Alcohol since we can remember

[Vajrasattva]

MODERATION is key.

 

A little alcohol can be medicinal .

[Owledge]

@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.

[Vajrahridaya]

@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.

 

Poison actually in small doses strengthens the immune system. Tobacco in small doses is good for de-clotting which is a main cause of heart attacks. Of course, in large doses just impairs the immune system and destroys the heart and lungs. It stimulates the nervous system and decreases anxiety and is very relaxing, when the tobacco is pure and it's just kind of puffed like Natives do during peace pipe ceremonies where concentration actually increases as well due to the physical effects. You can google this information.

Edited October 10, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Owledge]

Poison actually in small doses strengthens the immune system. Tobacco in small doses is good for de-clotting which is a main cause of heart attacks. Of course, in large doses just impairs the immune system and destroys the heart and lungs. It stimulates the nervous system and decreases anxiety and is very relaxing, when the tobacco is pure and it's just kind of puffed like Natives do during peace pipe ceremonies where concentration actually increases as well due to the physical effects. You can google this information.

 

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]

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?

 

Yes, you do, because every time I partake it's my first as I only have a smoke very, very occasionally and I'm very picky about what type of Cig I have. I also cannot smoke a whole one, but only a few puffs will do. American Spirit is the type I prefer and generally I get as I have some friends into the whole native american tepee thingy.

 

I don't know... the lighter the cigarette the more toxic it makes me feel. Like if I take a puff from a parliament or a Marlboro light or something... it's totally horrible! Like i've just invited more toxins into my body due to treated tobacco. Which I hear has more chemicals to have less nicotine. Then I feel anxiety.

[Owledge]

Yes, you do, because every time I partake it's my first as I only have a smoke very, very occasionally...

 

...

 

I don't know... the lighter the cigarette the more toxic it makes me feel.

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.

[Vajrahridaya]

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.

 

I'm not a smoker. People have all sorts of assumptions about things due to extreme views in society. "That's BAD and that's GOOD"...

 

I don't partake in such limitations in paradigm.

 

I meant your VERY first.

 

How can I write it more clearly... it's always my very first time because I have a puff very rarely. Sometimes even less than once a month to a few times a year.

[Owledge]

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?

Edited October 10, 2009 by Hardyg

[Mal]

Benefits of Tobacco thread with links

 

Let me ask you this: If you only occasionally smoke a cigarette, why at all?

Why not That's like asking why do teetotallers always sound annoyingly superior?

 

Can we get back to drinking now?

=

[Owledge]

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

Edited October 10, 2009 by Hardyg

[Tao99]

I'm not a smoker. People have all sorts of assumptions about things due to extreme views in society. "That's BAD and that's GOOD"...

 

I don't partake in such limitations in paradigm.

 

 

now that's just a load of crap. Youre the one who said all poker players are "shady" = BAD.

[Mal]

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 )

 

while I like a good quality wine, I often think I'd like to get some nice freshly squeezed grape juice before it got fermented.

[voidisyinyang]

I'm drinking alcohol right now so I feel justified posting on this thread. I actually despise booze, always have, despite that initial blissful relaxation feeling, but I'm at my parents' where garlic (antiseptic) is the devil incarnate while booze and coffee at the mainstay. Yesterday I indulged in the sugar cereal I bought for my nephew which is his favorite yet he complains about my shit smell, not knowing that his favorite cereal is the cause. And so I have alcohol to kill have that internal tingling sensation of the vagus nerve-heart chakra anaerobic bacteria getting transduced up into the third eye.

 

But here's a good alcohol Taoist yoga story -- Chunyi Lin, http://springforestqigong.com qigong master doesn't drink but in China a "real" man drinks. So the local town drunk challenged Chunyi Lin -- each had 6 bottles of wine in front of them and whomever lasted longest would be the winner. So Chunyi Lin just "transferred" the wine alcohol content to the drunk's 6 bottles, thereby rendering his wine to be water (the reverse of Jesus story). You can imagine the results.

 

That's the REAL use of alcohol in Taoism but for us "modern" diet victims, well.... a lot of evil SPIRITS still have to be exorcised and do two wrongs make a right?

 

Anyone?

 

Now to eat meat and veggies.....

Edited October 10, 2009 by drewhempel

[Vajrahridaya]

now that's just a load of crap. Youre the one who said all poker players are "shady" = BAD.

 

Within my experience, yes.

 

Your pretty reactive though. My response to ralis was actually grounded in the fact that he always comes off as negative and that I've known lots of poker players and seen lots of them. It's a shady game by nature.

 

When I say I don't take part in such limitations in paradigm, I still feel that being a hit man would not equate with that comprehension and experience.

 

Get a grip.

 

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?

 

Because your you and I'm me. I also don't feel that it's a need, it's an infrequent enjoyment. Very different. I understand. You don't. I'm fine with that.

 

You have a good life!

Edited October 11, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[voidisyinyang]

I ate meat so now I have to drink MORE alcohol to kill off the bacteria. Still it's freezing weather in Minnesota -- SNOW already! My mom made scrumptious meat and I wanted it -- but there you go -- I can't sit in full-lotus because my pineal gland would off-gas too much shit smell from the vagus nerve transducing anaerobic bacteria. Diet is so crucial to full-lotus energy healing -- and truly alcohol dulls the mind -- it might relax the body -- even coffee is MORE toxic than alcohol from the college chemistry textbook I have -- but alcohol poisoning shuts down the chakras. Most monks these days practice "mind yoga" -- and Vaj it appears that's your tradition as well with the alcohol of the Dgozchen -- I've read it's not considered immoral just "polluting" of the body. So it is and yet monks are under severe pressure to drink as it's the sociable thing to do and the monk is considered snobbish -- to Brahmin sankritized -- for rejecting beer, etc. At least that's what an anthropologist discovered in the Nepal Buddhist tradition.

[Vajrahridaya]

Most monks these days practice "mind yoga" -- and Vaj it appears that's your tradition as well with the alcohol of the Dgozchen -- I've read it's not considered immoral just "polluting" of the body. So it is and yet monks are under severe pressure to drink as it's the sociable thing to do and the monk is considered snobbish -- to Brahmin sankritized -- for rejecting beer, etc. At least that's what an anthropologist discovered in the Nepal Buddhist tradition.

 

That's sad, how a tradition done in order to break previous bondages of limitations in experience is turned into another dogma...

 

We don't have to drink, we are just allowed to. It seems that those of us that benefit and experience a liberating by eating meat with the consciousness of blessing the karmic lineage of the animal and drinking some wine with the idea of de-limiting one's ideation are those of us who spent many years abstaining due to dogmatic constraints.

 

But, at the same time, it would be a dogma to force someone to drink. Neither are needed for liberation, abstinence or partaking. The liberating criteria is merely seeing dependent origination and experiencing emptiness free from consciousness while being conscious and aware.

[ralis]

That's sad, how a tradition done in order to break previous bondages of limitations in experience is turned into another dogma...

 

We don't have to drink, we are just allowed to. It seems that those of us that benefit and experience a liberating by eating meat with the consciousness of blessing the karmic lineage of the animal and drinking some wine with the idea of de-limiting one's ideation are those of us who spent many years abstaining due to dogmatic constraints.

 

But, at the same time, it would be a dogma to force someone to drink. Neither are needed for liberation, abstinence or partaking. The liberating criteria is merely seeing dependent origination and experiencing emptiness free from consciousness while being conscious and aware.

 

Who allows you to drink? Some parent daddy figure? What about making a decision on your own?

 

BTW, your grammar still needs work. "Criteria are" is correct. Not, criteria is.

 

ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

Who allows you to drink? Some parent daddy figure? What about making a decision on your own?

 

BTW, your grammar still needs work. "Criteria are" is correct. Not, criteria is.

 

ralis

 

Don't you have some poker to play? Your subjectivity is relative to your personal insecurities.

[Tao99]

Within my experience, yes.

 

Your pretty reactive though. My response to ralis was actually grounded in the fact that he always comes off as negative and that I've known lots of poker players and seen lots of them. It's a shady game by nature.

 

When I say I don't take part in such limitations in paradigm, I still feel that being a hit man would not equate with that comprehension and experience.

 

Get a grip.

 

So then my point WAS correct lol - you do partake in such limitations in paradigm, and what you said above was just crapola. And as always, you miss the point and go straight for the ad hominen attacks.

[Vajrahridaya]

So then my point WAS correct lol - you do partake in such limitations in paradigm, and what you said above was just crapola. And as always, you miss the point and go straight for the ad hominen attacks.

 

Ok Tao...

 

Your whole energy is a paradigm of over-reaction. Take that as an ad-hom if you wish.

 

I was talking about the paradigm of certain so called intoxicants. See context.

[Owledge]

Because your you and I'm me. I also don't feel that it's a need, it's an infrequent enjoyment. Very different. I understand. You don't. I'm fine with that.

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.

[Tao99]

I'm not a smoker. People have all sorts of assumptions about things due to extreme views in society. "That's BAD and that's GOOD"...

 

I don't partake in such limitations in paradigm.

 

 

You said "about things" and so you don't partake in such limitations in paradigm about things.

 

Your poker belief shows you do partake in such limitations about things.

 

That's it. That's the whole point. Is that such a horrible thing to say? It was a simple critical thinking analysis. An ad hominen is attacking the person instead of the evidence of the point they made. I was simply questioning your point with counter evidence, as is the function of debate. I'm sorry if you took it as something more. I try to avoid the ad hominens.

[Vajrahridaya]

You said "about things" and so you don't partake in such limitations in paradigm about things.

 

Your poker belief shows you do partake in such limitations about things.

 

That's it. That's the whole point. Is that such a horrible thing to say? It was a simple critical thinking analysis. An ad hominen is attacking the person instead of the evidence of the point they made. I was simply questioning your point with counter evidence, as is the function of debate. I'm sorry if you took it as something more. I try to avoid the ad hominens.

 

Ok, you're broadening the context.

 

 

 

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.

 

The very, very first cig gave me a light headed feeling... I was about... 12?

 

 

And the nicotine thing usually comes with a very refined defense mechanism.

 

 

Your projecting.

[Owledge]

Your projecting.

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?

 

Edited October 11, 2009 by Hardyg

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Poison actually in small doses strengthens the immune system. Tobacco in small doses is good for de-clotting which is a main cause of heart attacks. Of course, in large doses just impairs the immune system and destroys the heart and lungs. It stimulates the nervous system and decreases anxiety and is very relaxing, when the tobacco is pure and it's just kind of puffed like Natives do during peace pipe ceremonies where concentration actually increases as well due to the physical effects. You can google this information.

 

Sorry, this is wrong information.

 

Poison in small doses does not "strengthen the immune system". There are homeopathic concepts that include this notion, but in homeopathic preparations there is not actual any of the substance present, but rather an exponential dilution such that there is statistically there isn't even a single molecule present. You may be mistaking this notion for the principles behind a vaccine, in which a very very small portion of some sort of pathogen or disease agent is usually inactivated (but not always), and presented to the body in order to stimulate an immune response. Same principle behind allergy shots. But these do not work with poisons! Don't put any poison in your body, not even in small amounts! A tiny amount of weed killer, or cyanide is NOT going to strengthen the immune system!!! If you really believe that, go ahead and ingest a "small" amount of mercury a couple of times a week and get back to us (or maybe not) in a year.

 

To use this principle to justify tobacco use in fallacious thinking. You're looking pretty hard to justify your use of tobacco. I fully agree with hardyg. You're not getting the point. There is no reason for you to keep on smoking, even occasionally, except that you're looking for justification to satisfy some sort of craving for that experience.

A good conscious meditator can accomplish relaxation and reduction of anxiety through meditation and breathing, there is no need to rely on a substance for this if you are actually very far along in your spiritual development.

 

Tobacco in small doses is good for de-clotting which is a main cause of heart attacks.

 

Really? Please give some references for this phenomenon. Even if true, it does not really justify the use of tobacco, unless you are just using it as a rationalization to back up your need to use tobacco.