The sacramental use of marijuana in India
jodyr
While it may be fashionable around here to condemn all drug use as
wrong, there is an extensive history of sacramental use of marijuana
among yogis in India.
The famous Hindu bhakta saint Paramahamsa Ramakrishna was a user
of marijuana, which he referred to as "siddhi." This is common
knowledge amongst the swamis of the Ramakrishna Order, although
you'd probably have a real hard time getting one of them to
admit it.
In "Ramakrishna: The Great Master" there is a passage in which
Ramakrishna requests that the son-in-law of the owner of the
Dakshineswar Temple, Mathur Babu, keep a store of marijuana
free and available to all sadhus who request it.
The "Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna" has three references to marijuana.
The first is one page 431 and is as follows:
MASTER: "One should keep pictures of holy men in one's room.
That constantly quickens divine ideas."
BANNERJI: "I have you picture in my room; also the picture of
a sadhu living in the mountains, blowing on a piece of lighted
charcoal in a bowl of hemp."
The footnote reads: "Many wandering monks smoke Indian hemp."
The next passage is on page 617:
The Master entered the room accompanied by M. He was
humming a song. The forceful words of renunciation that he
had just spoken to Ishan found expression through its words.
He sang the lines:
Mother, take everything else away from me,
But leave me my necklace of bones and my pot of hemp!
The footnote reads: "Siddhi, or hemp, and the necklace of bones are
associated with Shiva, the model of renunciation."
Finally on page 938 M describes a dream he had to Ramakrishna:
M: Yesterday they went to Dakshineswar to meditate. I had a
dream."
MASTER: "What did you dream?"
M: I dreamt that Narendra and some others had become
sannyasis. They were sitting around a lighted fire. I too was
there. The were smoking tobacco and blowing out puffs of
smoke. I told them that I could smell hemp."
Once a swami of the Ramakrishna Order told me that on the occasion
of Shiva-ratri some of the monks will drink bhang, which is a kind
of marijuana drink available in India.
Another set of references to marijuana use among yogis can be found
in the book "Sadhus: India's Mystic Holy Men" by psychologist Dolf
Hartsuiker. Starting on page 97 one finds this passage:
A common ritual, preferably taking place around the dhuni, is
the smoking of a mixture of tobacco and charas (hashish) in a
chilam (pipe). Although this undoubtedly serves the more earthly
purpose of of socializing with sadhu-brothers and devotees,
the smoking of charas is none the less regarded as a sacred
act. Intoxication as a 'respected'—amongst Babas anyway—method
for self-realiztion is related to the drinking of soma, the
nectar of the gods, which is recommended in the Vedas as a sure
means of attaining divine wisdom.
Mythologically charas is intimately connected with Shiva: he
smokes it, he is perpetually intoxicated by it, he is the Lord
of the Charas. . .Charas may be used by Shaivas and Vaishnavas. . .
Shiva is the patron-deity of charas, so it is no coincidence
that almost all dhuni-walas are smokers.
Smoking is part of the darshan of (this) holy man, and sharing
in the high can be an intense religious experience. . .It is
often done before or during the performance of austerities;
and in fact, smoking is considered an austerity in itself,
demonstrating non-attachment to the body.
Finally one can find a reference to marijuana in "The Tantric Way"
by Ajit Mookerjee and Madhu Khanna on page 30:
During the performance of special rituals tantric aspirants
sometimes resort to the use of drugs, drinks, and chemicals:
drinking bhang, a drink made of hemp leaves; or smoking ganga,
an intoxicant. . .
Those who teach yoga in the West are constrained by the prevailing
cultural attitudes toward drugs and subsequently advise against their
use. This flys in the face of history and the original cultural context
from which yoga arose. Shiva is the father of yoga. Shiva is the
Lord of the Charas. Enough said.
Jai Ma! --jodyr.
Raz Ozai
iss...@altavista.net
Dear Jody,
Would you teach this "yoga" to a child?
So now everybody knows .. don't bother going to India or
Ramakrsna Math to meet a bunch of junkies. Thanks for the
tip.
Your moods, explanations, and beliefs posted on these
groups are completely exposed!
ys,
Iss'a das
>In article <355134...@ix.netcom.com>,
> act. Intoxication as a 'respected'-amongst Babas anyway-method
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
jodyr
Dear issadas, would you encourage your child to drink? I'm
not at all suggesting that one's sadhana *must* include the
use of marijuana. What I suggest is that a practice may
include such use and that there is a historical and cultural
precedent for such use.
> So now everybody knows .. don't bother going to India or
> Ramakrsna Math to meet a bunch of junkies. Thanks for the
> tip.
Using marijuana as a sacrament makes one a junkie? You are
obviously ignorant about marijuana and are therefore unqualified
to pass judgment.
> Your moods, explanations, and beliefs posted on these
> groups are completely exposed!
Yes, my use of marijuana makes me a raving lunatic, this should
have been obvious from my posts even before I confessed to being
a junkie.
Jai Ma (another pot smoker like Her consort Shiva)! --jodyr.
Hari Har Singh
jodyr schrieb in Nachricht <355134...@ix.netcom.com>...
[snipp]
> During the performance of special rituals tantric aspirants
> sometimes resort to the use of drugs, drinks, and chemicals:
> drinking bhang, a drink made of hemp leaves; or smoking ganga,
> an intoxicant. . .
>
>Those who teach yoga in the West are constrained by the prevailing
>cultural attitudes toward drugs and subsequently advise against their
>use. This flys in the face of history and the original cultural context
>from which yoga arose. Shiva is the father of yoga. Shiva is the
>Lord of the Charas. Enough said.
>
>Jai Ma! --jodyr.
Dear Jodyr,
thank you for your interesting post!
I think there is nothing to say against the use of some drugs - as f.e.
mariuahna. The problem we have in the west is that we don't use it - we
missuse it. To smoke sometime during a spiritual ritual is not effecting
your body that much as smoking 60 cigaretts every day, drink 2 bottles of
whiskey beer and wine a day or to use heroine.
In Kundalini Yoga and during Kundalini Yoga Meditation it is not recommended
to take drugs because the Yoga increases the effects you have through the
drugs extremely.
[It effects and stimulates the same area in the brain that is stimulated by
the drugs to produce more of a special hormone. The only sideeffect drugs
have is that they do make the receptors in this area more and more
insensitive so that there is needed a stronger stimulation in order to let
the hormones flow in the same ammount than before. This is the effect we see
when somebody becomes addicted. Then these receptors are very much
insensitive and a lot of them even could be destroyed through the drug
substances. And they never come back... So, that's why we say that you could
be "clean" but never healed. IF you are an drug addict - you'll stay it for
the rest of your life. Just one beer, or one cigarette (cigarettes and
alcohol have the same effect too!) or one "line" of Kokain could get you
back in the "circle of addiction"...
This only happens with "chemical" or "artificial" stimulation. A natural
stimulation with no substances from "outside", like it is done with Yoga,
does not effect the sensitivity of the receptors.]
So, some ppl could come into a psychosis if they do this Yoga without a
competent guidance AND take drugs.
In fact there have been many very succesful programms for drug addicts that
used Kundalini Yoga to clean the body and to strength the mind and
self-confidence.
I often heard that ppl who regularily used to take a trip with marihuana
started to do Kundalini Yoga and Kundalini Yoga Meditations and then
switched totally to the Yoga because it has the same effects as the trip to
them - without the sideeffects the regularily longterm use of - even soft -
drugs have.
Sat Nam - Hari Har Singh
iss...@altavista.net
In article <355246...@ix.netcom.com>,
> What I suggest is that a practice may
> include such use and that there is a historical and cultural
> precedent for such use.
This "use" is of no benefit to anyone on the entire planet ...
...oh .. sorry .. maybe you have gloucoma?
>
> > So now everybody knows .. don't bother going to India or
> > Ramakrsna Math to meet a bunch of junkies. Thanks for the
> > tip.
>
> Using marijuana as a sacrament makes one a junkie? You are
> obviously ignorant about marijuana and are therefore unqualified
> to pass judgment.
>
What else is on your list of sacraments Jody? Scotch? Jack Daniels?
Mr. Natural? Casey Jones? Mescalito?
When are you going to come down, and give up your 60's ways?
> > Your moods, explanations, and beliefs posted on these
> > groups are completely exposed!
>
> Yes, my use of marijuana makes me a raving lunatic, this should
> have been obvious from my posts even before I confessed to being
> a junkie.
> Jai Ma (another pot smoker like Her consort Shiva)! --jodyr.
Now you are on the platform of Shiva? Take another toke and stay
covered in the smoke. That's a little poetry for you. :)
Your servant, (really!)
Iss'a das
jodyr
iss...@altavista.net wrote:
>
> In article <355246...@ix.netcom.com>,
> > What I suggest is that a practice may
> > include such use and that there is a historical and cultural
> > precedent for such use.
>
> This "use" is of no benefit to anyone on the entire planet ...
Your opinion, uninformed obviously, so therefore "useless" on this
point.
> ...oh .. sorry .. maybe you have gloucoma?
> >
> > > So now everybody knows .. don't bother going to India or
> > > Ramakrsna Math to meet a bunch of junkies. Thanks for the
> > > tip.
> >
> > Using marijuana as a sacrament makes one a junkie? You are
> > obviously ignorant about marijuana and are therefore unqualified
> > to pass judgment.
> >
>
> What else is on your list of sacraments Jody? Scotch? Jack Daniels?
> Mr. Natural? Casey Jones? Mescalito?
Hey issadas, are you in AA or something? Your extreme prejudice
belies issues underneath your taunts.
> When are you going to come down, and give up your 60's ways?
I'd like to think of them as 2060*BC* ways.
> > > Your moods, explanations, and beliefs posted on these
> > > groups are completely exposed!
> >
> > Yes, my use of marijuana makes me a raving lunatic, this should
> > have been obvious from my posts even before I confessed to being
> > a junkie.
> > Jai Ma (another pot smoker like Her consort Shiva)! --jodyr.
>
> Now you are on the platform of Shiva? Take another toke and stay
> covered in the smoke. That's a little poetry for you. :)
Shiva smokes pot. Jody smokes pot. Jody doesn't think he's Shiva,
but Jody thinks if it worked for Shiva (and Ramakrishna and Vivekananda)
it might just work for him.
Jai Ma! --jodyr.
Harry A. Smith
jodyr wrote:
>
Hi there! Just because something has a historical or cultural contextual
root does not make it a good thing to do. For example, infundibulation
has a strong historical root in some societies. I wouldn't want it
practiced on my child. Your argument would be better served if there was
clear evidence that marijuana had established benefits with little harm.
The factual evidence is otherwise. The mental impairment following
marijuana use is now well known.
--
** Dare To Disturb The Universe! **
Rev. Harry A. Smith, D.D.
has...@nettally.com
jodyr
Harry A. Smith wrote:
>
> jodyr wrote:
> >
> Hi there! Just because something has a historical or cultural contextual
> root does not make it a good thing to do. For example, infundibulation
> has a strong historical root in some societies. I wouldn't want it
> practiced on my child. Your argument would be better served if there was
> clear evidence that marijuana had established benefits with little harm.
> The factual evidence is otherwise. The mental impairment following
> marijuana use is now well known.
I'm not suggesting that marijuana is a good thing to do for anyone.
I'm suggesting that many thousands of yogis over many thousands of
years have used it.
I know personally 3 very successful business men ($75 & $100 million
dollars per year in sales) that were frequent users of marijuana, and
still are. Their impairment didn't prevent their success (in the
world at least). The experience of pure awareness is beyond the realm
of thought, and is unaffected by drug use. This isn't to say that
drugs won't screw you up. They can and often do. But those who've
found peace and adjustment through the use of entheogenic compounds
know by the fact of their personal experience that one's life can
be enriched by sacrament.
Ramakrishna was incredibly successful with regards to yoga. He
experienced Nirvakalpa Samadhi and found himself surrounded
by inspired followers. He never advertised himself, as some
are wont to do around here.
Your "factual evidence" is skewed by political interests. Users
of marijuana know just as surely that they are healthly, happy, and
full of love all beings despite their supposed impairment.
People who haven't used pot on a regular basis are in no position
to critique it, because its beneficial effects are known only
subjectively.
Jai Ma! --jodyr.
Bruce Morgen
iss...@altavista.net wrote:
>In article <355246...@ix.netcom.com>,
>> What I suggest is that a practice may
>> include such use and that there is a historical and cultural
>> precedent for such use.
>
>This "use" is of no benefit to anyone on the entire planet ...
>
Excuse me, but you know
this exactly how?
>...oh .. sorry .. maybe you have gloucoma?
Or is undergoing chemotherapy
or in some other situation
where appetite disappears,
endangering health. A little
reefer will also do things
for a tummyache that none of
the industrial chemicals from
you local drug pusher
(pharmacy) can match. Until
aspirin came along, it was
the world's most popular
analgesic. Ever seriously
*wonder* why those in control
of the big religious and
political establishments are
so against pot (and anything
even remotely psychoactive)?
It's a question well worth
looking into!
>>
>> > So now everybody knows .. don't bother going to India or
>> > Ramakrsna Math to meet a bunch of junkies. Thanks for the
>> > tip.
>>
>> Using marijuana as a sacrament makes one a junkie? You are
>> obviously ignorant about marijuana and are therefore unqualified
>> to pass judgment.
>
>What else is on your list of sacraments Jody? Scotch? Jack Daniels?
>Mr. Natural? Casey Jones? Mescalito?
>
>When are you going to come down, and give up your 60's ways?
>
What "'60s ways?" Why assume
that citing historical
precedent for sacramental
use of a plant substance
implies a particular
lifestyle? In his time,
your revered Jesus was roundly
condemned for indulging in
wine drinking by his
blue-nosed Saduccee critics,
why take up their banner of
hypocritical superficiality?
>> > Your moods, explanations, and beliefs posted on these
>> > groups are completely exposed!
>>
>> Yes, my use of marijuana makes me a raving lunatic, this should
>> have been obvious from my posts even before I confessed to being
>> a junkie.
>> Jai Ma (another pot smoker like Her consort Shiva)! --jodyr.
>
>Now you are on the platform of Shiva? Take another toke and stay
>covered in the smoke. That's a little poetry for you. :)
>
>Your servant, (really!)
>
He also serves who demonstrates
foolishness!
>Iss'a das
I was planning on a dandy
bottle of sangiovese di
romagna with our festive
dinner at Caruso's
Ristorante this Sunday,
we'll drink a toast to
know-it-all Puritans
everywhere!
Bruce Morgen
"Harry A. Smith" <has...@nettally.com> wrote:
>jodyr wrote:
>>
>Hi there! Just because something has a historical or cultural contextual
>root does not make it a good thing to do.
Agreed, but a clear
association with revered
historical figures --
e.g. marijuana with Sri
Ramakrishna and wine with
Jesus -- does give one
pause to ponder, doesn't
it?
>For example, infundibulation
>has a strong historical root in some societies. I wouldn't want it
>practiced on my child.
I confess to being unfamiliar
with this term. However, the
sacramental use of marijuana
has nowhere been advocated for
children, so why even bring
it up? I find it interesting
that much modern medical
opinion views infant
circumcision as of little or
no benefit, yet nobody
seriously suggests that Jews
and Muslims cease the practice
-- because of long standing
historical precedent and the
principle of religious freedom!
In contrast, the sacramental
use of marijuana is seen as
fair game for prohibition due
to a far less prevalent (some
would even say *minority*)
trend in modern medical thought.
>Your argument would be better served if there was
>clear evidence that marijuana had established benefits with little harm.
Marijuana has both
"established benefits" and
effects that cannot be
(yet?) be labeled or
measured scientifically
because science's tools are
generally either crude or
absent when it comes to
the subtler aspects of
human consciousness. Most
of the demonstrable
physical harm comes from
the delivery system
(inhaling any kind of smoke
has respiratory consequences)
rather from the psychoactive
component.
Marijuana research has been
both scant (you can't
patent an herb, so there's
no funding from the multi-
nationals that dominate
the pharmaceutical industry)
and skewed (U.S. government
rejects any and all studies
demonstrating benefit
because the War On Drugs
mentality is politically
entrenched despite its
utter futility).
>The factual evidence is otherwise. The mental impairment following
>marijuana use is now well known.
>
Pardon me, but *so what*?
While there certainly can be
said to be "mental
impairment" from the use of
everything from expresso to
the sacramental wine of
traditional Judaism and
Catholicism, that certainly
does not make a case for the
unconditional abstinence
advocated by Islam and by
certain Christian sects.
Having been born an
Ashkanazic Jew, my first
experience with wine was as
a sedative for my
circumcision -- must have
worked, I don't remember a
thing! :-)
One should obviously avoid
dependence, but use is a
matter for the individual
in consultation with those
(s)he accounts as wise. It
is emphatically unwise to
generalize about the role of
relatively mild psychoactives
like marijuana and alcohol,
which have been known to be
quite harmless (when used in
moderation) for many
centuries.
Raymond Karczewski
Re: The sacramental use of marijuana in India
Edi...@juno.com (Bruce Morgen) wrote:
>>jodyr wrote:
rk: Forgive this departure from the point under discussion, but
the following may shed some light on the government's need to
have programs such as the "War on Drugs. This a repost of a
discussion thread written in April 1996. It goes to the very he
t of the matter called the "War on Drugs."
Re: PDX POT COPS
la...@millenium.texas.net (David Laro) wrote:
>Anti-Prohibition Lg (aa...@teleport.com) wrote:
>: I reject your applogetics and irrational reductionism, we are
>: talking about people, thier lives and basic welfare. This is NOT
>: an abstract exercise in legal ethics, or the lack there of. In
>: the REAL world, if the "law" does more harm than good, then IMHO
>: it is OK to disobey it, contest it, and work together in non-
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>: violent ways to change it.
>: Well this is one "legalization guy" who's not bashful. I think
>: the name of my organization, the American Anti-Prohibition League,
>: pretty well says it: I'm against adult drug prohibition. While
>: drug use and abuse are problems society must somehow deal with,
>: the absolute prohibition of drugs makes them even bigger problems.
>: It's clear to me that adult drug prohibition perpetuates America's
>: long-standing "race war," generates crime and corruption, breeds
>: disrespect for all laws, and exposes young people to drugs.
>: Slippery slope? Look again John, we've been rushing down a slope
>: for a long time already. And you support this?
>NO, Floyd, you are not bashful. Not particularly persuasive, either,
>when you try to duck responsibility like here. It isn't right to
>blame society for punishing a law-breaker. I recognize the slope
>you mention, but can not think of a way to stop it. You certainly
>have not suggested any solution which appears workable to me.
>regards,
>David
Dear Floyd and David,
As a retired California Police Sergeant, my view is that the
"War on Drugs" is a sham. It is a joke, but no one is
laughing. The "War on Drugs" is a government phantom "busy
work" created program orchestrated through the
cooperation of a cooperative media which, in effect, allows
government to strip away further the civil liberties of the
"people."
It has created a "great self-serving industry" for itself and
is not about to let it go. It is one of the primary bread-
and-butter programs leading to confiscatory practices by the
government, without its agents having to follow due
process. The war on drugs, with its intimation of money
laundering, is how our currency has been debased without
suspicion by a conditioned populace. It, the "war on drugs,"
also serves as the harbinger of a declining, corrupt
society. It remains to be seen just how long a sleeping
citizenry will stand for it before the people take personal
responsibility for their collective plight.
If we awaken sooner to it, a nonviolent solution to the problem
of an inert populace is a distinct possibility. If the
awakening should come later, though, violent bloodshed will be
all that is left for us. We are being pushed into violence
through steady, incremental pressure, applied through subtle
conditioning, to react violently so that further liberties we
take for granted may be stripped away.
Our money standard has been destroyed. We are increasingly
and relentlessly being directed toward a mindset of
nonresistance to the acceptance of an imposed computerized,
cashless society of a New World Order. It is already underway
here in Oregon with the implementation of restrictive access
through "credit cards only" for food stamp and other welfare
program recipients.
The slow, subtle stripping away of sovereignty goes unnoticed
by the average dulled, conditioned mind. Once the
program is initiated, there can be no going back. All that is
left for these incredulous taxpaying voters is to obey their
so-called civil servants, who have suddenly emerged as their
"masters" then "captors" when they are directed to the proper
boxcar for their final destination. Have we not learned anything
from history?
The government is us; you and me, along with our neighbors.
Government is not the faceless money people who pull the strings
of our representatives in Washington and elsewhere. For a rather
indepth look at how all this has become possible in our present
day society, consult my home page regarding :"Christs with
Amnesia."
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 23:58:44 -0800
Message-Id: <1996040307...@ednet1.orednet.org>
From: mnas...@orednet.org (Mark C. Nasstrom)
To: ark...@magick.net
Subject: Re: PDX POT COPS
Reply-To: mnas...@orednet.org
Now, *that* was refreshing post, Raymond!
I am in total agreement, looking at it from the same side of
the fence you have/had. Meanwhile, the *violent* criminals
are On The Streets. :(
BTW, Congrats on your retirement. Glad you made it in one piece!
Again, Well Done!
--Mark
>Hi Raymond,
> Thanks. A very cogent and on point observation. Now the hard part.
>How the hell do we stop this slide without resorting to violence?
>
>In solidarity for "Drug Peace!"
>
>Floyd Ferris Landrath - Director
>American Anti-Prohibition League
>
> *** DRUG WAR, or DRUG PEACE? ***
>
>
>Floyd,
The simple answer to your question is for the populace to take
back control of their (our) money. Check out my homepage with
specific attention to "Christs with Amnesia." The answer to your
question is in the tape series. The tapes are a rather
comprehensive look at civilized society and the corruptions
therein brought about through mind control. When the populace is
able to see how they have been and are being manipulated through
media and governement, life becomes a whole new ball game. Sorry
I can't be more specific at this time, but email is not the
proper vehicle for communicating such matters. The other point I
would make is that I am retired; not an activist.
Ray
WAR ON DRUGS IS A SHAM (formerly PDX POT COPS)
The following article was was formerly written under the title
of PDX POT COPS to this group along with a
number of other political newsgroups on 4-2-96. Even though
other responses to the same thread remain prior to
my posting, this response has been removed from all of the
groups posted but one. I am reposting it since to test
whether the net truly is an instrument of open communication, or
it too, just a sham.
Ray K.
Sorry for reposting your entire message, but it was well worth
seeing
again.
I can't help but recall the following words from the Declaration
of Independence:
>>
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established
should not be changed for light and transient causes; and
accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more
disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right
themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are
accustomed.
>>
We desprately need to get off of our butts. -jmr
*************************************************************************
I invite you to visit my web page. I recently added a chapter
from my book "Journey Beyond Thought: Breaking the Bonds
of the Conditioned Mind." which examines the question of "What Is God"
Raymond Karczewski http://www.arkenterprises.com
jodyr
Eleph wrote:
>
> jodyr <jo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >I know personally 3 very successful business men ($75 & $100 million
> >dollars per year in sales) that were frequent users of marijuana, and
> >still are.
>
> brain-section to make a lot of money. ;-)
This is true. But using marijuana does not preclude one from being
gifted.
Jai Ma! --jodyr.
iss...@altavista.net
In article <35539f53...@news.pond.com>,
edi...@juno.com wrote:
> Or is undergoing chemotherapy
> or in some other situation
> where appetite disappears,
> endangering health. A little
> reefer will also do things
> for a tummyache that none of
> the industrial chemicals from
> you local drug pusher
> (pharmacy) can match. Until
> aspirin came along, it was
> the world's most popular
> analgesic. Ever seriously
> *wonder* why those in control
> of the big religious and
> political establishments are
> so against pot (and anything
> even remotely psychoactive)?
> It's a question well worth
> looking into!
> >>
Thanks Dr. Bruce ... where do you practice and
where'd you get your degree in medicine? I
can hear your next response in advance: "Doctor's
don't know everything .. new research blah blah blah
blah" ... jack of all trades .. master of none?
> What "'60s ways?" Why assume
> that citing historical
> precedent for sacramental
> use of a plant substance
> implies a particular
> lifestyle?
Because the context of the original post implies
the benefit of marijuana as a means to God realization.
Sacramental and cultural uses of plants were given for
the tribes, cultures, by birth and religion. Those
religions in general are almost nil and those cultures
too are almost nil. Additionally, thier relavance is
indiginous!
I seriously doubt that the readers or Jody are tribal or
cultural natives (heirs) of sacramental plant use.
It's not possible for her or any readers to connect to those
(lost) ancentral / cultural roots.
> In his time,
> your revered Jesus was roundly
> condemned for indulging in
> wine drinking by his
> blue-nosed Saduccee critics,
> why take up their banner of
> hypocritical superficiality?
Don't label Jesus a drunk. He was criticized for visiting
/ socializing with the "unclean". Therein lies the hypocracy.
Please. ps .. let's see you cite a single reference for a change.
>
> I was planning on a dandy
> bottle of sangiovese di
> romagna with our festive
> dinner at Caruso's
> Ristorante this Sunday,
> we'll drink a toast to
> know-it-all Puritans
> everywhere!
>
My post wasn't puritanical. There is a responsibility associated
with teaching. POsting on this forum places one in the
category of teacher if he/she is relaying a philosophical
platform.
Drinking wine is someone's own business. If you drink your
bottle of sangiovese di romagna, then begin to write
articles about paths to God realization via drinking, the
puritan will come out to battle that babbling as well.
> know-it-all Puritans
> everywhere!
Wow Bruce! Ever here the saying "takes one to know one"! and
you take the cake! I've examined your 1000 or so posts on the
net. Almost ALL of them are rebuttals to someone else's sincere
position .. You KNOW better than all of the them. And the
diversity of subject is pretty wide range .. it's obvious
who is the king know it all!
What really makes know it all's mad is when another know it all
knows alot more. :)
ys,
jodyr
The context of the original post implies that many
yogis over thousands of years have used marijuana as
an adjunct to whatever path they were on.
> Sacramental and cultural uses of plants were given for
> the tribes, cultures, by birth and religion. Those
> religions in general are almost nil and those cultures
> too are almost nil. Additionally, thier relavance is
> indiginous!
Those tribes and cultures are nil because savage Europeans
pumped-up on testosterone, lust for Gold, and a belief that
God wanted it went in and trashed any culture that was
other than theirs. These cultures are relevant now that
the Europeans have thoroughly trashed the planet and are
now looking for ways to undo the damage.
> I seriously doubt that the readers or Jody are tribal or
> cultural natives (heirs) of sacramental plant use.
But the readers are yogis, and the yogis have been smoking
marijuana for thousands of years.
> It's not possible for her or any readers to connect to those
> (lost) ancentral / cultural roots.
This is unnecessary. We are Westerners, we have adopted beliefs
and practices from outside our culture. If we can do this
with Indian culture then we can do it with whatever culture
that feels most appropriate.
> > In his time,
> > your revered Jesus was roundly
> > condemned for indulging in
> > wine drinking by his
> > blue-nosed Saduccee critics,
> > why take up their banner of
> > hypocritical superficiality?
>
> Don't label Jesus a drunk. He was criticized for visiting
> / socializing with the "unclean". Therein lies the hypocracy.
> Please. ps .. let's see you cite a single reference for a change.
There are no references to the *real* story about Jesus. If such
existed they were obliterated by the church fathers who sought to
control people by controlling scripture. We have no idea what
Jesus was really like, save for our own personal intuitions
about him.
> > I was planning on a dandy
> > bottle of sangiovese di
> > romagna with our festive
> > dinner at Caruso's
> > Ristorante this Sunday,
> > we'll drink a toast to
> > know-it-all Puritans
> > everywhere!
> >
>
> My post wasn't puritanical. There is a responsibility associated
> with teaching. POsting on this forum places one in the
> category of teacher if he/she is relaying a philosophical
> platform.
I speak purely from my own experience. You can believe whatever
you want about that. I support my description of my experience
with cultural precedents. I'm not teaching anything to anyone,
nor do I ever intend to here. I merely seek to expose readers
to a greater spectrum of spiritual practice than they usually
get from the likes of you and Mr. Martin.
> Drinking wine is someone's own business. If you drink your
> bottle of sangiovese di romagna, then begin to write
> articles about paths to God realization via drinking, the
> puritan will come out to battle that babbling as well.
>
> > know-it-all Puritans
> > everywhere!
>
> Wow Bruce! Ever here the saying "takes one to know one"! and
> you take the cake! I've examined your 1000 or so posts on the
> net. Almost ALL of them are rebuttals to someone else's sincere
> position .. You KNOW better than all of the them. And the
> diversity of subject is pretty wide range .. it's obvious
> who is the king know it all!
Bruce KNOWS. When one posts as if they "know", and it is in
conflict with what someone else KNOWS, then the opportunity
to compare and contrast the knowledge exists. The readers of
these posts will decide for themselves who is "right". Those
that feel a need to speak up will, and those that feel a
need to reply will as well.
> What really makes know it all's mad is when another know it all
> knows alot more. :)
Bruce and I *are* know-it-all's, for ourselves *only*. If someone
comes in to these NGs and posts "knowledge" that conflicts with
the sure foundation of our experiential knowledge, we react to
defend our personal knowledge for the pure joy and confirmation
of it.
We're not claiming to be gurus or teachers or whatever. We are
individual seekers that have come to knowledge of God by our
own separate means. We mean to make clear that this is possible
for whomever chooses such means. That's all.
Jai Ma! --jodyr.
jodyr
> I have observed people using marijuana before, after and during they
> were using it. Not very uplifting.
Your observations are colored by your prejudices about drugs. The
people you observed may have had other problems that may or may
not have been exacerbated by marijuana.
It's quite simple. I know many brilliant people who smoke pot.
Just because you don't doesn't mean they don't exist, it just
means you're hanging with a different crowd.
Jai Ma! --jodyr.
iss...@altavista.net
In article <35549E...@ix.netcom.com>,
jodyr <jo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
"blah blah blah"
"Gold" or "Red Bud" ramblings?
Get a new Bong ... yours is filled with
rank residue.
Take another toke and stay covered in Maya's smoke.
iss...@altavista.net
> Bruce KNOWS. When one posts as if they "know", and it is in
> conflict with what someone else KNOWS, then the opportunity
> to compare and contrast the knowledge exists. The readers of
> these posts will decide for themselves who is "right". Those
> that feel a need to speak up will, and those that feel a
> need to reply will as well.
> Bruce and I *are* know-it-all's, for ourselves *only*. If someone
> comes in to these NGs and posts "knowledge" that conflicts with
> the sure foundation of our experiential knowledge, we react to
> defend our personal knowledge for the pure joy and confirmation
> of it.
> We're not claiming to be gurus or teachers or whatever. We are
> individual seekers that have come to knowledge of God by our
> own separate means. We mean to make clear that this is possible
> for whomever chooses such means. That's all.
>
There is mental speculation and there is realization. You and
Brucey are speculators. You read and investigate and conclude
based on what is "reasonable" to your taste. Logical arguements
are postulated and tried against your speculative chemistry and
these are accepted as things that make sense. This is not
Realization. Realization is Knowing that Know that you know that
you know and it doesn't ever happen based on the limited
logical conclusions of the limited powers of the human mind.
You (plural) cannot reason out what is incomprehensible in
Nature.
Your conclusions and Bruce's are not so transcendental. Though
I do not deny your spiritual experiences, they still do not mean
you have reached your end or found the Truth.
Believe what you want ... You can't keep getting stoned
to enhance your meditation and expect the Truth, nor can
Bruce continue to preach from the platform of "know it all"
and rely on his private revalation.
Your posts and Bruce's posts speak for themselves.
"Take another toke and stay covered in Maya's smoke"
That is all.
ys (really),
jodyr
iss...@altavista.net wrote:
>
> In article <35549E...@ix.netcom.com>,
> jodyr <jo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
> "Gold" or "Red Bud" ramblings?
>
> Get a new Bong ... yours is filled with
> rank residue.
Sounds like you have experience in these matters.
> Take another toke and stay covered in Maya's smoke.
Maya is my Mother. She introduced me to the practice,
and introduced me to something else, something very
personal yet universal at the same time. Your taunts
only expose the weakness of your position.
Jai Ma! --jodyr.
jodyr
iss...@altavista.net wrote:
>
> In article <35549E...@ix.netcom.com>,
> jodyr <jo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > conflict with what someone else KNOWS, then the opportunity
> > to compare and contrast the knowledge exists. The readers of
> > these posts will decide for themselves who is "right". Those
> > that feel a need to speak up will, and those that feel a
> > need to reply will as well.
> > comes in to these NGs and posts "knowledge" that conflicts with
> > the sure foundation of our experiential knowledge, we react to
> > defend our personal knowledge for the pure joy and confirmation
> > of it.
> > We're not claiming to be gurus or teachers or whatever. We are
> > individual seekers that have come to knowledge of God by our
> > own separate means. We mean to make clear that this is possible
> > for whomever chooses such means. That's all.
> >
>
> Brucey are speculators. You read and investigate and conclude
> based on what is "reasonable" to your taste. Logical arguements
> are postulated and tried against your speculative chemistry and
> these are accepted as things that make sense. This is not
> Realization. Realization is Knowing that Know that you know that
> you know and it doesn't ever happen based on the limited
> logical conclusions of the limited powers of the human mind.
Now I feel *exactly* like Michael Martin. I can now only say
what he says, that you are speculating when you call us speculators.
I will say this about myself, I have been shown something that is
Absolute that is inside me. You can speculate that I'm deluded
from here to kingdom come and my knowledge of this experience will
not change, nor will what I believe to be true about it.
> You (plural) cannot reason out what is incomprehensible in
> Nature.
I have not once attemped to reason out the incomprehensible. I'm
reasoning out ways to get there.
> Your conclusions and Bruce's are not so transcendental. Though
> I do not deny your spiritual experiences, they still do not mean
> you have reached your end or found the Truth.
Of course I haven't reached the end. I never will. I don't believe
in an "end". I've reached the summit of one out of a million peaks.
There's many more for me to climb, many that are much higher than
the one I'm on now.
> Believe what you want ... You can't keep getting stoned
> to enhance your meditation and expect the Truth, nor can
> Bruce continue to preach from the platform of "know it all"
> and rely on his private revalation.
You are simply incorrect. You accept a cultural more as truth
and fact. Contact with the Absolute exists entirely outside of
these kinds of beliefs, and to hold them prevents one from having
said contact.
> Your posts and Bruce's posts speak for themselves.
From your perspective yes. I'll venture that your perspective
is limited by a blind adherence to cultural beliefs and a lack
of experiential knowledge.
> "Take another toke and stay covered in Maya's smoke"
As I said before, She is my Mother and She has taught and
shown me everything that I know and experience. I love Her.
Jai Ma! --jodyr.
jodyr
edi...@juno.com wrote:
*snip*
> > You can't keep getting stoned
> > to enhance your meditation and expect the Truth,
>
> I don't think meditation
> enhancement or expectation
> figure into Jody's approach,
> but that's really for him to
> say. Neither has anything
> to do with mine, that's for
> sure.
No, I get stoned 'cuz I like it. That's all. But I've come
to know *my* truth whilst engaged in the habit. And as I've
pointed out, I'm not alone among yogis, at least in India in
the streets and creamation grounds.
*snip*
Jai Ma! --jodyr.
Gary
The question then becomes,"Why do you like it?" I suspect you use this
herb to calm your nervous system; which it does a very good job at. I
hope you also know that to over medicate is counterproductive.
Eventually your liver and lungs will not be able to process the toxins.
You're fortunate that you are familiar with yoga and that if you stay
aware, you will then count on the yoga more than the medication for
calming.
-Gary
> No, I get stoned 'cuz I like it. That's all.
>
> *snip*
>
> Jai Ma! --jodyr.
--
To reply, delete *nospam* from the address
jodyr
Gary wrote:
>
> The question then becomes,"Why do you like it?" I suspect you use this
> herb to calm your nervous system; which it does a very good job at. I
> hope you also know that to over medicate is counterproductive.
> Eventually your liver and lungs will not be able to process the toxins.
> You're fortunate that you are familiar with yoga and that if you stay
> aware, you will then count on the yoga more than the medication for
> calming.
I think I like it for the same reasons the Sadhus and Bauls like it.
It's a pleasant thing to do, and can act as a kind of MRI of
personality structure as it favors introspection, at least for me.
THC has no known toxic metabolites. It is stored in fatty deposits
in neurons, but is inactive in that state. As I've said numerous
times in this thread, marijuana use is an established practice in
India among the Sadhus and the Bauls, who both direct their life's
activities toward yoga *while* using marijuana.
It is entirely possible that at some point in my life my habits
will change, they have in the past. The whole point of my original
post was to show people that spiritual practices aren't limited to
that which is considered "proper" or "correct" by a particular
society or culture. Practices can happen *anywhere* along the
spectrum of social expression, often do, and generally go
unrecognized as such, except by the people engaged in them.
Jai Ma! --jodyr.
edi...@juno.com
In article <6j2ou5$rt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
iss...@altavista.net wrote:
>
> In article <35549E...@ix.netcom.com>,
> jodyr <jo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > conflict with what someone else KNOWS, then the opportunity
> > to compare and contrast the knowledge exists. The readers of
> > these posts will decide for themselves who is "right". Those
> > that feel a need to speak up will, and those that feel a
> > need to reply will as well.
> > comes in to these NGs and posts "knowledge" that conflicts with
> > the sure foundation of our experiential knowledge, we react to
> > defend our personal knowledge for the pure joy and confirmation
> > of it.
> > We're not claiming to be gurus or teachers or whatever. We are
> > individual seekers that have come to knowledge of God by our
> > own separate means. We mean to make clear that this is possible
> > for whomever chooses such means. That's all.
> >
>
This is correct.
> You and
> Brucey are speculators.
This is incorrect.
> You read and investigate and conclude
> based on what is "reasonable" to your taste.
This is entirely speculative.
> Logical arguements
> are postulated and tried against your speculative chemistry and
> these are accepted as things that make sense.
This is entirely imaginary.
> This is not Realization.
You made it up, so you
should know!
> Realization is Knowing that Know that you know that
> you know and it doesn't ever happen based on the limited
> logical conclusions of the limited powers of the human mind.
>
You wrote this without the
influence of alcohol or
pot? I don't know whether
to be impressed or appalled!
That said, the closing clause
is entirely correct!
> You (plural) cannot reason out what is incomprehensible in
> Nature.
>
With the proviso that "what
is incomprehensible in
nature" changes on an ongoing
basis, it is clearly true that
intentional thought is very
starkly limited in its ability
to comprehend nature. That is
why there are yogas and
meditations, why we look
beyond thought's limitations.
> Your conclusions and Bruce's are not so transcendental.
How one would perform such a
measurement isn't apparent.
"Conclusions" are the result
of the comparative activity
of thought and therefore not
in any way shape or form
"transcendental."
> Though
> I do not deny your spiritual experiences, they still do not mean
> you have reached your end or found the Truth.
>
Quite possibly true.
> Believe what you want ...
Belief has nothing to do
with what I post, the
great bulk of it is just
plain experiential.
> You can't keep getting stoned
> to enhance your meditation and expect the Truth,
I don't think meditation
enhancement or expectation
figure into Jody's approach,
but that's really for him to
say. Neither has anything
to do with mine, that's for
sure.
> nor can
> Bruce continue to preach from the platform of "know it all"
Wanna bet? :-)
> and rely on his private revalation.
>
All revelation is "private"
or it's something other
than revelation.
> Your posts and Bruce's posts speak for themselves.
>
True enough, as both Jody
and I have consistently
maintained!
> "Take another toke and stay covered in Maya's smoke"
>
"Maya" has little to do
with externals, and the
effect of "another toke"
cannot be generalized, it
is inseparable from
uncountable other factors
and distinctly non-
deterministic vis a vis
"maya."
> That is all.
>
Indeed it is!
> ys (really),
>
Really?
> Iss'a das
>
Seems to me you're sworn
to a dead man.
roger erland
I christen thee
Hashtanga yoga.
Ever try the edible form of these psychedelics ??
Roger
jodyr wrote:
> <abunchofstuff>
iss...@altavista.net
Author: edi...@juno.com
1700 unique articles posted.
Number of articles posted to individual newsgroups (slightly skewed by
to cross-postings):
406 talk.religion.newage
318 alt.meditation
217 alt.consciousness.4th-way
123 alt.consciousness.mysticism
72 alt.fan.art-bell
55 comp.os.cpm
47 comp.periphs.scsi
45 bit.listserv.bgrass-l
26 alt.meditation.transcendental
23 alt.religion.roy-masters
21 alt.theosophy
20 talk.religion.misc
18 alt.consciousness
15 alt.religion.gnostic
15 comp.os.msdos.4dos
12 alt.activism
12 alt.illuminati
11 alt.religion.islam
11 misc.forsale.computers.storage
10 alt.bible.prophecy
10 phl.forsale
10 talk.religion.buddhism
9 soc.culture.jewish
8 alt.astrology
7 alt.life.itself
7 alt.zen
7 phl.internet
6 alt.buddha.short.fat.guy
6 alt.religion.christian
5 alt.christnet
5 alt.religion.eckankar
5 alt.usenet.kooks
4 alt.apocalypse
4 alt.folklore.computers
4 alt.meditation.shabda
4 alt.music.steely-dan
4 alt.religion.scientology
4 alt.society.neutopia
4 alt.sys.pc-clone.packardbell
4 alt.yoga
4 misc.forsale.computers.pc-specific.motherboards
4 talk.philosophy.misc
3 alt.atheism
3 alt.christnet.bible
3 alt.games.doom.ii
3 alt.healing.reiki
3 alt.messianic
3 alt.metaphysics.a-a-bailey
3 alt.prophecies.nostradamus
3 alt.save.the.earth
3 comp.os.msdos.apps
3 misc.forsale.computers.memory
3 misc.forsale.computers.monitors
3 nz.general
3 rec.autos.makers.honda
2 alt.fan.winona-ryder
2 alt.magick.tyagi
2 alt.paranet.metaphysics
2 alt.paranormal
2 alt.religion
2 misc.forsale.computers.pc-specific.systems
2 rec.autos.marketplace
1
1 alt.backrubs
1 alt.christnet.theology
1 alt.comp.hardware
1 alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt
1 alt.config
1 alt.consciousness.jancox
1 alt.fan.john-winston
1 alt.hypnosis
1 alt.lang.asm
1 alt.philosophy.debate
1 alt.religion.angels
1 alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
1 alt.religion.vaisnava
1 biz.marketplace.computers.pc-clone
1 comp.sys.cbm
1 misc.forsale.computers.other.misc
1 misc.forsale.computers.pc-specific.misc
1 rec.music.progressive
1 sci.physics
1 soc.religion.christian
1 soc.religion.eastern
1 talk.origins
1 upenn.forsale
1 uva.want-ads
Well Bruce ... there you have it .. you really KNOW IT ALL.
> > In article <35549E...@ix.netcom.com>,
> > jodyr <jo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Bruce KNOWS. When one posts as if they "know", and it is in
> > > conflict with what someone else KNOWS, then the opportunity
> > > to compare and contrast the knowledge exists.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Bruce Morgen
iss...@altavista.net wrote:
>
>Author: edi...@juno.com
>
> 1700 unique articles posted.
> Number of articles posted to individual newsgroups (slightly skewed by
> to cross-postings):
>
> 318 alt.meditation **
> 217 alt.consciousness.4th-way **
> 123 alt.consciousness.mysticism
> 72 alt.fan.art-bell
> 55 comp.os.cpm **
> 47 comp.periphs.scsi **
> 45 bit.listserv.bgrass-l **
> 26 alt.meditation.transcendental
> 23 alt.religion.roy-masters
> 21 alt.theosophy
> 20 talk.religion.misc
> 15 alt.religion.gnostic
> 15 comp.os.msdos.4dos **
> 12 alt.activism
> 12 alt.illuminati
> 11 alt.religion.islam
> 10 alt.bible.prophecy
> 10 phl.forsale **
> 10 talk.religion.buddhism
> 9 soc.culture.jewish
> 8 alt.astrology
> 7 alt.life.itself
> 7 alt.zen
> 6 alt.buddha.short.fat.guy
> 6 alt.religion.christian
> 5 alt.christnet
> 5 alt.religion.eckankar
> 5 alt.usenet.kooks
> 4 alt.apocalypse
> 4 alt.folklore.computers
> 4 alt.meditation.shabda
> 4 alt.music.steely-dan
> 4 alt.religion.scientology
> 4 alt.society.neutopia
> 4 alt.sys.pc-clone.packardbell
> 4 alt.yoga
> 4 talk.philosophy.misc
> 3 alt.atheism
> 3 alt.christnet.bible
> 3 alt.games.doom.ii
> 3 alt.healing.reiki
> 3 alt.messianic
> 3 alt.metaphysics.a-a-bailey
> 3 alt.prophecies.nostradamus
> 3 alt.save.the.earth
> 3 comp.os.msdos.apps
> 3 misc.forsale.computers.monitors **
> 3 nz.general
> 3 rec.autos.makers.honda
> 2 alt.fan.winona-ryder
> 2 alt.magick.tyagi
> 2 alt.paranet.metaphysics
> 2 alt.paranormal
> 2 alt.religion
> 2 rec.autos.marketplace
> 1
> 1 alt.backrubs
> 1 alt.christnet.theology
> 1 alt.comp.hardware
> 1 alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt
> 1 alt.config
> 1 alt.consciousness.jancox
> 1 alt.fan.john-winston
> 1 alt.hypnosis
> 1 alt.lang.asm
> 1 alt.philosophy.debate
> 1 alt.religion.angels
> 1 alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
> 1 alt.religion.vaisnava
> 1 biz.marketplace.computers.pc-clone
> 1 comp.sys.cbm
> 1 misc.forsale.computers.pc-specific.misc **
> 1 rec.music.progressive
> 1 sci.physics
> 1 soc.religion.christian
> 1 soc.religion.eastern
> 1 talk.origins
> 1 upenn.forsale
> 1 uva.want-ads
>
>Well Bruce ... there you have it .. you really KNOW IT ALL.
>
but vast bulk of these groups
(and almost all the one-post
ones) appear as the result of
responding to crossposted
threads. I've placed double
asterisks after each group I
actually read (and occasionally
post to) on a regular basis,
since you apparently have a
deep and abiding interest in my
the minutae of my Usenet
activity.
[snip]
iss...@altavista.net
In article <6j3372$boh$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
edi...@juno.com wrote:
Author: edi...@juno.com
1700 unique articles posted.
Number of articles posted to individual newsgroups
(slightly skewed by to cross-postings):
Help
406 talk.religion.newage
318 alt.meditation
217 alt.consciousness.4th-way
123 alt.consciousness.mysticism
72 alt.fan.art-bell
55 comp.os.cpm
47 comp.periphs.scsi
45 bit.listserv.bgrass-l
26 alt.meditation.transcendental
23 alt.religion.roy-masters
21 alt.theosophy
20 talk.religion.misc
18 alt.consciousness
15 alt.religion.gnostic
15 comp.os.msdos.4dos
12 alt.activism
12 alt.illuminati
11 alt.religion.islam
11 misc.forsale.computers.storage
10 alt.bible.prophecy
10 phl.forsale
10 talk.religion.buddhism
9 soc.culture.jewish
8 alt.astrology
7 alt.life.itself
7 alt.zen
7 phl.internet
6 alt.buddha.short.fat.guy
6 alt.religion.christian
5 alt.christnet
5 alt.religion.eckankar
5 alt.usenet.kooks
4 alt.apocalypse
4 alt.folklore.computers
4 alt.meditation.shabda
4 alt.music.steely-dan
4 alt.religion.scientology
4 alt.society.neutopia
4 alt.sys.pc-clone.packardbell
4 alt.yoga
4 misc.forsale.computers.pc-specific.motherboards
4 talk.philosophy.misc
3 alt.atheism
3 alt.christnet.bible
3 alt.games.doom.ii
3 alt.healing.reiki
3 alt.messianic
3 alt.metaphysics.a-a-bailey
3 alt.prophecies.nostradamus
3 alt.save.the.earth
3 comp.os.msdos.apps
3 misc.forsale.computers.memory
3 misc.forsale.computers.monitors
3 nz.general
3 rec.autos.makers.honda
2 alt.fan.winona-ryder
2 alt.magick.tyagi
2 alt.paranet.metaphysics
2 alt.paranormal
2 alt.religion
2 misc.forsale.computers.pc-specific.systems
2 rec.autos.marketplace
1
1 alt.backrubs
1 alt.christnet.theology
1 alt.comp.hardware
1 alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt
1 alt.config
1 alt.consciousness.jancox
1 alt.fan.john-winston
1 alt.hypnosis
1 alt.lang.asm
1 alt.philosophy.debate
1 alt.religion.angels
1 alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
1 alt.religion.vaisnava
1 biz.marketplace.computers.pc-clone
1 comp.sys.cbm
1 misc.forsale.computers.other.misc
1 misc.forsale.computers.pc-specific.misc
1 rec.music.progressive
1 sci.physics
1 soc.religion.christian
1 soc.religion.eastern
1 talk.origins
1 upenn.forsale
1 uva.want-ads
> > > Bruce KNOWS. When one posts as if they "know", and it is in
> > > conflict with what someone else KNOWS, then the opportunity
> > > to compare and contrast the knowledge exists. The readers of
> > > these posts will decide for themselves who is "right". Those
> > > that feel a need to speak up will, and those that feel a
> > > need to reply will as well.
> > > Bruce and I *are* know-it-all's, for ourselves *only*.
Proven pudding.
iss...@altavista.net
In article <3554ED...@ix.netcom.com>,
jodyr <jo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Take another toke and stay covered in Maya's smoke.
>
> Maya is my Mother.
You said it. Your words are your own answer.
jodyr
Eleph wrote:
>
> jodyr <jo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Your observations are colored by your prejudices about drugs.
>
> just observe.
To just observe is impossible. You must make an analysis of your
observations to come to conclusions about them. Your conclusions
indicate that you have certain assumptions about the action of
marijuana. Have you tried it yourself?
> > The
> >people you observed may have had other problems that may or may
> >not have been exacerbated by marijuana.
>
> Everyone has problems. And that is not what I observed. Primairly
> marijuana dulls the (self-)awareness of people. The effects after
> using marijuana are more subtle, but do not impair their functioning
> in society. These effects are somewhat stronger then the effects of
> unhealthy dietary habits or physical acivities. Otherwise I see no
> worrying effects. It might be bad for your lungs though. ;-)
You assert marijuana dulls self-awareness. How do you know this?
What evidence do you have to support this?
> >It's quite simple. I know many brilliant people who smoke pot.
> >Just because you don't doesn't mean they don't exist, it just
> >means you're hanging with a different crowd.
>
> This is another prejudice. You are saying that I do not know brilliant
> people who smoke pot. (I live in Amsterdam.) I have to admit though
> that I reserve the word brilliant for very few people.
Are they disqualified from your "brilliant" designation because they
smoke pot?
> I still believe it is unwise to smoke marijuana, but I do not deny
> anyone the right to find out for themselves. So what is your worry?
Thanx for your permission. My "worry" is that I've found marijuana
to be somewhat helpful at times as an adjunct to my practice of
bhakti yogi. I support this assertion with evidence that it has
been used as the same in India for a very long time by many yogis.
People (such as yourself) attempt to refute these statements. I
defend them. No worries! :)
Jai Ma! --jodyr.
jodyr
iss...@altavista.net wrote:
>
> In article <3554ED...@ix.netcom.com>,
> jodyr <jo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > > Take another toke and stay covered in Maya's smoke.
> >
> > Maya is my Mother.
>
> You said it. Your words are your own answer.
What was the question?
--jodyr.
Hari Har Singh
Bruce Morgen schrieb in Nachricht <3555ed36...@news.pond.com>...
>iss...@altavista.net wrote:
>>
>>Author: edi...@juno.com
>>
>> 1700 unique articles posted.
>> Number of articles posted to individual newsgroups (slightly skewed
by
>> to cross-postings):
>>
>> 406 talk.religion.newage **
>> 318 alt.meditation **
>> 217 alt.consciousness.4th-way **
>> 123 alt.consciousness.mysticism
>> 72 alt.fan.art-bell
>> 55 comp.os.cpm **
>> 47 comp.periphs.scsi **
>> 45 bit.listserv.bgrass-l **
>> 26 alt.meditation.transcendental
>> 23 alt.religion.roy-masters
>> 21 alt.theosophy
[snipped]
Great!
Dear Iss das - can you count the number of my postings too? I'm really
curious...
Thank you!
Sat Nam - Hari Har Singh
jodyr
> is impossible, or are you just assuming I did the impossible.
What I mean is that observation is always associated with an intellectual
analysis of what is observed.
> > You must make an analysis of your
> >observations to come to conclusions about them.
>
> I don't play by those rules.
The mind is limited by those rules.
> > Your conclusions
> >indicate that you have certain assumptions about the action of
> >marijuana.
>
> Which conclusions, what assumption apart from your assumptions and
> conclusions?
You concluded that marijuana decreased self-awareness in those that
use it.
> > Have you tried it yourself?
>
> Didn't need to myself to make the observation.
So then you're basing your appraisal of the effects of marijuana on
others solely by "the vibe" you get from them or something?
> >> > The
> >> >people you observed may have had other problems that may or may
> >> >not have been exacerbated by marijuana.
> >>
> >> Everyone has problems. And that is not what I observed. Primairly
> >> marijuana dulls the (self-)awareness of people. The effects after
> >> using marijuana are more subtle, but do not impair their functioning
> >> in society. These effects are somewhat stronger then the effects of
> >> unhealthy dietary habits or physical acivities. Otherwise I see no
> >> worrying effects. It might be bad for your lungs though. ;-)
> >
> >You assert marijuana dulls self-awareness. How do you know this?
>
> I have observed it.
>
> >What evidence do you have to support this?
>
> I have observed it.
Not good enough for me, or for a discussion. I've observed the
opposite. Who's more right here? Neither. I believe you've
observed incorrectly, but I was never in your head when you made
your observations, so I can't really say where you went wrong.
> >> >It's quite simple. I know many brilliant people who smoke pot.
> >> >Just because you don't doesn't mean they don't exist, it just
> >> >means you're hanging with a different crowd.
> >>
> >> This is another prejudice. You are saying that I do not know brilliant
> >> people who smoke pot. (I live in Amsterdam.) I have to admit though
> >> that I reserve the word brilliant for very few people.
> >
> >Are they disqualified from your "brilliant" designation because they
> >smoke pot?
>
> No, because I see all people as my equals, neither above nor below me.
> Although at times beyond my understanding. To consider others as
> brilliant I must be able to understand their brilliance, which would
> make me brilliant. I do not consider myself that way. Thus I rarely
> consider others as brilliant.
>
> >> I still believe it is unwise to smoke marijuana, but I do not deny
> >> anyone the right to find out for themselves. So what is your worry?
> >
> >Thanx for your permission.
>
> I did not give any permission.
>
> > My "worry" is that I've found marijuana
> >to be somewhat helpful at times as an adjunct to my practice of
> >bhakti yogi.
>
> That was your observation. Maybe you would like to explain/repeat in
> what way it helped you. This is a kind invitation. It may help me to
> understand why we observe different things.
Bhakti is the practice of cultivating love for God. Anything that helps
one feel more love for God is good. Marijuana can sometimes have that
effect on me, especially when I'm in the wilderness.
> > I support this assertion with evidence that it has
> >been used as the same in India for a very long time by many yogis.
> >People (such as yourself) attempt to refute these statements.
>
> I value your words more then any yogi from India. I value your words
> less when you seek someone else's authority.
> BTW, I did not refute any words by anyone. I shared my own experience
> and point of view. I have no interest in proving you or any yogi
> wrong.
>
> > I defend them.
>
> You assume I am attacking?
Defense of a point of view. Yes, you were attacking my point of view.
That's ok, I don't take it personally :) It's just debate! It's fun
when it gets a little heated.
> > No worries! :)
>
> No need to defend in that case.
I attempt to defend the practice of marijuana use as an adjunct to yoga
practice by describing my personal experience with it and by describing
the cultural history of its use among yogis in India. That's all.
--jodyr.
edi...@juno.com
In article <6j53aj$j3r$2...@unlisys.unlisys.net>,
better "know-it-all," I am
happy to provide this
service:
Author: f...@berlin.snafu.de
652 unique articles posted.
Number of articles posted to individual newsgroups
(slightly skewed by to cross-postings):
214 alt.yoga
92 alt.meditation
78 alt.consciousness.mysticism
75 z-netz.forum.religion
29 talk.religion.newage
20 alt.healing.reiki
20 z-netz.alt.esoterik
17 alt.atheism
15 soc.religion.eastern
12 talk.philosophy.misc
11 de.sci.theologie
8 alt.religion.scientology
8 de.soc.weltanschauung.christentum
4 de.sci.psychologie
3 alt.consciousness
3 alt.html
3 aus.religion
2 alt.meditation.transcendental
2 alt.philosophy.debate
2 alt.religion.eckankar
2 de.alt.fan.prince
2 soc.religion.sikhism
1 alt.activism
1 alt.computer
1 alt.music.prince
1 alt.theosophy
1 alt.wolves.hybrid
1 cl.religionen.diskussion
1 de.sci.medizin.psychiatrie
1 de.sci.philosophie
1 microsoft.public.de.word
1 rec.music.indian.classical
1 talk.politics.animals
1 uk.religion.other-faiths
1 z-netz.koordination.user+sysops
iss...@altavista.net
> Great!
> Dear Iss das - can you count the number of my postings too? I'm really
> curious...
> Thank you!
>
> Sat Nam - Hari Har Singh
>
It's not the count .. it's the content .. Bruce always knows better..
..go follow if you like ...
iss...@altavista.net
In article <3555ed36...@news.pond.com>,
edi...@juno.com wrote:
L.
> >
> Thanks for the acknowledgement,
> but vast bulk of these groups
> (and almost all the one-post
> ones) appear as the result of
> responding to crossposted
> threads.
Is that what you call it , i.e.,
"responding" ... your responses are
always seem to indicate the you know
more than others... ... do you ..?
> I've placed double
> asterisks after each group I
> actually read (and occasionally
> post to) on a regular basis,
> since you apparently have a
> deep and abiding interest in my
> the minutae of my Usenet
> activity.
Wow! Gee thanks (like we really care) .. and
you really took the time to do this .. :)
"I bet you think this song is about you"
iss...@altavista.net
> Great!
> Dear Iss das - can you count the number of my postings too? I'm really
> curious...
> Thank you!
>
> Sat Nam - Hari Har Singh
214 alt.yoga
You know alot too Hari .. but are you calling other's "know it alls"?
Your servant,
Iss'a das
Hari Har Singh
iss...@altavista.net schrieb in Nachricht
<6j5uth$vv6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <6j53aj$j3r$2...@unlisys.unlisys.net>,
> "Hari Har Singh" <f...@berlin.snafu.de> wrote:
>
>> Great!
>> Dear Iss das - can you count the number of my postings too? I'm really
>> curious...
>> Thank you!
>>
>> Sat Nam - Hari Har Singh
>>
>
>It's not the count .. it's the content .. Bruce always knows better..
>..go follow if you like ...
I will follow Iss a dass! :-)
Hari Har Singh
edi...@juno.com schrieb in Nachricht <6j5j03$q44$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>>
>Just to show I am a much
>better "know-it-all," I am
>happy to provide this
>service:
>
Would you share your wisedom with me how you are doing this??
Hari Har Singh
Thank you very much Iss a dass!
That's very interesting... :-)
iss...@altavista.net schrieb in Nachricht
<6j5vhs$1id$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <6j53aj$j3r$2...@unlisys.unlisys.net>,
> "Hari Har Singh" <f...@berlin.snafu.de> wrote:
>
>> Great!
>> Dear Iss das - can you count the number of my postings too? I'm really
>> curious...
>> Thank you!
>>
>> Sat Nam - Hari Har Singh
>
>214 alt.yoga
> 92 alt.meditation
[snipped]
>
>
>You know alot too Hari .. but are you calling other's "know it alls"?
No, usually I don't do that.
It's not important to "know it all".... It's only important to know where to
get the information if you need it! :-)
Gil Bar-On
hi,
Could anyone explain to me about Yoga and meditation:
1. What happen in them?
2. How do they help me and improve me?
3. How can I achive them?
4. What are the pros and cons for them?
5. And more...
Good Bye!
Hari Har Singh
Hi Gil,
Gil Bar-On schrieb in Nachricht <3556D280...@ibm.net>...
>hi,
>Could anyone explain to me about Yoga and meditation:
>1. What happen in them?
We can tell you a lot about it - there are many good books avilable about
this topics too.
But the best in Yoga and meditation is to try it by yourself!
If you want to find a Yogaclass search for it at:
http://www.sikhnet.com/IKYTA or http://www.yogafinder.com
>2. How do they help me and improve me?
It depends on you too. Most of the ppl report an increase in relaxation,
feeling weel, health, a decrease of stress and more self-confidence up to
deep spiritual experiences.
>3. How can I achive them?
How you can achieve Yoga? Find a teacher / Yogaclass....
>4. What are the pros and cons for them?
Pros: see above
Cons: You can become "addicted" to the Pros ;-)
>5. And more...
Yeah - of course! Hehe...
There is no liberation without labour - go and find out yourself!
Sat Nam - Hari Har Singh
************************************************************
Visit the 3HO homepage: http://yoga.home.pages.de/
iss...@altavista.net
In article <6j6ekf$php$1...@unlisys.unlisys.net>,
"Hari Har Singh" <f...@berlin.snafu.de> wrote:
> I will follow Iss a dass! :-)
>
> Sat Nam - Hari Har Singh
:) Now that's unfair! Now I have NO CHOICE but to
be your servant!
ys,
iss...@altavista.net
In article <3556D280...@ibm.net>,
Gil Bar-On <bar...@ibm.net> wrote:
>
> hi,
> Could anyone explain to me about Yoga and meditation:
> 1. What happen in them?
>
> Good Bye!
I suggest you look just about anywhere but on these newsgroups.
What you'll find here is a personal pat yourself on the back club.
... far from yoga ...
Bruce Morgen
iss...@altavista.net wrote:
>In article <3555ed36...@news.pond.com>,
> edi...@juno.com wrote:
>L.
>> >
>> Thanks for the acknowledgement,
>> but vast bulk of these groups
>> (and almost all the one-post
>> ones) appear as the result of
>> responding to crossposted
>> threads.
>
>Is that what you call it , i.e.,
>"responding" ... your responses are
>always seem to indicate the you know
>more than others... ... do you ..?
>
In some cases I do, in
many cases it isn't a
matter of anything
measurable at all, and
undoubtedly in other
cases I'm outright
incorrect. In the vast
majority of instances, I
write from experience
rather than the
intentionally accumulated
knowledge typical of a
"know-it-all."
>> I've placed double
>> asterisks after each group I
>> actually read (and occasionally
>> post to) on a regular basis,
>> since you apparently have a
>> deep and abiding interest in my
>> the minutae of my Usenet
>> activity.
>
>Wow! Gee thanks (like we really care) .. and
>you really took the time to do this .. :)
>
Well, as my would-be
Usenet biographer you
"took the time" to make
some raw data public; I
simply posted a public
clarification concerning
the activity behind the
statistics. As to the
"(like we really care)"
remark, someone obviously
*did* care enough to have
posted that raw data --
perhaps only in an effort
to discredit me, but
there is obvious "care"
of some kind on his part.
>"I bet you think this song is about you"
>
It may be, but that is up
to the songwriter, who
seems to want to label me
pejoratively as a "know-
it-all." That's OK, it's
his song and he's welcome
to sing it!
Hari Har Singh
iss...@altavista.net schrieb in Nachricht
<6j75kr$lc3$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <6j6ekf$php$1...@unlisys.unlisys.net>,
> "Hari Har Singh" <f...@berlin.snafu.de> wrote:
>
>> I will follow Iss a dass! :-)
>>
>> Sat Nam - Hari Har Singh
>
>:) Now that's unfair! Now I have NO CHOICE but to
>be your servant!
"If you WANT to do what you HAVE to do - than you are free." ;-))
Your's "Master in divine" - Hari Har Singh
(Hey, friends can call me G.O.D.) ;-))
Hari Har Singh
iss...@altavista.net schrieb in Nachricht
<6j75qk$lcq$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <3556D280...@ibm.net>,
> Gil Bar-On <bar...@ibm.net> wrote:
>>
>> hi,
>> Could anyone explain to me about Yoga and meditation:
>> 1. What happen in them?
>> 2. How do they help me and improve me?
>> 3. How can I achive them?
>> 4. What are the pros and cons for them?
>> 5. And more...
>>
>> Good Bye!
>
>I suggest you look just about anywhere but on these newsgroups.
>What you'll find here is a personal pat yourself on the back club.
>... far from yoga ...
Ah, really?
I don't agree with you.
The NG is not perfect - but it's better than nothing, hm?
Sat Nam - Hari Har Singh
************************************************************
Bruce Morgen
"Hari Har Singh" <f...@berlin.snafu.de> wrote:
>
>iss...@altavista.net schrieb in Nachricht
><6j75kr$lc3$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>>In article <6j6ekf$php$1...@unlisys.unlisys.net>,
>> "Hari Har Singh" <f...@berlin.snafu.de> wrote:
>>
[snip]
>
>"If you WANT to do what you HAVE to do - than you are free." ;-))
>
What a GREAT insight! Wherever
it originated, many thanks for
posting it!
>Your's "Master in divine" - Hari Har Singh
>(Hey, friends can call me G.O.D.) ;-))
>
Keep posting such wondrous words
and I'll call you whatever you
want! :-)
Raz Ozai
iss...@altavista.net wrote in message <6j05dg$a58$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Now you are on the platform of Shiva? Take another toke and stay
>covered in the smoke. That's a little poetry for you. :)
I really doubt that you understand the meaning Maya or Shiva.
You clearly demonstrate an ignorant perspective when writing about marijuana
and her uses. You dont need to be a Licensed Medical Doctor (contrary to
what the FDA claims) to understand and use most herbs (training is
recommended).
Dont believe everything that the TV or our government says, they respond to
other interest.
Ras Ozai
wise...@ptw.com
In article <6j2ou5$rt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
iss...@altavista.net wrote:
>
> In article <35549E...@ix.netcom.com>,
> jodyr <jo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
Just a couple of interjections along the way here,
Issadas,
(1) relating to an earlier post, lest ye forget,
Maya is also the name of the Mother of the Buddha.
(2) In Rig Veda, both 'yoga' and 'maya' can be
appropriately (ie., within certain conttexts) be
translated as 'magic.'
And in fact, that is probably the most consistent
meaning of yoga in Rig Veda, since most of the
yoga ye know today derives primarily from
Harappan culture, not Aryan culture.
> There is mental speculation and there is realization. You and
> Brucey are speculators. You read and investigate and conclude
> based on what is "reasonable" to your taste. Logical arguements
> are postulated and tried against your speculative chemistry and
> these are accepted as things that make sense. This is not
> Realization. Realization is Knowing that Know that you know that
> you know and it doesn't ever happen based on the limited
> logical conclusions of the limited powers of the human mind.
>
> You (plural) cannot reason out what is incomprehensible in
> Nature.
>
> Your conclusions and Bruce's are not so transcendental. Though
> I do not deny your spiritual experiences, they still do not mean
> you have reached your end or found the Truth.
>
> Believe what you want ... You can't keep getting stoned
> to enhance your meditation and expect the Truth, nor can
>
Having read this thread pretty closely, I can't
find any prior mention of either getting or being
'stoned.' Your cultural stereotypes are showing, if
you have only that one representation in you mind
for marijuana use. Jody and Bruce have been
speaking of the 'sacramental' use of one of god's
natural herbs, not of getting 'stoned.'
B I G D I F F E R E N C E ! !
In the Hebrew/Christian scriptures is not 'every
herb of the field' given for the use of mankind?
And what in the world did you think was the main
component in fumito, 'the little smoke,' that Don
Juan Matues gave to Carlos Castaneda to help
allow him to *see?*
> Bruce continue to preach from the platform of "know it all"
> and rely on his private revalation.
>
YOU say they say this, not them. They deny that
this is what they are saying, and the thread itself
clearly supports their claim.
Let's use a little common sense here.
> Your posts and Bruce's posts speak for themselves.
>
> "Take another toke and stay covered in Maya's smoke"
>
> That is all.
>
> ys (really),
>
> Iss'a das
outlaw
In article <6ivc5i$rro$4...@unlisys.unlisys.net>, Hari Har Singh
<f...@berlin.snafu.de> wrote
>I often heard that ppl who regularily used to take a trip with marihuana
>started to do Kundalini Yoga and Kundalini Yoga Meditations and then
>switched totally to the Yoga because it has the same effects as the trip to
>them - without the sideeffects the regularily longterm use of - even soft -
>drugs have.
While there is certainly no need to push anyone towards using marijuana,
the problem we have in western "democracies" is that pressure from
pharmaceutical companies, doctors, social workers, police, and a few
others, has led to a lot of people being marginalised and criminalised.
The situation is even more bizarre in the UK (and possibly other
countries) where a marijuana user who buys from a dealer is likely to be
cautioned rather than charged, while one who is self-sufficient by
growing his or her own is very likely to be charged, convicted and
fined! This policy of the UK police *encourages* dependency on drug
dealers!
The bottom line is jobs--keeping marijuana illegal creates a lot of easy
jobs for people... :-)
--
Outlaw
wise...@ptw.com
In article <3555B342.B323D722@organic-
electric.com>,
roger erland <ro...@organic-electric.com>
wrote:
>
> I christen thee
>
> Hashtanga yoga.
>
> Ever try the edible form of these psychedelics ??
>
> Roger
>
>
'Hashtanga yoga,' eh?
It has nice (smoke) ring to it, Roger.
Jai Aum,
--Robert
wise...@ptw.com
> >
> >Author: edi...@juno.com
> >
> > 1700 unique articles posted.
> > Number of articles posted to individual newsgroups (slightly skewed by
> > to cross-postings):
> >
> >
> >Well Bruce ... there you have it .. you really KNOW IT ALL.
> >
> Thanks for the acknowledgement,
> but vast bulk of these groups
> (and almost all the one-post
> ones) appear as the result of
> responding to crossposted
> asterisks after each group I
> actually read (and occasionally
> post to) on a regular basis,
> since you apparently have a
> deep and abiding interest in my
> the minutae of my Usenet
> activity.
>
>
''45 bit.listserv.bgrass-l **''
and
''15 comp.os.msdos.4dos **''
Bruce, I'm shocked at the obviously retro trend
represented by such NGs as those involving
bluegrass and msdos. I suprised that with
connections like these you haven't been asked to
leave alt.meditation and alt.yoga by now!
Jai choice,
wise...@ptw.com
In article <6j75qk$lcq$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
iss...@altavista.net wrote:
>
> In article <3556D280...@ibm.net>,
> Gil Bar-On <bar...@ibm.net> wrote:
> >
> > hi,
> > Could anyone explain to me about Yoga and meditation:
> > 1. What happen in them?
> > 2. How do they help me and improve me?
> > 3. How can I achive them?
> > 4. What are the pros and cons for them?
> > 5. And more...
> >
> > Good Bye!
>
> I suggest you look just about anywhere but on these newsgroups.
> What you'll find here is a personal pat yourself on the back club.
> ... far from yoga ...
>
>
Now, what does this reveal? We wonders.
Oh yes, we wonders, don't we, My Precious?
Gollum
Jai Smeagol
wise...@ptw.com
In article <3553D3...@nettally.com>,
"Harry A. Smith" <has...@nettally.com> wrote:
>
> jodyr wrote:
> >
> Hi there! Just because something has a historical or cultural contextual
> root does not make it a good thing to do. For example, infundibulation
> has a strong historical root in some societies. I wouldn't want it
> practiced on my child.
Are you talking about ''coneheads'' here?
> Your argument would be better served if there was
> clear evidence that marijuana had established benefits with little harm.
> The factual evidence is otherwise. The mental impairment following
> marijuana use is now well known.
>
> --
>
> ** Dare To Disturb The Universe! **
> Rev. Harry A. Smith, D.D.
> has...@nettally.com
>
Reverend Doctor Smith, I'm just thinking outloud
here (so to speak), but please consider the
following:
(1)
Regarding, ''if there was clear evidence that
marijuana had established benefits with little
harm,'' a number of therapeutic benefits have
already been enumerated in earlier postings to
this thread, all of which have fewer and milder
negative side affects than the conventionally
approved treatments.
(2)
Regarding your statements that, ''The factual
evidence is otherwise,'' and ''The mental
impairment following marijuana use is now well
known.'' are somewhat in error.
First of all, use of the pejorative term,
''impairment,'' tends to invalidate the
''objectivity'' which such studies try to claim.
There certainly are *altered* mental states that
are brought about by the use of either the herb,
cannabis, or its associated crystalline drug, THC.
Some of these (eg. reaction time) can be measured
objectively; whereas others (eg. ones ability to
question the 'obvious' or to 'see things in a
different light') are purely subjective.
But to imply that such 'alteration' equals an
'impairment' (especially in the absence of serious
corroborative evidence showing subsequent
generalized maladaptive behavior as a result of
such alterations) constitutes a major *leap of
faith,* based largely on an apriori negative mind
set.
For example....
Where are the studies that show, in the absence of
alcohol, an increase in traffic accidents
attributed to the moderate use of pot?
Where are the studies that show, in the absence of
alcohol, an increase in child abuse attributed to
the moderate use of pot?
Where are the studies that show, in the absence of
alcohol, an increase in spousal abuse attributed to
the moderate use of pot?
Where are the studies that show, in the absence of
alcohol, a loss of productivity in the workplace
(whether through increased absences, accidents,
or other) attributed to the moderate use of pot?
Where are the studies that show, in the absence of
alcohol, an increase in felonious behavior (other
than as crimes defined by the possession/use/
sale of the commodity itself) attributed to any
use of pot?
By way of counter example, however...
I have known a number of individuals over the
years who have been perfectly productive and
gentle people under the regular use of pot, but
who became violent, abusive and unable to work
under the use of alcohol or coke.
There are currently over 100,000 iatrogenically
induced American drug deaths annually. (Ie., drug
deaths caused directly or indirectly by legally
administered drugs issued by licensed and
supposedly competent physicians.) This is far
worse than the number of personal tragedies
brought about by the use of all the ''illegal'' drugs
combined. In fact, if all forms of iatrogenic
deaths were tallied as a single category (as is
often done with the various forms of cancer or of
heart disease) they would constitute the third
leading cause of death in the United States, after
cancer and heart disease.
U.S. governments (federal, state, county, city,
etc.) spend collectively in the vicinity of $25
Billion Dollars annually in their selectively
prohibitionist ''war on drugs.'' This urban assault,
in turn, has simultaneously created a violent
paramilitary police force in all our major cities
and a violent black market criminal element
which has become at least as bad as that produced
by our earlier experiment with alcohol
prohibition.
Not to sound jargonistic, but the repressive drug
laws in the US (and elsewhere also, but largely
under American ''leadership'') seem to account for
approximately seventy-five percent of all
incarcerations in the U.S. This has created a
larger prison population (by percent) in the U.S.
than virtually (or perhaps actually) any other
country on the planet. These criminals have been
created largely through actions that are illegal
only by decree, not by actual harm done. (Ie., the
possession/sale/cultivation of the drug itself
was the crime, rather than people committing
some ''real'' crime while under the influence of a
drug.)
The U.S. imprisons its (ethnic and economic)
minorities at such an inflated rate, that our
governments themselves can no longer keep up
with the demand for more prison space and now
commission private capital investment firms to
construct and operate an increasing number of
new prisons. Meanwhile the U.S. ignores the
attention that Amnesty International gives to
these facts, using instead, proven techniques of
disinformation (eg. distraction and counter-
blame) to point the finger at other countries (eg.
China for their ''human rights violations'' and
Mexico for being ''soft on drugs.'') or even at our
own youth for daring to experiment with drugs
which they are told will do terrible things to
them, which terrible things they cannot verify in
their own experience of the substance.
Our entire concept of ''drug abuse'' in the U.S. is
really bizarre, if looked at objectively for a
moment. (A quick re-read of Richard D. Laing's
little book, ''The Politics of Experience'' would be
appropriate here.) We are an abusive people.
(Take for example our homicide rate, which is
some 400 percent higher than Scotland's, which is
some 300 percent higher than the third highest
country.
<circa, 1994 figures>)
But in no other case of abuse do we blame or
outlaw that which has been abused. In cases of
child abuse, we do not blame or outlaw the child.
n cases of environmental abuse, we do not blame
or outlaw the environment.
In cases of female/spousal abuse, we no longer
blame or outlaw the abused female/spouse. (But
remember back to literal witch hunts and rape
cases where a successful defense used to be, ''If
she didn't want it, she shouldn't have dressed/
looked/acted like that.'') Etc., etc., etc.
Only in the case of a select few (mostly
psychoactive) drugs do we blame and outlaw the
abused along with the abuser. And we make no
allowances for any possible responsible use,
claiming that ''*any* use constitutes abuse.''
(This is actually taught in the health books used
in my local high schools!)
So, when you think about it, our entire legal
approach to certain (again, largely psychoactive)
drugs in the United States (and beyond) is
extremely illogical and counter productive. But
unfortunately, many well-intentioned people
assume the law of the land is decreed from on
high and is therefore sacrosanct, regardless of
the vast amount of harm it (the law) is doing to
our country.
To revive an old question, and given the normal
predisposition to peaceful behavior after smoking
pot, ''What would happen if they gave a war and
nobody came?''
But even this propensity for peaceful conduct
following marijuana use has often been
pejoratively described as 'lethargy' and actually
reported as an 'impairment' in studies I have read!
But I suppose that peace is an impairment to a
federal government that invests 100,000 times as
many dollars in corporate welfare to promote U.S
weapons sales abroad, than it does to promote
environmentally friendly technology. (This last
figure is from a May 11, 1998, report on National
Public Radio news, Morning Edition.)
And to pose some fairly new questions, who would
suffer if psychoactive drugs were decriminalized
and our police forces were downsized by $25
Billion Dollars a year?
Who would suffer if our prison system had only
one fourth as many inmates?
Who would suffer if fewer families were torn
apart by the arrest and incarceration of one or
more members for the possession or cultivation
of a natural herb?
Who would suffer if people could legally alter
their state of consciousness in such a way that
they began to question authority? To think
independently? Or (perish the thought) to think
collectively differently?!?
I would highly recommend that you first find the
answer to some of these questions, before you
decide just which side of this touchy issue you
really want to align yourself with, Reverend.
As you yourself wrote:
** Dare To Disturb The Universe! **
Jai satyam!
Bruce Morgen
wise...@ptw.com wrote:
Hmm, I suppose I should
consider supplanting my
"retro" interests with,
perhaps,
alt.music.marilyn-manson
and
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.pre-release
so I can make a truly
contemporary impression.
:-)
>I suprised that with
>connections like these you haven't been asked to
>leave alt.meditation and alt.yoga by now!
>
Those who'd like me gone
don't seem to need
"connections" like that to
get energized, at as far
as I can tell. :-)
>Jai choice,
>
>--Robert
>
Gracias, y vaya con verdad!
CYBERYOGI =CO= Windler
Read also the thread "Re: Attn Kurt: "Sexual" Yoga (About drugs...)" in this
newsgroup.
You will find many informations about the effects of drugs on spiritual deve-
lopement in it.
MAY THE SOFTWARE BE WITH YOU!
*============================================================================*
I CYBERYOGI Christian Oliver(=CO=) Windler I
I (teachmaster of LOGOLOGIE - the first cyberage-religion!) I
I ! I
*=============================ABANDON=THE=BRUTALITY==========================*
jodyr
Hey CYBERYOGI, is this an ideological battle complete with propaganda
wars? Cool! MAY YOUR SOFTWARE BE WITH YOU!
Jai Ma! --jodyr.
har...@rocketmail.com
In article <3556D280...@ibm.net>,
Gil Bar-On <bar...@ibm.net> wrote:
>
> hi,
> Could anyone explain to me about Yoga and meditation:
> 1. What happen in them?
> 2. How do they help me and improve me?
> 3. How can I achive them?
> 4. What are the pros and cons for them?
> 5. And more...
>
> Good Bye!
>
>
I will try to help you.
I will send you address of web page where is brief explanation to the system
of mantra meditation very easy yet powerful technique which is advised by
saints and sages of the past for this age in which we live in.
I follow it and it works!
http://www.aloha.com/~adas/real.html
and
http://www.aloha.com/~adas/mantra.html
I hope it will help you...
Bye and best wishes
===
(Alex Pszczola)
E-mail adresses: Primary: har...@rocketmail.com
Secondary: ach...@friko2.onet.pl
I speak Polish, English, Czech (little)
Check out these pages about your spiritual development :
1. http://www.haribol.org
2. http://www.aloha.com/~adas/hb.html
CYBERYOGI =CO= Windler
jodyr wrote:
>
> Hey CYBERYOGI, is this an ideological battle complete with propaganda
> wars? Cool! MAY YOUR SOFTWARE BE WITH YOU!
...and may your marihuana fume clowds keep clowding your mind!? ;-)
jodyr
CYBERYOGI =CO= Windler wrote:
>
> jodyr wrote:
> >
> > Hey CYBERYOGI, is this an ideological battle complete with propaganda
> > wars? Cool! MAY YOUR SOFTWARE BE WITH YOU!
>
> ...and may your marihuana fume clowds keep clowding your mind!? ;-)
A mind's cloud.
Seamless grey existence. Perfect in consistency,
there is no differentiation at all. It is pure.
It is changeless.
It is Absolute.
Jai Ma! --jodyr.