Owledge

You react pretty sour. Seems to strike a chord when someone pities you.

Of course you're just silly now, but to answer anyway: It has nothing to do with smoker or non-smoker, but with understanding certain things by consulting the vast experience of the guy who wrote the book.

z00se, you find it funny that people didn't get the 'joke' exactly because you don't seem to understand how smokers can come up with stuff like that and mean it serious.

Please don't only pay attention to the sound (which is highly subjective) but also to the contents. I'm just trying to help you recognize potential problems that hide themselves. I'm dealing with my problems, too, but it is all interconnected, and sometimes I'd be glad to get some help with my problems, too, which I don't get often. Funny phrasing from a smoker. By the way... you would like the book. It begins with explicitly telling you to smoke while reading it. That's a beaten argument - MORE tolerance towards smokers. I have compassion for smokers, that's why I'm trying to help. But smokers who ask for more tolerance are sometimes not very tolerant themselves. You say "we", but you can only speak for yourself. The tolerance argument is only to justify a drug addiction, not to give the best circumstances for quitting. It's like a heroine addict asking for more tolerance because he wants to continue taking it. At the regulars' table of a local political party they always rent the smoker area and say that they rent the non-smoker-area when it is democratically decided and asked for more tolerance. That's just lame, that they can't last two or three hours without making the others inhale poisonous fumes. Before and after it they could smoke all they want. Tolerance is for example watching your wife slowly kill herself with an addictive substance. Compassion/love is trying everything to help her overcome the addiction. You wouldn't stop trying because she asks you to, or would you? When she says you don't understand, it's healthy, and you see her dying a bit every day, would you say she is right? What would you do? Because every chain-smoker has once been a moderate smoker. I don't understand. What does paranoia have to do with it and why am I not acting on my own thought when eating no more junk food? I don't agree with what McD is doing, so I don't give them money. Simple. And it has the added benefit of helping others, too, by re-distributing the funds to healthier alternatives who don't have to rely on sleazy psycho-marketing tactics. You said: "Theres so many great things around i want to try them ALL if they are good or bad for me." You are extremely preoccupied. I don't even have to comment on this further; your writing speaks for itself. Now THIS is paranoia ... and the same escapist tactic that Vajrahridaya used.

You seem to like this kind of escape that makes you feel superior to others who say some uncomfortable things. I recommended the book because it is enlightening. And as Little1 said, you should do the research before judging yourself. Millions of people only hear what doctors say and never hear about people who don't just treat symptoms. I pity you. First nicotine shot with 12 years age. @TheSongsofDistantEarth What you write about alcohol sounds exactly like the nicotine case. At this point I knew that you are a smoker. The little demon's voice is distinctive. Smoking doesn't pull fat out of your belly. It more likely lowers the efficiency of your metabolism. And when people gain weight after quitting smoking, it's because of a replacement pleasure or the improved metabolism or improved taste. When you notice that you become super-sociable and very happy when 'getting trashed', this creates an association. It also means that you perceive a difference. Wouldn't it be nicer if you were so sociable in sober condition that you wouldn't notice an improvement with alcohol? Furthermore... maybe you feel more sociable because the others are, so you get along better with them when they're drunk, too. I'd like to see how sociable you are when 'trashed' and in company of sober friends. You must be a sad bunch without ehanol. This is alarming. Usually it is the other way round. Your case sounds like you're far into the spiral of misery. You got used to ethanol so much. I wish you the strength to overcome your sorrows instead of temporally forgetting them. While this is typical 'nicotine-speak', too, you are asking questions, and that gives me the sense that you might actually do me the favor and read the book. You can't understand why I write what I write unless you read it. I maybe have to say it clearer: The guy writing the book has studied thousands of cases over decaces, his own case included, and it is just the result from research that so much of what is written here is classical talk of smokers, so while it is not logically impossible that you can talk like that and not be addicted, it at least opens the chance that you are, and you should take the opportunity to understand yourself better. There are many people who talk like Vajrahridaya and already have or sooner or later will have serious trouble. Allen Carr realized how much he was bullshitting himself. He was upset about the stupidity of people who knew they'd have their legs amputated if they continue to smoke and they continued and had their legs removed, while he himself somehow didn't realize that he was nearing a stroke due to clotted arteries and suffered from smoker's legs for years. He also thought that if you stand up quickly, it is perfectly normal that you get dizzy and that everybody has that. This as examples how you can be totally ignorant about what's going on with you. The 'counter-advertising' is foolish, out of not understanding the problem. And apparently this foolishness is supported by the tobacco companies because it helps them. They instill fear (of having to quit) in smokers, and that makes them tend to smoke even more determinedly, because it makes them anxious, and nicotine chases this anxiety away. And doctors take part in the drug dealing with their nicotine patches and chewing-gums. Not talking about single, personal cases: Smoking is the greatest killer drug due to its widespread use, and the tactics of tobacco marketing are known, so why do you feel OK giving money to them by buying their products? As a personal example, I won't buy McD or Burger King any more after I did some research on their business tactics, which are somewhat similar to the tobacco industry's. Obviously not necessarily. I often experience cases of people who have certain areas where they totally deviate from their usual state of mind. Even the greatest enlightened teacher can fall victim to own follies. I guess that's why a buddhist told me recently that his teacher said never to judge yourself. Probably because this opens a trap of self-deception that actually becomes more tricky the 'further' you are on the spiritual path. Have you tried heroine yet? I guarantee you, you'll love it! You'll want it again and again! That stuff must be really good! Every time you put that needle in your arm, you will feel a great pleasure and relief (=relaxation). I think you can even almost taste it. And ... well ... you can always just try, right? If you find out you don't like heroine, just forget about it. The most profound understanding is simple, but sometimes requires a lot of effort to achieve. As I said, it's not an opinion but research and a method with proven success, but you have already made an opinion about the book without even reading up on its contents. I don't hear people coming up with good reasons for not reading a book that's cheap, easily-readable and highly recommended and million-times proven. Although I already knew a bit about the dopamine mechanism and addiction, I am very glad that I've eventually read it. You know... reading a thriller inspired by actual events is one thing, but reading a non-fictional report on the events is another thing.

No, I'm just agreeing with that guy who once smoked excessively, analyzed himself and MANY other cases thoroughly and now cures millions of people from their addiction using his method that has a success rate of 95%. You could try to prove that you're not addicted by daring to read the book. I'm very interested to hear your thoughts on it. As I might have implicitly mentioned, even every non-smoker should read it. It benefits everybody. Will you read it? yes/no why?/why not?

Usually the tragedy with smokers is that THEY don't understand. What of the cigarette do you enjoy? You don't really claim that inhaling smoke into your lungs triggers your taste buds positively, do you? So it is the relaxation? I don't need relaxation because there's no 'nicotine demon' in me making me anxious. And you prove the case by not willing to even distinguish between your very first and the other cigarettes. This is a state of denial. Because if you honestly remember how your very first cigarette felt, it is probably too uncomfortable. Funny how spiritual teachers can have their unenlightened spots, too. But hey, look at Dr. Hata. We all have unconscious things running in the background that we are not aware of, and some have taken control over us and are thus invisible. And the nicotine thing usually comes with a very refined defense mechanism. It works the way society is corrupted so easily: slow but steady. Please read the book. It is enlightening.

Yeah, funny similarity... when you drink something alcoholic the first time, it doesn't taste good. You have to get used to it. Hmmmm.... We just don't listen to our body telling us what's good for it. Beer has the ingredients is has mainly because of historical availability. The primary goal was to generate that mysterious ethanol. And ethanol is a detergent. Some people thin their blood with Aspirin, others with detergent. I occasionally drink a little plum wine (quit mead recently), but the same plum juice they put in it without the rice wine basis ... I'm sure would taste even better. ( think about alcopops ) BTW I see it this way with ethanol: It has no addictive effect, but people can become dependent on its effects on the psyche when they have serious trouble in life. E.g. when someone tries to free himself of smoking and this makes him an alcoholic, it's a dopamine* problem: He needs another way of resolving his dissatisfaction. You know the saying "chocolate makes happy"? That's also an example of a dopamine-active substance. * the 'reward hormone' - responsible for the whole craving/addiction thing, even concerning food

Your stubborn self-deception is so perfectly smoker-talk. But you can't see behind your illusion unless you've read that book. So please do me the favor! It is cheap and the short version is great. Really, this is so classical. Many smokers want to test themselves whether they're addicted and pause for some time, and after one or several months they say OK, I made it, I'm not addicted, I can stop whenever I want, I'm totally in control, so now I can have a cigarette every now and then without worry. And then this cig tastes especially well. And of course no cig is really a pleasant experience, which you notice with your very first one. But smokers talk about good taste, because the illusion is working. In your case, the stronger ones probably taste good and the light ones bad because after so much time you need a higher dose of nicotine. The only (also simply logical) way to be a non-smoker is not to smoke at all. You become a non-smoker the moment you smoked your LAST cigarette EVER, and the problem is that only death can verify this 100%. Before that it's just nearing 100%. So please don't be silly and tell me you're not a smoker when you smoke, while I am a non-smoker because I have never in my life smoked anything. ... Well... except tires maybe. The Natural American Spirit Website is funny. They present themselves as ethical by telling you not to begin to smoke if you haven't yet. But they sell cigarettes. Marketing is deeply psychological and pretty nasty. And tobacco marketing is to a great deal reverse-psychological out of necessity to cope with the governmental sanctions. Let me ask you this: If you only occasionally smoke a cigarette, why at all? How comes that I never in my life have felt the necessity to smoke a cig, but you did/do?

Ooooh, you REEEEEEALY need to read that book! How can I write it clear enough for a smoker? (... I cant.) I meant your VERY first.

As you might know, ninjas are super-cool and have real ultimate power. And unless you are a ninja, your power is neither real nor ultimate.

My understanding is that the immune system is stimulated and strengthened by hostile organisms, while chemical harms build up in the long term and deplete your chemical counter-potential in the short term. The second part sounds like common fallacy, partly also according to Allen Carr and common experience. A stimulation of the nervous system and calming effect seems contradictory. Nicotine causes anxiety after it went through the system. Then you are more anxious and want more nicotine to counter most of the anxiety caused by the nicotine itself. But that would be a question worth asking smokers - if they can remember ... and are honest, which you can't expect in this regard: Did they notice any positive effect from their VERY FIRST cigarette? Or did it just taste awful and feel cool to smoke like your friends do?

@Vajrahridaya Can you point me to more detailed info about that? I am aware that cigarettes today contain many trace substances to optimize the addictiveness and do other immoral things, but I can't imagine how pure, natural tobacco can be good for the body, considering that it contains nicotine which is addictive.

Nobody uses tobacco when there is no craving. There has to be a craving to make someone inhale poisonous fumes.

A propos ... That metaphor reminds me of a comment from the book. A 'confirmed smoker' is like someone who bangs his head against the wall in order to frequently enjoy the good feeling of stopping it for a while. Or wearing shoes that are too tight and not wanting to miss the pleasure of taking them off in the evening.

READ-THIS-BOOK!: "Allen Carr's Easy Way To Stop Smoking" I pray that more people read 'enlightenment literature', and here it happens due to the practical theme of the book. It gives you a deeper understanding of you and the world, and smoking is just one thing, but every smoker should read this book. Very short summary: Quitting smoking is no struggle! You don't have to fight anything, not even yourself, and you definitely don't have to live without a pleasure - to the contrary. You just have to quit. And when you eliminate your illusions, then it'll happen before you know it. Supplement: I'll open a new thread about this book, because I - again - realized how sometimes just a hint of the existence of something can be helpful and many people simply haven't heard of it yet.

Definitely a huge contrast in quality to Sigmund Freud. A while ago I did only superficial research on him and realized that his image is mostly constructed and that his own character was quite a mess.

I read maybe a third of "Thoughts on Fire". Not easy to find words for why it's not my taste so much. It reads like a journal of your thoughts that's not really meant so much for others to read, because a lot of it is rather trivial. So I'd say it might be a problem with target group. People on this forum might not be a good target group, because many are used to 'tougher' stuff. It might be much more interesting for people who need an impulse for thinking more about life and themselves or for people who know you, like you (like a fascination for your character or something like that) and wonder what's going on in your mind. When reading the things you ask yourself, to me most of the times it doesn't so much invoke an interest in further pondering about it, and when you then give your view on the matter, I often think it sounds like pretty much at the beginning of the spiritual path, like much of the thought process will totally change (or even vanish) farther along the path. ADDENDUM: Read some from "Scribbled Voices". I'm no poetry fan, so I can't comment much on this. The poems could be really deep and I'd miss it, or they could not be deep. Mostly like the above, but some few ... not poems ... but lines from the poems make me think. Some lines are suitable to me for accomplishing the philosophic thought process in an explanatory way. This little book I'd say is more interesting because it gives the impulse to think about the poems, because they're not clear and obvious. Of course that's the nature of poetry ... I guess. You now probably need feedback from someone who's of a very heart-centered nature.

I recently read a quote and can't remember where I found it and surprisingly a WWW search was without success, too. Do you know how exactly it goes and who said it? It roughly goes like this: Abstinence at the buffet of power strengthens the spirit.

I wondered whether there are Tao Bums who do or once did play massive multiplayer online games and gained insights from it, in which case I'd like to learn about them. I think it's an interesting way to do social studies, like I did as more or less a side effect some time ago. My conclusion is that they are a miniature version of society, which appeared pretty futile to me, that people would try to find a counterweight to their stressful daily life by doing exactly the same online. My experience with World of Warcraft was that even the people with a big heart, who enjoyed helping and just socializing and having nice people to talk to could not resist the mighty dictum of the game rules to advance, to collect better stuff. Sooner or later they all became slaves to this system. The sad thing is that you can really see all the creativity, humor and good spirit of the game designers, but all this is covered by a coating of corporate greed with all its ugliness. The fancy world could not make that invisible, but I think many people didn't realize this aspect because they behaved in the same way with their powerful ambitions. It was especially frustrating to learn that a guild with a nice atmosphere did mean nothing more than that they all got along well because they were all strivers. Imagine you expect the guild leader to have a minimum of leadership quality (then learning that you got more), you are helped by the guild, try to catch up to be more 'useful', and when you try to help in thankful return for that, you are hit by a wave of until-then-hidden resentment and kicked out because of 'bad performance due to inferior equipment'. And it's supposed to be a GAME! I think one problem is that many people don't play it as a counterweight to their regular jobs, but they fail at work and try to compensate this by succeeding in the game. So in a way those games appear to me as making the decision to deal with your real problems less desirable, to lure you away from that. And I don't think that's a totally conscious thing of the companies running the games, but just part of the automatism of our social system. It's just a product of society ... like internet forums by the way. I left one some time ago because it reminded me too much of a fascist, totalitarian state. I am so happy to be here at the Tao Bums, a forum that so much sticks to the principle of the Tao! As a sidenote: Also interesting in a sociological way was how people were incited against each other by Funcom and "Age of Conan". They delayed the activation of trial accounts included in the game packages for months, because they lagged behind with their server capacity and wanted to provide a smooth service for paying customers (who were technically paying for the trial accesses, too, and were expecting to be able to play with their friends.) Funcom managed to cause a division of the people into two factions blaming and flaming each other, and because they were all so hyped and addicted to the game even before it came out, almost nobody blamed 'Fun-con' for their infamous business strategy. --> Another example of self-imposed enslavement by dependencies.

It is an example of what's said so often: Don't judge things. Everything can be a teacher to us. We all walk different paths, but on our paths, we attract and learn from the things that suit our case. When our attitude is to learn and evolve, the "how" is not so important. I, for example, found to spirituality through intellectuality (fueled by curiosity).

Judging by your avatar picture, you are a Wood Elf.

Hey, for added fun... why don't we discuss the effects of global warming on chemtrails and vice versa?

A hint: You know that people follow an agenda when they come up with new things that they neglected beforehand when confronted with scepticism. Al Gore simply said that temperature and CO2 correlate. He didn't mention that CO2 follows. When this was mentioned by others, THEN did he come up with the claim that FIRST humans raise CO2, then THIS leads to the oceans warming up and thus releasing CO2 and then THIS creates a big increase in CO2 and a deadly spiral. Funny... why didn't this happen with the sun's variations then? He really claims that the slightest change in CO2 concentration will not be corrected by the ecosystem and lead to an exponential development, but only when man-made, because of course non-man-made CO2 variations are a reality, too. But then the earth's life would have been eradicated a long time ago. Furthermore, while the climate alarmists all seem to agree that warming oceans can't hold as much CO2 and thus release it, now there are other alarmists saying that the corals are dying due to increased acidity in the water caused by ... now comes the punchline ... increased CO2 concentration in the air causing more to be absorbed by the oceans. Now this is what I'm talking about. This is only secondarily a science-based argument, but primarily a logic- and politics-based. Sadly ... I know from personal experience that in our society and corrupt system, even the most blatant and unskilled liars can succeed. After all... laws are variable in our society. As soon as the 'ruling class' has a justification that is swallowed by the masses, breaking laws becomes a heroic act. And who doesn't believe this should do some homework and read up on the big communism-scare of the past. People's rights and anti-war activists, 'negroes', homosexuals and other minorities became enemies of the state and the government through the CIA even executed an illegal coup against the president of another country. This president was of course Fidel Castro of Cuba and the one responsible for the covert, illegal military aggression, in case you didn't know, was John F. Kennedy. (It was naive of him and he later regretted it, but nonetheless he, as a U.S. president, broke the law in the belief that no-one would find out.) Justification is everything. It enables you to kill thousands of innocent people and get away with a degradation and later becoming prime minister of the UK. (Winston Churchill, sinking of the Lusitania) Oh and Al Gore won the Nobel Piss Prize*. Well, so did Henry Kissinger, another criminal with a great PR campaign (a.k.a. mass media). * Nobel Peace Prize, named after Alfred Nobel, owner of a huge explosives factory, war supplier (ammunition). -> By the way... This reminds me of a similar case: The Pulitzer Prize. Pulizer waged a press war with a competitor, utilizing lies that actually caused a war to break out. Of course like in other cases, the Prize was not named after Pulitzer to honor him, but was founded and funded by him. If I became a millionaire and founded the Hardyg Prize for Spiritual Excellence, then I would probably be remembered by history as a great spiritual leader, even if I was just a millionaire. By founding and funding such a prize, I would simply buy the sympathy of the media, for they would feel obliged to write nothing but compliments about me. I think amongst the bravest and most honorable people (doing this distinction only for the sake of the argument) are those who (try to) make a living without money. I better stop here. As I understood it, back then they had to make a passage through the ice using icebreakers. But as long as it wasn't TWO cargo ships back then, it's really the first time. Apart from that, of course the link is no evidence for the theory of man-mad global warning. ( I love puns! )

@TheSongsofDistantEarth I know this tone all too well. Your sarcasm comes from a partisan thinking. Because you feel your own view being threatened, ironically you become blind to when people actually agree with you. You should be more open to the implications and non-implications of what people say. Correction: Just reading the obvious might already help in this case.