• CD Moderators: nepalnt21
  • Cannabis Discussion Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules

Weed and Meditation

Wikipedia is not a good source; that's quasi-academic.

I am not sure I follow your point ... it's bad because it is quasi-academic so ... a fully academic reference, whatever that is, would be bad? But then, what kind of references are you looking for? Only the ones not contradicting you and your bunch of friends?

Neuro
 
I am not sure I follow your point ... it's bad because it is quasi-academic so ... a fully academic reference, whatever that is, would be bad? But then, what kind of references are you looking for? Only the ones not contradicting you and your bunch of friends?

Neuro

ha ha great point neurodaemon, you hit the nail on the head!
 
Not at all my friend. But since you are so desperatly asking for references, being the nice man I am, I am really trying to understand what kind of references you are exactly looking for. Since by your own admission now, academic reference won't cut it, and wikipedia won't do it either, please enlighten me by telling me what kind would. Then we will together examine the credibility of those.

Neuro
 
Your tone is strangely sweet, but oh well. I wouldn't count wikipedia as a source unless there are credible citations. I didn't say academic references wouldn't cut it; they definitely would! They are what I'm looking for. I was calling wikipedia quasi-academic, as in not fully academic so no good. That is all.
 
The Wikipedia page that was referenced to you contains, at the bottom, precisely what you are looking for: a list of non-wikipedia, academic references, on cannabis usage for meditation purposes.

Such as:
"The earliest known reports regarding the sacred status of cannabis in India and Nepal come from the Atharva Veda estimated to have been written sometime around 2000 - 1400 BC,[1] which mentions cannabis as one of the "five sacred plants".[2]"

"scholars associated Chinese wu (shamans) with the entheogenic use of cannabis in Central Asian shamanism.[11]"

Where [1], [2] and [11] are:

[1] Courtwright, David (2001). Forces of Habit: Drugs and the Making of the Modern World. Harvard Univ. Press. p. 39. ISBN 0-674-00458-2.
[2] Touw, Mia. "The religious and medicinal uses of Cannabis in China, India and Tibet". J Psychoactive Drugs 13 (1).
[11] "Before the Christian Era" from Zuardi AW (June 2006). "History of cannabis as a medicine: a review". Rev. Bras. Psiquiatr. vol.28 no.2 São Paulo. Retrieved 2009-12-10.

And in China:

[13] Compare "if taken in excess will produce visions of devils … over a long term, it makes one communicate with spirits and lightens one's body", Li Hui-Lin (1978). "Hallucinogenic plants in Chinese herbals". J Psychedelic Drugs 10 (1): 17–26.

I have no personal opinion on the topic, I am not an history scholar or a meditator, but those references certainly indicate a use of cannabis for meditation purposes, at least certains forms of meditation. Don't you agree?

Neuro
 
totally depends on the environment

parties i wanna party
home i want to lounge and relax etc.
 
My evidence is based on the experience of many people and what cannabis fundamentally does to the mind (speeds up thoughts as well as mixes things up, counter to the grounding, ordered flow of meditation). I also think about is a better source than wikipedia, but where exactly did I post that? Have you ever seriously meditated? As in were taught by professionals?
 
My evidence is based on the experience of many people and what cannabis fundamentally does to the mind (speeds up thoughts as well as mixes things up, counter to the grounding, ordered flow of meditation). I also think about is a better source than wikipedia, but where exactly did I post that? Have you ever seriously meditated? As in were taught by professionals?

This is getting pathetic
 
I feel your responses as well as those of others who attack me are misguided personal issues; you three seem to refuse to engage in decent conversation or listen to me, so I am not going to post beyond this: argumentum ad populum can be construed as the basis of most statistical conjectures, especially when the problem lies upon the subjective experience of individuals. It would be nice if we could get along.
 
Last edited:
I am not going to post beyond this.

How convenient, particularly when my answer to you is still awaiting a response. A response other than you repeating "I was taught by professional meditators, my friends agree with me, lalalalalalala", of course. We got enough of those already.

Neuro
 
Argumentum ad populum (as you say, though had someone else point it out for you) can be construed as the basis of most statistical conjectures, especially when the problem lies upon the subjective experience of individuals.

What? I'll explain it to you since you have trouble understanding. You asked if anyone at all actually agreed with me and I replied by saying argumentum ad populum, which means that even if everyone here disagreed with me it would not make me wrong. It's a logical fallacy. It's got nothing to do with what your mates say about weed and meditation.

We're still waiting for this so called evidence by the way. Funny how you think it's one rule for you and another for everyone else. You accuse me of evading answering your question but then you conveniently won't post exactly at the time when prompted to give your own proof. Do you really think people can't see through your nonsense?

And by the way, writing n=35 won't succeed in making it more scientific. You're a dude posting in a drug forum, not a scientist publishing a study in a journal. All this pseudo-scientific talk just looks silly.

Sorry but 1394 hasn't made any personal attacks from what I can see.
 
Last edited:
<...zen---------------post ejaculation-----------------------------weed...>

The stream is too rampant on weed it's a psychoactive- not a psychoinhibitor.

Anyone who meditates while high ever try without being high?
The lessons of meditation reach far beyond the limitations imposed on a stoned mind.
 
Top