Originally posted by JS357Yeah, go for 6 months without a smoke and it really rocks your world.
What got me to quit was the paranoia. It kept feeling unsafer and unsafer to toke up, irrationally so, and that ruined the high. This was about 30 years ago. I'm glad for it happening that way.
http://healthland.time.com/2011/04/06/why-pot-smokers-are-paranoid/
I believe drugs like people, alcohol, thc and acid have already played their parts in my world. There are others too, but lets keep it simple. Lets simplify. And Prepare. 🙂
Originally posted by karoly aczelDown with emptiness -emptiness does not exist on its own. Emptiness is empty of inherent existence. You take too much emptiness, taking too much emptiness will tear you apart; for emptiness is merely a corrective view as regards the way reality we perceive exists.
Well, sometimes things "bump" into each other, and something else is revealed, but ultimatley karoly aczel has no future in any physical -type state.
From emptiness into more emptiness.
And yet this rocking "being " persists" in some way, sometimes talking about stuff that is mostly the history of how he became who he is, but mainly just meandering ...[text shortened]... t: i am no longer concerned with my inability to answer your koans. The answer will come.
Get to know yourself, get to know cause-effect, get Two Truths, avoid the extreme views
Namaste
😵
Originally posted by black beetleNamaste, my mysterious yet comprehensive friend
Down with emptiness -emptiness does not exist on its own. Emptiness is empty of inherent existence. You take too much emptiness, taking too much emptiness will tear you apart; for emptiness is merely a corrective view as regards the way reality we perceive exists.
Get to know yourself, get to know cause-effect, get Two Truths, avoid the extreme views
Namaste
😵
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetle"Emptiness is empty of inherent existence" .
Down with emptiness -emptiness does not exist on its own. Emptiness is empty of inherent existence. You take too much emptiness, taking too much emptiness will tear you apart; for emptiness is merely a corrective view as regards the way reality we perceive exists.
Get to know yourself, get to know cause-effect, get Two Truths, avoid the extreme views
Namaste
😵
Just looking through the Satan is allah thread I think there is a large chasm between what the majority of posters here are thinking and the subtelties of comments such as these.
There are noteable exceptions, however. Voidspirit, JS375, kev,even FMF seem to represent an inherent move towards the holistic.
But my way is the way of the dirty. Of the bridge between the most foul and insipid and the brightest of stars out there.
and I am the first to admit that I could be TOTALLY wrong, but unless someone points out to me where I am wrong, then I will continue down the same avenue.
(boddhisatva)
Originally posted by karoly aczelYou want to create your own story, go on. You have to find for your own if you are "right" or "wrong". You cannot create your story if you ignore who you are. And your theory of reality must be falsified and tenable, otherwise it is not a theory at all, it ’s a delusion. You can reject the reality of the physical world all you want, but this rejection does not hold, the Floating World is real.
"Emptiness is empty of inherent existence" .
Just looking through the Satan is allah thread I think there is a large chasm between what the majority of posters here are thinking and the subtelties of comments such as these.
There are noteable exceptions, however. Voidspirit, JS375, kev,even FMF seem to represent an inherent move towards the holisti ...[text shortened]... points out to me where I am wrong, then I will continue down the same avenue.
(boddhisatva)
Say, if you are the hearer, seer and feeler who exists in separation of the Floating World (in separation of your epistemic objects) and you think that you exist as such before the hearing, seeing and feeling, then you can argue you exist independently and with a self-nature. The epistemic object that must exist before (which triggers hearing, seeing, feeling, and so forth) would be thus you, the person who hears, sees, feels etc. If there is such a person who “exists before”, we could indeed say there is a self-existent person.
Also, the “epistemic object which must exist before” are all the objects of your senses. How could there be a hearing if there weren’t something audible that occurred first? How could there be a seeing if there wasn’t something there visible first? If you think that perception is an object of sense grasped by your sense powers that reach out to it, you should acknowledge that there also must be someone who grasps for there to be such a grasping. But, since it is not tenable to say that the grasper who grasps that which is grasped must exist prior to that which is grasped, your self-nature (your self, the object you have to get to know) cannot be real by means of this impossible way.
However, sight, hearing, tasting, smelling, touching, thinking and various mental modes, conditions and factors (feeling, discrimination, intention, contact, mental engagement etc) force us to acknowledge that there must be a seer in order to see, there must be a previously existing mind or thinker in order for the mind to “have” feelings, discriminations, intentions etc. Is this tenable? Shall we accept that there must be a previously existing self so that the experiences can become possible? Shall we accept that there must be a previously existing sense object in order for it to be sensed?
Methinks insisting that something exists before the experience of that something, is not tenable. How can one know something is there before it is seen, heard, felt, etc? Something or someone who existed prior to being perceived would indeed exist independently, but something that is not perceived is unknown. So how would one ever know that, this something or someone existed until it was perceived?
And how can you say you are the seer, hearer or feeler who exists before you see, hear or feel? The seer cannot exist before the act of seeing that makes it possible for us to call him “seer”, “one who sees”. If there were a self-existent karoly aczel, independent, previously existing seer, hearer, smeller, taster or feeler, he would always be seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and feeling -and therefore would not need to see, hear, smell, taste, and feel again or anew.
And if there were an independently and previously existing visible object, there would also have to be an independently and previously existing sense power of seeing just waiting to see the visible object when it appeared. There could be a “seeing” that wasn’t a seeing of something. And if the person who sees were an independently and previously existing seer, then there would also have to be an independently and previously existing ability to see that was just waiting to be deployed by a seer who was already and always seeing.
So you, karoly aczel (the person that uses the avatar karoly aczel), cannot exist in this impossible way. Who are you when you smoke and who are you when you don’t?
May You Always Be Happy!
Namaste
😵
Originally posted by karoly aczelI was only giving my personal experience. As I said, what the people I know were smoking might be different from what you smoke. All I know is that the people I know that smoke something other than tobacco are not sane. Whether the smoking caused the insanity or the insanity encouraged the smoking I also cannot say. I did read somewhere that schizophrenics are more likely to smoke than the average person.
I cant believe at all the negative comments here.
Originally posted by karoly aczelWho said you should give it up?
My main point here here it being "gods drug" is that, for people like me, it has been a way less destructive alternative than the other highs out there.
Yes, we can all say that we should just give it up, and I agree with that, and that is my plan, but when I give it up, I want to give it up for good. Not just use another "band-aid"
I said that you cannot find anywhere in the Bible where smoking cigarettes or pot is wrong. Neither drinking alcohol. What becomes wrong is how you act when you are under the influence of these drugs. If you act badly then it is wrong.
Others have just cautioned about overuse or justifying its use.
Im interested in how can you try to place on the same ballpark, druguse and going to church and falling in love. Is that an attempt to justify druguse?
Originally posted by black beetleCant understand most of that. I'll try again later.
You want to create your own story, go on. You have to find for your own if you are "right" or "wrong". You cannot create your story if you ignore who you are. And your theory of reality must be falsified and tenable, otherwise it is not a theory at all, it ’s a delusion. You can reject the reality of the physical world all you want, but this rejection d ...[text shortened]... when you smoke and who are you when you don’t?
May You Always Be Happy!
Namaste
😵
Originally posted by twhiteheadTHC is bad for schizophrenia, no doubt.
I was only giving my personal experience. As I said, what the people I know were smoking might be different from what you smoke. All I know is that the people I know that smoke something other than tobacco are not sane. Whether the smoking caused the insanity or the insanity encouraged the smoking I also cannot say. I did read somewhere that schizophrenics are more likely to smoke than the average person.
Thing is there is a distinct part of the population that are prone to shicophrenia, weed smoking and "god-delusions". I find myself amongst them and so I try to to speak up for them.
The drug question has not been adequately answered, imo.
Do you consider coming to rhp to make chess moves a "drug" ? I do.
Originally posted by Rajk999I am not attempting to justify drug use,only to clarify it. I dont believe it needs justification
Who said you should give it up?
I said that you cannot find anywhere in the Bible where smoking cigarettes or pot is wrong. Neither drinking alcohol. What becomes wrong is how you act when you are under the influence of these drugs. If you act badly then it is wrong.
Others have just cautioned about overuse or justifying its use.
Im interested in ...[text shortened]... allpark, druguse and going to church and falling in love. Is that an attempt to justify druguse?