Shaivism vs. Vaishnavism

That's not very scientific spook.

But as to where they'd be - I can't say. Maybe some would be alcoholics.

 

Yeah, I know, it's my opinionated attitude about drugs and spirituality.

When I questioned where they would be...drugs don't produce any lasting spiritual advancement or perceptions, just an illusion of these states. Smoke two or three ounces of weed or a couple ounces of hashish a day for ten or twenty years and you'd probably think you were liberated...and you would be, from plenty of your brain cells (that is scientific).

 

HA! just because some one does it does not make it okay for the body or for the mind nor does it make it morally justifiable in any authentic spiritual sense. you can worship the divine in Sattvic Sense, Rajasic sense or Tamasic sense, it is your choice and Sattvic worship will lead you to enlightenment, Rajasic and Tamasic create troubles.

You have to look at Bhagavad Gita, You have to look at proper Sadhusanga to know what is Sattvic, you can't just say I am going to worship frogs one day and cats the other day or i am going to shoot myself up with some chemical in the hope that it would give me a pseudo-spiritual feeling.

I ask you BBB, what is so spiritual about crack whores or drug Junkies, what is spiritual about drug dealers who not only deal drugs but also do trafficking of women and children? IN MY OPINION, IF one has to get a "spiritual experience" by funding people like that , then THAT IS TRULY PATHETIC and the minute you take piece of that weed , smoke it, shoot it, sniff it , eat it , drink it, you are funding those bastards.

 

Chill out Jedi. I never said anything about crack, whores or funding criminals who traffic people. (funny how peope denounce 'whores' - often the women have no choice)
I merey said that the dangers of cannabis have been very exaggerated, and that a lot of disinfo has been circulated about it.

It's no use to speak of being sattvic when you are angry - anger belongs to rajas or even tamas.
The question of 'funding' though is one that raises questions. Back in the 80's over here ISKCON were heavily involved in crime - yet they were still taking money off people. Those who gave were actually funding a bunch of crooks not very disimilar to what you describe.

BTW - Many people grow their own cannabis thus avoiding any need for drug dealers. So actually they're only funding shops that sell grow lights etc.
Vicious garden centre bastards.......

 

I don't believe there is actually any scientific evidence that cannabis causes brain damage.It seems that the UK govt went into this prior to the re-scheduling of cannabis a couple of years back.
If you smoked the amount you suggest, you'd very likely be unconscious by about 10 A.M. -

 

Right... yea what choice do they have? they have to get their drugs and for that selling their bodies seems to be the only choice they will ever have... those "poor women". These women remind me of the homeless in New york, yea what choice does the homeless guy have... he has 2 hands, 2 legs, but he has to beg, because he is hungry... and actually working for something he wants is sooo hard.

Whatever, I lost my innocence when i saw some of my own classmates ruin their lives with that crap.

Maybe BBB, it is quite possible that with out our knowledge, we may be funding something that is somehow involved in crime right now, however that is something done out of complete ignorance of the facts. if lets say some one still supports/funds ISKCON even while knowing they are involved in crimes etc.. then that is truly despicable.

Again BBB, I am not sure of that- still the gardeners of this stuff are also bastards, because they are involved in destroying bodies, destroying goals, ruining other's lives.

 

I see little point in this.
It is extremely boring.

 

the real culprit in the marihuana debate is god cuz he/she/it invented it

 

good i am glad.

 

i think bbb's point is that its difficult to have a free flowing in search of truth discussion here with the self-limiting cages thought is repeatedly being forced into

if this was an honest discussion of the pro's and and cons (and yes, bbb does accept there are cons), syringe use of canabis would not be the focus

 

Delusional thinking can make even the very 'search for the truth' itself into a 'self-limiting' cage. If one wants to search the truth objectively, then an effective argument consists of a premise, followed by evidence, then followed by the conclusion of one's argument. If there is a premise that projects something as harmless but all the evidence supports the statement contrary to one's argument, then the argument has no basis and is to be discarded. I think people who discuss things objectively know this and know when to quit, you do not need to justify their actions.

 

None of which has anything to do with spiritual knowledge - jnana or gnosis. That is the method of the logician, who thinks his tiny mental capacity can encompass the universe and god.
Nealy all living spirituality has an element of the irrational, or better, the super-rational. Remove that, and you turn it into something dry, sterile and even delusional.


You assume that your blinkered and deluded ideas about cannabis are correct, whilst they are in fact very wide of the mark.

It is common knowledge that cannabis isn't injected. Therefore your premise is wrong, as are the fatuous arguments you build upon it.

If 'harm' is the criterion here, then let's consider the activities of ISKCON, an organization whose books I observe you Jedi like to quote. Criminal gurus, heroin dealing gurus, child-abusing gurus. LSD distributing gurus etc. But still, you are encouraging people to take seriously the teachings of this organization.
The fact is though, that I know people who have had their lives ruined by ISKCON.

 

The truth can never be found objectively, because the truth is not an object.Have all your studies into philosophy and religion not taught you that it is a deeply subjective matter, to be discovered by each individual within their own heart?

 

So much for cultivating love and compassion.

Remember the gita? There was a verse somewhere that said:

vaasudevaha sarvam iti, sa mahatma su durlabhah

It is rare indeed to fine a soul of perfection who can finally see the divine in everything.
Neither before, nor after this verse, nor anywhere in the gita that I am aware of, does Krishna make an exception for prostitutes or the homeless.

 

Brainwashed into 'righteousness' perhaps?
I mean, why should god care for a bunch of drug addicted, homeless no-count bums? Or 'whores'?

 

I most def. agree with this...esp now that I am taking religion classes at uni...you can see how scholarly views verses your own interpretation really are similar and different...its quite interesting. But in the end, you are right, religion is something that is found in each person's own heart...and no amount of books, philosophy, or anything else can change that...influence, inspire,perhaps...but not be the only basis.

 

Can I just clarify what I mean by 'objective truth'. By it, I mean what Sri Aurobindo refers to as 'the true truth of things'. The actually existential reality of everything.
If we say there is no objective reality, then all is simply a dream, because there is nothing real, not even Brahman or God.
No matter how different our mental ideas about god and the cosmos are, they are ideas about something. Our experiences are experiences of something.To realize the oness of consciousness with that 'something' is arguably the goal of the spiritual quest.

Another angle on this - it is often said that in states of samhadi or absorbtion in the divine consciousness, there is a merging of the subject and the object. Ie. a person - subject - contemplating God - object, becomes identified with that which he/she contemplates, and thus the duality of knower and known is removed in a new sense of a unitary consciousness. But if we say this consciousness is not objective, then clearly it could only be a dream or delusion.

 

because god is a drug addicted homeless no-count bum or whore

 

It would be good if more people could see that instead of just thinking themselves superior.

 

Compassion? the only compassion the homeless need is a swift kick in the back to get them to work and stop begging. if a man can work for himself, he should not depend on other strangers and take advantage of them. Besides, it is not true compassion if an action hurts someone rather than helping them.