 probably.

"Where should we finish/continue?"
Well of course we should always keep in mind the finish line, our overall goal.  But to reach our finish line we must start from somewhere.  Where we continue depends on where we start.  When it comes to finding the origin of our existence not only is it a good idea to start in the linear world, but it is necessary.  Our existence is primarily based in the physical world.  This is where the most of our attention is focused.  This is what was shown to us first.  Why are we shown this first?  Why weren't we born as entities in the non-linear world?  

By the way, if someone could, would you explain to me why or why not the astral world is linear or non-linear?

[James S]

Hi Baxarr,

Just thought I'd add something to the original topic of your thread -

Marijuana has different effects on different people. I know most think of it as a relaxing drug, and one of THC's more beneficial properties is as a relaxant, but I know at least one person who gets really aggressive when he smokes. If you're getting good results with energy work it might be because Weed works well with you in that it does relax you well and breaks down the barriers that can prevent good energy flow.

Unfortunately this won't happen with everyone, but your reasoning is pretty sound. It works pretty much the same with me. Actually I might need to go have a couple of tokes before I can get a grip on what Beavis and Reason are on about![?][][?]


James.

[waterflow]

there are more cannabinoid receptors in  the imaginitive (or emotive) hemisphere of the brain. Most people are logically dominated, in other words the scientific hemisphere of there brain is usually dominant. When the smoke weed, the emotive hemisphere is stimulated more than the scientific hemisphere, due to the increased numbers of receptors. This would, in theory, shift the dominance of thought towards the imaginitive or emotive side of the brain. Your imagination, feelings and sensations are the route to your subconcious and unconsious, and we are always told that we should not "think" when doing energy work, we are told that being logical holds us back from our true natural abilities. I hypothesize that when you smoke weed you are better at energy work because it "opens you up" to your feelings and visualisation skills and because you are less prone to "logicallising" which is what holds you back. So there you are baxarr, thats what i think. AS for whether it's right or wrong and the whole ethical debate, who knows. All i know for sure is that weed does improve energy abilities, i have experienced that myself.

[baxarr]

ya i argree , i dont use marijuana for energy work purposely tho , i use it recreationally with friends on the weekends and such , it just happend that i tried some energy work while on it. you shouldent become dependant on drugs to do anything for you but while your on weed you might as well work on energy if you want. once again there is a difference between smoking marijuana for fun and smoking weed for spiritual advancement , the second shouldent be done.

[shedt]

I agree, for myself, if i smoke Marijuana and meditate I can feel the energy sensations better, and have more control over energy movments.

It helps me too switch my awareness. Maybe I have less focus, but that is not a excuse too not try and focus. in a way it is kind of like working out. it is like adding more wieght, and improving by making it a bit harder too focus.

As far is it good or bad. scientific research has shown that it takes around 30,000 joints at once too OD. They have done test on Monkeys, and after having them smoke 200 times the amount a normal person would, for 7 months stright, they BARELY could find any brain damage. miniscule amounts. so it is hard too say. we all create our own reality IMHO, so choose as you must. in the end, i think it does not make a difference which path you choose. we should all end up in the same place

[volcomstone]

reason: wow you sure have allot to say on the subject, i got bored reading it because ive heard the same lectures before.   - you seem rather morally against it now, perhaps you feel people shouldn't have to resort to "recreational" drugs,

as for using marijuana for energy development, i simply tell you what ive experienced, the feelings/sensations of chi are much stronger, you have a remarkable ability to concentrate on nothingness, with little wandering though,

....blah blah blah .....

weed has depressant/hallucinogenic properties, it relax's your mind, as for saying it slows your response time, take ross rebligiati (sp?) canadian snowboarder for slalom downhill, that requires mucho respono timo,,

anyhow..... um yeah, this one time me and my friends ate some insane mushrooms, and we ended up reading eachothers mind like all night long, and yes im well aware of the unacceptability of anecdotal evidence as scientific proof,     but if you continue to think in the terms as our mind being a physiological phenomenon, then you can never fully appreciate how it is a distinct entity from your brain alltogether,

...blah blah blah....

okay yah anyway, like  i said before, our brain wouldn't have cannabinoid receptors if we weren't ment to use them rite? i mean, if it didn't get us high we would be using it for industrial purposes,, ummm

but what I gotta finish on is this,  if you've never smoked weed before, you've never experienced the mindset of someone who has, just like you can never know until you do.

try not do or do not, there is no try

[Reason]

As I may have said before, I did used to smoke constantly.  I am not morally against it.  It just doesn't make sense to me to do it.  I see it as something that detracts from spiritual advancement.  That is all, nothing more or less.

[psiclone]

I smoke bud.  I find that a bowl in the early morning, combined with stretching and breathing exercises brings me to a point where I can completelty observe my mind it's imagery, and energy sensations.  I don't like to project on weed as it makes me feel heavy and it is hard to move around.

I also know that there is a point beyond this where one has their own power to accomplish these things.  Yes, I am able to do these things without weed too.  Maybe one day I will stop smoking.

Crystals also aid in energy work, meditation, and astral projection but you don't want to be too dependant on them either.

Marijuana is not evil.  The intent of the user directs the energy or thoughts for higher or "evil " benefits.

If it helps use it, if it doesn't stop, and if the course has been run get off the track.

[]

[beavis]

Yesterday I smoked some grass (the kind that grows on your lawn) and had energy so strong that it was physically painful. It hurt about as much as scraping a knee on cement. I continued raising energy with this pain for 10-20 minutes to increase my maximum energy capacity.

[jyngem]

Volcomstone said that weed is a shortcut to a meditative state of mind. I agree. But, of course, there is a difference between smoking pot - and get "there", and meditating and get the same place. I've been addictively smoking hasjis quite a while now. The problem is that I don't learn how to fill myself with energy at will when sober, and that's where meditation comes in! It teaches you just that. I'm starting to believe I don't need weed at all.
[]

[pod3]

No new info in my post.

Yes, as I understand, it only activates your body's own chemistry. A psychic will note that hallucenogens do nothing but relieve mental fatigue.  I've tried marijuana several times to find nothing special enough to warrant so much contention, except it's ability, which I've personally seen, to heal the actual conditions causing the pain, from cancers to autoimmune conditions to persistent migrainies - this after light usage.

Within common sense, it is not only harmless, but benificial. However, correct dosages of other, natural, legal narcotics have the same effects. Why do only a few plants tinkle people off, when many are more potent?

Were humans abusing medicines for the side effects, or do we like them, because they're good for us? A good high feels like a depleted person's antioxidant rush. The active principles in these medicines are said to be superantioxidants. Various experimenters tell me that many illicit highs can be reproduced by abusing some of the more innocuous herbal supplements.

Anyone actually see for themselves what the eccentrics (on both sides) are talking about?

[Aphex-twin]

yesterday me and my friend were taking some hits off the bong and a few minutes later i made a visible ki ball and got it oh phtograph on his camera phone

[goku22]

Damn! It took me till song 7 on DMB's "Crash" to read this entire thread. I don't think I even remember it all accurately, so what follows might be hogwash. I was going to say something about rationalization, but it seems moot now, it was probably just a defense mechanism anyway. Weed feels nice, so that's why I've smoked it, but any burned organic material has carcenogenic properties, and I smoked ALOT, so for that reason, and also because I was just plain sick of doing it all the time, I've stopped. Also because I may try to get a job at a place that drug tests. Bad government for banning a useful, basically harmless plant for monetary reasons, where's my belt!? Also, I have friends that can't passs a day without it, though I don't think it's the fault of the plant, just their screwed up minds. I remember Reason saying something about there being nothing to show that love has no survival benefit, so couldn't have come about evolutionarily. I know that he was trying to make a point and it was just an example, but I wanted to say something about that. Humans are genetically built to be social beings, we are dependant on human contact to survive, especially in the ethnic tribal society, which all of humanity used to live in, and which I wish was still prevelant instead of dissapearing because it WORKED. OK, my point, things like love and higher reasoning seem to me to help the entire interpersonal dynamic, thus helping ensure our survival. If we all hated everyone else, we'd die off quick. About that whole reason-beavis thing. I think beavis was just trying to get reason to admit the possibilty of EVERYTHING we experience to be something totally different. Maybe we all just came into being this instant, complete with a set of false memories, and our futures and the feeling of linear progression through time is all an illusion put in our minds all in that one instant. I'm not trying to bust on Reason though, I think his logic was excellent, and I do think that we have no choice but to use what we have (logic, our five senses, sense of time, etc...) in our experience. But I think it's good to always realize that ANYTHING and EVERYTHING is possible, and in my mind, probable.  Oh eyah, one more thing, all those "shoulds" spread around suck butt. There is no one right way to live. No shoulds, no morals, just actions and consequences.  Ben

[sue]

I am soooo gona try meditating the next time im stoned! I think it's probably bad for your astral body too (like everything is) so I've quit smokin nearly everyday like I used to but now like once every month as a treat! I wouldn't know but it's probably better than sex [:I]

[boydster]

I appears to me that smoking dope weakens the auric sheath and eventually allows the formation of holes in it. These holes allow negs to come and go at will in and out of ones aura.

I smoked quite a bit during my teens and early twenties and caused myself a lot of problems. I haven't had a toke for about 20 years now and it took me a lot of work to repair the protective shield on the outside of my aura.

Not only that, but before I had ever smoked I had a straight A grade point average in school. After I started smoking it became a lot harder to remember things and my GPA went down.

If I could do it over, I'd never have touched it. I don't think it's harmless.

[DarkQuest]

sorry if this was already mentioned, (cause i read the first page and just skipped on here) but i saw mentioned a couple times that someone said like you can pretty much hit a state that is like takin weed with meditation or somethin?  im curious how would u go about doin that, id like to try

[beavis]

Reason, sorry for the late reply (page 2) "When new measuring tools (like microscope or particle collider) are invented, old tools that were thought to

give accurate results are understood to not be accurate or only give an interpreatation. My senses are measuring tools. I

dont need to wait until new senses are available to know the current senses are not accurate."
I highly doubt that in our lifetime we will be given new senses that will improve how we perceive our world, so wouldn't it

make sense to do with tbe best that we have now?

Yes it makes sense, but we will misinterpret.


If the only way to perceive things that are firsthand is with our senses, be it our normal 5 or the other ones that we

use with our metaphysical work, wouldn't it make sense to trust them? It is all we have to go by, so we may as well trust

them. Even you said that you don't trust outside sources. The thing that you can trust the most is your senses, so you may as

well trust them, since they are all you have got.

I dont have to trust anything. If you are in a room full of known liars, would you still say you have to trust somebody?

Firstly, it seems you contradict yourself.
"Nothing can be 100% proven except purely theoretical things = math or logic."

"Proof (the 100% kind) is irrelevant because it doesnt exist, so i cant require it."

Secondly
"The Proof that "can help" is not proof but is similar to proof (99% proof). That kind of proof can make me think something

is more likely."

Doesn't make sense after you say that

"The Proof that "can help" is not proof but is similar to proof (99% proof). That kind of proof can make me think something

is more likely."

because:you are saying that you cannot truly prove anything. I believe you can prove things, as I mentioned before, love for

example.

The fact that you dont believe me doesnt show any contradiction. Other than saying "cant you feel it?", I dont think you can

prove love.

"linear part is not a good place to look for information about the nonlinear (biggest) part (where it came from, etc)."
Well given that we human beings live in a linear world, wouldn't it be a good place to start?

That is so lazy! If I was a farmer and I wanted to learn about quantum physics, should I go to a barn?

By the way, if someone could, would you explain to me why or why not the astral world is linear or non-linear?

It is nonlinear because its future can affect its past. Time is undefined. Monroe wrote about meeting himself due to time travel. I have also time traveled, but only for a few seconds.

[Volos]

I've been reading these forums for about a month, but didn't really feel I ahd anything of value to add to most of these conversations since I know I'm a rookie at this stuff and I'm here to learn not preach. But although I am just beginning my journey into meditation and astral projection, I am very experienced in the area of marijuana. And although I agree that it is very difficult to do some types of meditation stoned because of the problems with concentration, I also feel that being a stoner helped particularly my energy work a great deal. The basic tools which underly the NEW method (simualting tactile sensations) were extremely familiar to me, since I did that stuff all the time high. It seemed to me that I was able to accelerate through some of the early stages of this learning process faster since I was refining skills I already knew and learning how to use them properly instead of having to start from square one.

[DarkQuest]

thats pretty interesting to hear.  its nice how you could fly by the basics because you were experienced with weed hehe.  im not sayin everybody here should start takin weed tho lol.  and please check my post at the bottom of page 3, i think nobody read it cuz they always skip to the last page =(

and lastly, welcome to the forum Volos, I hope you enjoy it very much.

[Jon_88]

I guess Drugs can help you medititate ,it can also do the opposite .
I know from experience that it doesnt work the same on all . heck it can even work diffrently each time you use it (on me atleast , same pipe same batch etc).

As for the interesting discussion , my views are much closer to beavis than Reasons .(thought (some?)good points where made by both)

However the last post by Reasons where way off from my reality, espessially about the sences.

"True, but, since the properties of an atom that we know thusfar are how we define and catagorize an atom, what is wrong with calling the thing that fulfills all of these definitions and catagorizations an atom?"

Yes ,your right it matters not now for a "normal" human . However it could matter greatly for anyone who would want to know about the universe itself.  


"I highly doubt that in our lifetime we will be given new senses that will improve how we perceive our world.so wouldn't it make sense to do with tbe best that we have now?"

I think thats VERY hasty to say , perhaps beavis got the same as you but think about all the others that doesnt have the metaphysicals sences you got(their mentioned in original).

Where you born with those ? I myself would think/hope its possible to get those within my lifetime. As for normal sences , they can be amplified(more accurate) , im saving to get my eyes opperated .
I read somewhere that it should be possible to get new sences in the future (like seeing ultra violet) . And it was likely to be in our lifetime also.(might be true ,might not)  

Uhhh ok it will get way long and as interesting as i find thise discussions i dont have time to particiate with more.
Keep it up , Beavis got a good lead in my book =P

[Aries]

I am sorry I didnt read the entire thing. The horrendously long posts about proof and the universe on page 2 discouraged me.
I was under the impression this was about weed, not god the universe and proof?
and proof of proof and proving proof is provable...
-Aries