as far as mairjuana being evil , gimmie a break dude , as long as your responsible and mature you should be allowed to smoke crack till your hearts consent , we're here to experience things in life.
No! You are here to conform and be part of the cult called society, and we dont allow independent thinking! Drugs are evil!
LOL!!!!
Well i used to do marijuana for meditation and OBE but i dont do it anymore. I agree that it is wrong and only make you belive wha tu wana belive. And somthing i just wana say
Man made crack, god made pot. Who do you trust more?
Didnt "god" also make poisonous spiders? Eat a few of those and see who you trust.
Man made aspartame, god made sugar.
Man made nuclear bombs. "God" made a giant ball of fire that consumes planets. Who do you trust to do your killing?
One of the effects of marijuana is loss of focus and attention span.
I've found that trying to do any aura or chakra work while under the influence tends to get side-tracked and/or ends up poorly done.
(I'm old, with a wonderfully mis-spent youth.[:P])
Loss of focus is good. Focus is what keeps you on earth.
hehe :) , think about what your sayin dude , 'loss of focus' , thats the entire reason we smoke mairjuana :) , not to be a genious for the next 2 hours , all those effects are temporary. as far as marijuana making you belive what you whanna belive , we do that anyways , if your not interested in marijuana you dont have to do it , same with all drugs , its just a matter of what we think is fun or not. you have to not let it captivate your life and just use common sense. artifical euphoria can be bliss when you need it. but who says its artifical.
also 'the god made pot man made beer' stuff or whatever , god also made posion ivy.
<grin>
Well... actually, the Sumerian Goddess Ninkasi invented beer.
[;)]
Weed messes with my heartbeat too much, I had to quit. Plus I couldn't block out empathy or telepathy and I was starting to get overwhelmed... it severely damages your astral body as well. In my experiences weed is a very extreme double-edged sword.
For energy work it increases sensations but damages at the same time. In the end it does nothing but give you temporary sensitivity. You should learn to attain the state of 'being stoned' without weed. Then it starts to get fun. [:D]
I am being a hippocrite, I just quit smoking weed myself. Everything I just said is just my opinion and what I need to do. Maybe it's different for others... but I think in the end, when you evolve spiritually more, there will be absolutely no need for weed. If you're in a state of bliss all the time, why smoke weed?
weed serves only the purpose of watching the matrix or listening to music for me. absolutely no shape or form do i use it for anything more then entertainment, spiritual advancement should take place without drugs. i was just dropping a line on my experience while doing chakra work while stoned. also if you use weed wisely i think it can have the oposite effect of what you said and refresh your brain by letting it play for an hour a week, become a kid again inside your mind with imagination. its refreshing. but again this has nothing to do with spiritual advancement, dont rely on drugs to aid you in that area.
I recently quit smoking, I was a pot head for a long time. It's cool if it makes you creative, but it made me stupid. My creativity all but disappeared, and I had no focus. I can't think anything to do or so on it, but it does make my heart chakra pulse pretty hard, which is why I think people think their heart is beating faster.
If you check your pulse, your heart is most likely fine, it's your chakra goin nuts.
since im new here ill keep my opinions less antagonistic.
first off weed has been known since the sumerians, i think we evolved along with it as it evolved with us. it is such a unique plant with very anthropomorphic qualitys (the leaves are considered to be palmmate- palm -hand) any how, I understand the concept of altered mind state, and that is exactlyy whut u r doin every time you meditate, weed then could be considered a shortcut, any how i lost my oint because im stoned.... 420
ps robert bruce described a level in the astral plane where animals plants and crystal "spirits" exist, and a higher plain where the human thought concept of an animal, or plant which we are familiar with, like a pet, or a house plant.
weed probally resides in both of these domains
Whenever I read these posts about drugs and how they are okay I think of my psych class, and one of the terms I learned in it. The term is rationalization. Rationalization basically means that you are making an excuse or something seem OK because you don't want to face the unattactive truth.
At my level of understanding, this is what I believe the truth is concerning drug abuse. It is enjoyable, I used to smoke pot. You can feel a lot more, and your mind feels very interesting. You can become more creative when you are on it. But you can also become more dumb. In the long run, I think we all know that even pot will harm us. It is like taking steroids, when we are on it, we can get a boost, but when we get off, we are worse off better then we started. Someone may come back at me and say something along the lines of "I just use it to get me going, I don't abuse it." But think to yourself, do you really want to have to lean on a crutch like that? It is an expensive crutch at that, the money that you spent on it could probably be spent better somewhere else. You could spend that pot money on a tai chi class, or something that achieves a similar end to pot (if your goal was a stimulated mind/energy work)
"Man made crack, god made pot. Who do you trust more?"
Does that justify smoking weed? That is like saying that since other people kill each other, it makes it OK for me to punch you in the face, since it doesn't do as much damage. Also, who said the purpose of weed is to smoke it? To whoever it may apply, stick this in your pipe and smoke it (couldn't resist) "Industrial hemp thrives without herbicides, reinvigorates the soil, requires less water than cotton, matures in three to four months, and can potentially yield four times as much paper per acre as trees" http://www.joeyo.net/politics/Industrial hemp.htm
"Didnt "god" also make poisonous spiders? Eat a few of those and see who you trust."
Heh, Do you really believe that poisonous spiders were made to be eaten? Everything has a purpose, and everyone has a motive. The poison was put there to help kill/cripple its prey. Just like everyone is given a mind, that should be used to think, and grow, not to be idle, and desolate. Also, look at all the beautiful things God has given us. Look at nature. Do you think that we shouldn't trust him because there are creatures on earth that can harm/kill us? Should I not trust my teacher because he/she paired me up with someone I don't like, or is someone that is mean/causes harm to me? The motive was so we could learn from each other, or atleast give the other the help they need. Remember, you aren't the only one on earth, and everyone has a purpose, and we all depend on something else to live.
I said that jokingly. The real reason I dont trust "god" is because I've never met him and dont know if he exists.
One of my friends says that he went with some of his friends to this like convention and they smoke some (of that good excrement) and they could see the energy as clear as day.[:)][:P][:)]
Of course i used to love pot was like yam that how isee my god, I agree it and acuse to do somthing that ant right, The post with god made pot and man made crack who do you trust more was a joke. Most poeple say pot helps. It did tell i relized it bonked up my true senses as if i saw it or felt it i thought it was energy. But it wasnt just like if i where to do dreams an hulsination to stimulate yourself to be better. That why i quit cuss i do better with energy not doing it. And i lost the pont cuss if i wana get bonked up i just get drunk
yes of course weed can make you slower in your thought process if you smoke it every day. if you relax and smoke it once and awhile for fun and nothing else then your fine. all those side effects are temporary , and its sposed to be like that , you dont smoke weed to become a genious for the next hour, your sposed to not make sense and become stupid yet its logical to you and is fun. there is no lasting side effects that dont disapate after stopping usage of weed.
as a side note which has nothing to do with the whole weed discussion but does at the same time. today i decided to smoke weed again since it was friday and i was waiting around for night fall to go hang out with some friends. anyways i was in my backyard smoking.
all of the sudden my dog jumped up and started sniffing high up in the fence like if someone were to put there hand through the chain link fence to pet them thats where he was sniffing. i can read my dogs very well i've never seen him in that position before ,it was like someone new just popped up and he was greeting them. trust me i did not just hullucinate this, i was stoned at the time and might of over reacted because i excrement my pants thinking it was some demon and ran in the house (i dont even belive in demons) , but i went back out , and this time both dogs settled down near the fence ( i have 2), then all the sudden my second dog (maxx, what an original name), jumped up and also sniffed near the fence like someone was there, i watched them for mabey 5 mins still sniffing away until i eventully yelled at them for no reason , just to get them away cuz it was freaking me out, only one of the dogs actually left the area, i was like screw it , mabey theres a cat near the fence i cant see, i got up , walked over to it looked around for awhile , nothing was there at all , i made sure of it. this kind of scared me because i was stoned at the time , now i relize if it was a spirit it dident mean any harm, but at the time it scared the living excrement out of me. ok now i know that i said earlier a bunch of times weed shouldent be used for spiritual devlopement and should just be used as fun, well that was my intensions, it seems tho , weed doesent induce anything itself but it makes everything alot easier , i spent 10 mins inbetween my body , (no i wasent just high) , i've been smoking weed for years i know the effects of it , what it is and what it isnt. i kept accidently almost leaving my body , until i would realize it and snap back out of it.
the trance state is almost like being on an anethestic , i must have been in it on the border line of projecting the entire time while high . i dont like this at all, at bonking all. i wanted to just lay down watch the matrix and stare at the wall. the fact that my high was me being half way into the astral without even trying scares me. and no i wasent just high , i was moving my astral arms at one point. once again lemme just say , i dont use weed for this , i do obe practice with no drugs daily , and energy devlopement. im just reporting what happend while high. i cant get over wether i was scared that i knew what the thing beyond the fence was or that i dident. it was obvisously nice to the dogs. if it was a spirit it was probly a family member. last night i had a horrible dream that a evil (i dont belive in evil ) spirit was attacking me and i got so enraged but i couldent do anything about it. i dont belive in evil , nothing is really bad , its our actions which make up how we're precived to other people , you can always change. i dont belive in demons , just like in the psychical we have assholes (very few are really bad , there just products of their enviroments), in the astral there are moron also.
none of them scare me. also i became lucid last night and tried to project , i almost made it too :). sorry i went on for awhile hehe.
bye.
"The real reason I dont trust "god" is because I've never met him and dont know if he exists."
I don't know if you mean god, as in the one Christians believe in or not, but let me just say this, better yet, let me quote Peter Kreeft.
"Can you prove that God exists? Before we answer this question we must distinguish five questions that are often confused. First there is the question of whether something exists or not. A thing can exist whether we know it or not.
Second, there is the question of whether we know it exists. (To answer this question affirmatively is to presuppose that the first question is answered affirmatively, of course; though a thing can exist without our knowing it, we cannot know it exists unless it exists.)
Third, there is teh question of whether we have a reason for our knowledge. We can know some things without being able to lead others to that knowledge by reasons. Many Christians think God's existence is like that.
Fourth, there is the question of whether this reason, if it exists amounts to a proof. Most reasons do not. Most of the reasons we give for what we believe amount to probabilities, not proofs. FOr instance, the building you sit in may collapse in one minute, but the reliability of the contractor and the construction materials is a good reason for thinking that very improbable.
Fifth, if there is a proof, is it a scientific proof, a proof by scientific method? Philosophical proofs can be good proofs, but they do not have to be scientific proofs.
I believe we can answer yes to the first four of these questions about the existence of God but not to the fifth. God exists, we can know that, we can give reasons, and those reasons amount to proof, but not scientific proof, except in an unusually broad sense.
There are many arguments for God's existence, but most of them have the same logical structure, which is the basic structure of any deductive argument. First, there is a major premise, or general principle. Then, a minor premise states some particular data in our experience that come under that principle. Finally, the conclusion follows from applying the general principle to the particular case.
In each case the conclusion is that God exists, but the premises of the different arguments are different. The arguments are like roads, from different starting points, all aiming at the same goal of God. In subsequent essays we will explore the arguments from cause and effect, from conscience, from history, and from Pascals Wager. THis essay explores the argument from design.
The argument starts with the major premise that where there is design, there must be a designer. The minor premise is the existence of design throughout the universe. The conclusion is that there must be a universal designer.
Why must we believe the major premise, that all design implies a designer? Because everyone admits this principle in practice. For instance, suppose you came upon a deserted island and found "S.O.S." written in the sand on the beach. You would not think the wind or the waves had written it by mere chance but that someone had been there, someone intelligent enough to design and write the message. If you found a stone hut on the island with windows, doors, and a fireplace, you would not think a hurricane had piled up the stones that way by chance. You immediately infer a designer when you see design.
Is it possible that design happens by chance without a designer? There is perhaps one chance in a trillion that "S.O.S." could be written in the sand by the wind. But who would use a one-in-a-trillion explanation? Someone once said that i fyou sat a million monkeys at a milion typewriters for a million years, one of them would eventually type out all of Hamlet by chance. But when we find the text of Hamlet, we don't wonder whehter it came from chance and monkeys. Why then does the atheist use that incredibly improbable explanation for the universe? Clearly, because it is his only chance of remaining an atheist. At this point we need a psychological explanation of the atheist rather than a logical explanation of the universe. We have a logical explanation of the universe, but the atheist does not like it. It's called God.
There is one especially strong version of the argument from design that hits close to home because it's about the design of the very thing we use to think about design: our brains. The human brain is the most complex piece of design in teh known universe. In many ways it is like a computer. Now just suppose there were a computer that was programmed only by chance. For instance, suppose you were in a plan and the public-address system announced that there was no pilot, but the plane was being flown by a computer that had been programmed by a random fall of hailstones on its keyboard or by a baseball player in spiked shoes dancing on computer cards. How much confidence would you have in that plane? But if our brain computer has no cosmic intelligence behind the heredity and environment that programs it, why should we trust it when it tells us about anything, even about the brain?
ANother specially strong aspect of the design argument is the socalled anthropic principle, according to which the universe seems to have been speciall;y designed from the beginning for human life to evolve. If the temperature of the primal fireball that resulted from the Big Bang some fifteen to twenty billion years ago, which was the beginning of our universe, had been a trillionth of a degree colder or hotter, the carbon molecule that is the foundation of all organic life could never have developed. The number of possible universes is trillions of trillions; only one of them could support human life: this one. Sounds suspiciously like a plot. If the cosmic rays had bombarded the primordial slime at a slightly different angle or time or intensity, the hemoglobin molecule, necessary for all warm-blooded animals, could never have evolved. The chance of this molecule's evolving is osmething like one in a trillion trillion. Add together each of te chances and you have something far more unbelievable than a million monkeys writing Hamlet.
There are relatively few atheists among neurologists and brain surgeons and among astrophysicists, but many among psychologists, sociologists, and historians. The reason seems obvious: the first study divine design, the second study human undesign.
But doesn't evolution explain everything without a divine Designer? Just the opposite; evolution is abeautiful example of design, a great clue to God. There is a very good scientific evidence for the evolving, ordered appearance of species, from simple to complex. But there is no scientific proof of natural selection as the mechanism of evolution, Natural selection "explains" the emergence of higher forms without intelligent design by the survival-of-the-fittest principle. But this is sheer theory. There is no evidence that abstract, theoretical thinking or altruistic love make it easier for man to survive. How did they evolve then?
Furthermore, could the design that obviously now exists in man and in the human brain come from something with less or no design? Such an explanation violates the principle of causality, which states that you can't get more in the effect than you had in the cause. If there is intelligence in the effect (man), there must be intelligence in the cause. But a universe ruled by blind chance has no intelligence. Therefore there must be a cause for human intelligence that transcends the universe: a mind behind the physical universe. (Most great scientists have believed in such a mind, by the way, even those who did not accept any revealed religion.)
How much does this argument prove? Not all that the Christian means by God, of course - no argument can do that. But it proved a pretty thick slice of God: some designing intelligence great enough to account for all the design in the universe and the human mind. If that's not God, what is it? Steven Spielberg?" [End Quote]
I would also like to point out that we cannot scientifically prove the astral realms, but we believe in them.
Reason:
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.
God exists, we can know that, we can give reasons, and those reasons amount to proof
I dont see how those 4/5 questions lead to this.
where there is design, there must be a designer
It is possible for the design to be more complex than the designer. Then the chain of designers could start at (almost) nothing and end here. Example: 500 years ago is a designer. The present is the design. It is more complex.
Why must we believe... Because everyone admits this principle in practice.
Hundreds of years ago, everyone believed earth was flat, therefore we must believe it if we lived then and it is correct.
I've seen the rest of that argument too many times. Its just too easy to refute and I'm bored with it.
"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."
Math and logic is great, it gives us clear answers, but that doesn't mean that it is the ultimate. Consider physics. Pretty important field of science right? Math and logic go with it too, eh? But did you know that the laws of physics had to be changed so it would be possible for a bee to fly?
Also, just because we don't have the instruments to prove something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or that proof is irrelevent. We have only an idea of what atoms look like, but we can't actually see them. Does that mean that they don't exist. And if you come back to me and say that we can see atoms now, remember when the atom was first thought of? The person who came up with the idea of the atom, I guarantee you, couldn't see it.
If we all thought that way then we would probably not be anywhere as technologically evolved as we are today.
"There is no prescribed route to follow to arrive at a new idea. You have to make the intuitive leap. But the difference is that once you've made that intuitive leap you have to justify it by filling in the intermediate steps." - Steven Hawking
"I dont see how those 4/5 questions lead to this."
Explain, because I don't understand your reasoning.
"It is possible for the design to be more complex than the designer. Then the chain of designers could start at (almost) nothing and end here. Example: 500 years ago is a designer. The present is the design. It is more complex."
This is pretty vague. I think I understand you, but I am not totally sure. Your example is weird. Do you mean that the state of technology 500 years ago was the designer? Were people 500 years ago the designer? Well what if there is just one designer (god) and the big bang started the design that is still evolving to this day. It is pretty impressive isn't it?
Kreeft's quote:"Why must we believe the major premise, that all design implies a designer? Because everyone admits this principle in practice."
How you quoted him:"Why must we believe... Because everyone admits this principle in practice."
I think that in the manner that you quoted him you took him out of context to twist what he was really trying to say. When you quoted him, how you quoted him, it seemed to me as if you were making a blanket statement which would apply to everything else he said. Although I think Kreeft could have written this part better, ask yourself the same question. If you saw a hut with no people in sight, wouldn't you think that someone designed it? With your own logic you know that this is true. You also know that everyone else will admit this too. No one is going to say that that hut was built by chance (unless they are stubborn/not really trying to understand anything, but only trying to win an argument that is impossible if they wanted to use sound reasoning).
"Hundreds of years ago, everyone believed earth was flat, therefore we must believe it if we lived then and it is correct."
People believed that because they didn't have the technology to prove that the earth wasn't flat. Also, people believed that because if you didn't you would be killed. It has happened before.
Also, can you prove to me that love exists? Is there a mathmatical equation that proves love? Can you logically prove that you actually love someone? All you can do is show me proof that you say is "irrelevent." You can show me a picture of hugging your father or mother, or significant other, but that proves nothing right? Maybe you hate them but someone made you look happy. Maybe you don't love your significant other, but you are just attracted to them for their body. Do you get the point that I am trying to make? Math and logic only take you so far. If everything could be proven then wouldn't our lives be pretty boring? Nothing to explore, nothing to ponder, just a list of facts that you read out of a book. Isn't that a big portion of the fun factor that astral projection is? That you will see something new, something no one has ever seen before? Something that is your own and only you have. Really, you must admit that a life with something besides just math and logic makes life worth living.
"I've seen the rest of that argument too many times. Its just too easy to refute and I'm bored with it."
Which part of the argument? How is it easy to refute? If by refute you mean giving substandard counterstatements, then I suppose it is easy to refute. My motive here isn't to make myself seem like the one who is right, my motive is to bring some good points to the table. Actually put some thought into what I have written down and ask yourself if it makes any sense. Check yourself, is your motive here to learn? Or is your motive to be the one who is right? To me it seems like you are fighting an uphill battle.
I honestly have put a lot of thought into what you said, as you can tell from my lengthy responses, I hope you show me the same courtesy.
Reason:
Physics uses math but contains nonmath elements, therefore you can never prove anything in physics with 100% certainty. You probably think atoms have been proven to exist, but they havent. If you cant prove that the smallest particles are not numbers in a giant computer containing the visible universe, then you cant prove 100% that atoms exist.
This is pretty vague. I think I understand you, but I am not totally sure. Your example is weird. Do you mean that the state of technology 500 years ago was the designer? Were people 500 years ago the designer?
In my example, the total mass and energy of our solar system 500 years ago is the designer, and the total now is the design.
Well what if there is just one designer (god) and the big bang started the design that is still evolving to this day. It is pretty impressive isn't it?
What if it was designed by a can of tomato soup? What if... what if...
How you quoted him:"Why must we believe... Because everyone admits this principle in practice."
I think that in the manner that you quoted him you took him out of context to twist what he was really trying to say. When you quoted him, how you quoted him, it seemed to me as if you were making a blanket statement which would apply to everything else he said.
I was making a blanket statement. It is never true that I must believe something because everyone else believes it.
People believed that because they didn't have the technology to prove that the earth wasn't flat.
Suppose I've never been in space or been to the edge of this flat earth. 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) prove to me that earth is round.
Math and logic only take you so far. If everything could be proven then wouldn't our lives be pretty boring?
Then you agree that things other than math and logic cant be proven.
"Physics uses math but contains nonmath elements, therefore you can never prove anything in physics with 100% certainty. You probably think atoms have been proven to exist, but they havent. If you cant prove that the smallest particles are not numbers in a giant computer containing the visible universe, then you cant prove 100% that atoms exist."
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? I feel that you are just being stubborn and don't want to admit that you may be wrong. All the scientific work that has been done until present day points to the fact that atoms exist. Why are you trying to argue that atoms don't exist? It is an uphill battle. 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.
"What if it was designed by a can of tomato soup? What if... what if..."
From your posts it seems that you are saying we should just give up on trying to find out the origin of our creation.. 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.
Also, for this comment you made:
"In my example, the total mass and energy of our solar system 500 years ago is the designer, and the total now is the design.", Read the following quote.
Cause and Effect
"There must be a cause for everything that comes into existence. Now, the whole universe is a vast, interlocking chain of things that come into existence. Each of these things must therefore have a cause. I would not be here without billions of causes, from the Big Bang through the cooling of the galaxies and the evolution of the protein molecule to the marriage of my ancestors. The universe is a vast and complex chain of causes.
But does the universe as a whole have a cause? Is there a first cause, an uncaused cause, a transcendent cause of the whole chain of causes? If not, then there is an infinite regress of causes, with no first link in the great cosmic chain. If so, then there is an eternal necessary, independent, self-explanatory being with nothing above it, before it, or supporting it. It would have to explain itself as well as everything else, for if it needed something else as its explanation, its reason, its cause, then it would not be the first cause and uncaused cause. Such a being would have to be God, of course. If we can prove there is such a first cause, we will have proved there is a God.
Why must there be a first cause? Because if there isn't, then the whole universe is unexplained, and we have violated our Principle of Sufficient Reason for everything. If there is no first cause, each particular thing in the universe is explained in the short run, or proximately, by some other thing, but nothing is explained in the long run, or ultimately, and the universe as a whole is not explained. Everyone and everything says in turn, "Don't look to me for the final explanation. I'm just an instrument. Something else caused me." If that's all there is, then we have an endless passing of the buck.
If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a agreat chain with many links; each link is held up by the link above it, but the whole chain is held up by nothing. If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a railroad train moving without an engine. Each car's motion is explained proximately by the motion of the car in front of it: the caboose moves because the boxcar pulls it, the boxcar moves because the cattle car pulls it, et cetera. But there is no engine to pull the first car and the whole train. That would be impossible, of course. But that is what the universe is like if there is no first cause: impossible.
Here is one more analogy. SUppose I tell you there is a book that explains everything you want explained. You want that book very much. You ask me whether I have it. I say no, I have to get it from my wife. Does she have it? No, she has to get it from a neighbor. Does he have it? No, he has to get it from his teacher, who has to get it... et cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum. No one actually has the book. In that case, you will never get it. However long or short the chain of book borrowers may be, you will get the book only if someone actually has it and does not have to borrow it. Well, existence is like that book. Existence is handed down the chain of causes, from cause to effect. If there is no first cause, no being who is eternal and self-sufficient, no being who has existence by his own nature and does not have to borrow it from someone else, then the gift of existence can never be passed down the chain to others, and no one will ever get it. But we did get it. We exist. We got the gift of existence from our causes, down the chain, and so did every actual being in the universe, from atoms to archangels. Therefore there must be a first cause of existence, a God.
In more abstract philosophical language, the proof goes this way. Every being that exists either exists by itself, by its own essence or nature, or it does not exist by itself. If it exists by its own essence, then it exists necessarily and eternally, and explains itself. It cannot not exist, as a triangle cannot not have three sides. If, on the other hand, a being exists but not by its own essence, then it needs a cause, a reason outside itself for its existence. Because it does not explain itself, something else must explain it. Beings whose essence does not contain the reason fro their existence, beings that need causes, are called contingent, or dependent, beings. A being whose essence is to exist is called a necessary being. The universe contains only contingent beings. God would be the only necessary being-if God existed. Does he? Does a necessary being exist? Here is the proof that it does. Dependent beings cannot cause themselves. They are dependent on their causes. If there is no independent being, then the whole chain of dependent beings is dependent on nothing and could not exist. But they do exist. Therefore there is an independent being." - Peter Kreeft
"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.
"Suppose I've never been in space or been to the edge of this flat earth. 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) prove to me that earth is round."
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? because if you can't admit that I may as well stop replying to this topic right now. If you want proof for yourself, become an astronaut and go into space.
"Then you agree that things other than math and logic cant be proven."
No. I agree everything can't be proven WITH math and logic. Math AND Logic. I don't think that everything can be proven with math. 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. Admit to yourself (you know it's true) that love exists. You are fighting an uphill battle, because you know that love exists, and you know that you can't prove it with math. You also know that you can't prove love doesn't exist with logic, unless it is bad logic.
From the statements you made, I couldn't prove that you weren't a meat popsicle. I mean, my eyes, when I see oranges, you could see banana right? Do you see how absurd this is?
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
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
"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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
[;)]
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.
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.
[:)]
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?
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
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
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]
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
hey before i start off , i dont smoke marijuana that often , max twice a month or so. i do energy work and obe practice every day , but today i happend to have smoked some weed with a friend in my backyard. he had to leave for work , being quite stoned i went inside and listend to music as asual lost myself for about 20 mins. i then decided to try and do energy devlopement/chakra stimulation. when you do draw energy up to chakras your using mind energy to do it i belive , its obvisouly nothing pyshical , when you smoke weed your mind tends to be flooded with thoughts even tho it might not seem like it since they go and come so fast , it sort of chains into each other , it stimulates your thoughts incredibly which is why people get alot more creative with weed. anyways , trying chakra devlopement , i noticed that i got stronger energy sturges into my chakras then ever before , i 'filled' each one up in a matter of 5 mins , filled meaning flowed energy through it until slight pain arised in that area. it could be because your mind is producing loads of thought energy with new thoughts. or it could also just be your sense of touch is increased and it just seems like your flowing more energy into your chakras. either way you shouldent rely on drugs to do anything for you spiritully but next time your stoned , give it a try. as far as mairjuana being evil , gimmie a break dude , as long as your responsible and mature you should be allowed to smoke crack till your hearts consent , we're here to experience things in life. marijuana is a very safe drug if used responsibily , getting addicted to anything will cause problems , this isnt a trait of just marijuana , use common sense and have fun. ignore the last part of this message also. life isnt about smileing and laughing its about pain and missery and paying bills , do not ever think of smoking marijuana.