Page 1 of 1

I am God!

PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2004 6:13 am
by leg4li2ed0pe
I see it perfectly clearly. Consider the laws of physics. Everything in the universe holds to them. I certainly do. BUT! What defines the laws of physics? It is clearly what I do that defines them. It is what everything does but me included. So then I am God! So is everyone else of course but really its ME! I've put this into words before but I've never actually felt it until now. I was reading about how I am nothing and how the karmic laws just act through me. This is also undoubtedly true. It really means the same thing. They sound like total opposites but they are both totally true! This is the purpose of the koans such as "What is the Buddha? Three chin of flax." These opposites. Rabbi Heschel says that god is in man and that man comes from dust. It establishes the same paradox as the koan. When one closely examines things they are both entirely true. My actions are clearly based on the laws of physics, but also I clearly act. So my actions are essentially the actions of god. My actions define the laws of physics, just as the laws of physics define me. This is the man as god side. But at the same time so what? Even the dust swirls in the wind. Even the dust defines the laws of physics. Even the dust is God! I do not intend to sound egocentric in the least. There is no I that is separate from the laws. I IS the laws. There is nothing left to be egocentric. It's just that the laws are I too.

PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2004 10:48 am
by JamieW
Yeah, except I mean no. You've got it backwards. You don't define the laws, they define what you can do.

PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2004 11:57 am
by UALOneKPlus
This is exactly why dope should not be legalized! :lol:

PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2004 8:22 pm
by leg4li2ed0pe
JamieW wrote:Yeah, except I mean no. You've got it backwards. You don't define the laws, they define what you can do.


What is the difference? Its just a matter of perspective. I say its both at the same time.

PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2004 10:09 pm
by JamieW
No.

PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2004 7:52 pm
by leg4li2ed0pe
What is the difference?

PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 12:30 pm
by Spazmogen
UALOneKPlus wrote:This is exactly why dope should not be legalized! :lol:

I agree.

I gave up dope after I started thinking that Aldus Huxley was making sense.

Hunter S. Thompson I can follow, he actually took the time to enjoy the drugs. Aldus was just full of it. Aldus did the drugs and tried to write about it while stoned and make sense of it all. Which he seldom did.

In simple English: Hunter was the life of the party, while Aldus was a social orphan.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 11, 2004 6:07 pm
by leg4li2ed0pe
Spazmogen wrote:
UALOneKPlus wrote:This is exactly why dope should not be legalized! :lol:

I agree.

I gave up dope after I started thinking that Aldus Huxley was making sense.

Hunter S. Thompson I can follow, he actually took the time to enjoy the drugs. Aldus was just full of it. Aldus did the drugs and tried to write about it while stoned and make sense of it all. Which he seldom did.

In simple English: Hunter was the life of the party, while Aldus was a social orphan.


Pfft...its totally the opposite. Thompson is entertaining and all but he didn't really figure anything out with them. Huxley on the other hand wrote some brilliant stuff about his experiences. And no, he didn't right the doors of perception while on mescaline. He wrote it after. But if you look at the doors of perception or heaven and hell they really do have some great insight into the human mind. He makes the analogy of the human mind as a valve, which filters out information from the vast amounts we get from our senses. He felt that when he took mescaline, this valve let alot more in. It turned out that when people started to figure out all the different parts of the brain, it was found that he was right on. The hippocampus was made much less effective by mescaline. The job of the hippocampus is to decide what information from the senses should be ignored. There are many more like him. Alan Watts for example wrote a book called "The Joyous Cosmology" about his experiences with LSD. It is also quite insightful. Here is a passage.

"Listen, there's something I must tell. I've never, never seen it so clearly. But it doesn't matter a bit if you don't understand, because each one of you is quite perfect as you are, even if you don't know it. Life is basically a gesture, but no one, no thing, is making it. There is no necessity for it to happen, and none for it to go on happening. For it isn't being driven by anything; it just happens freely of itself. It's a gesture of motion, of sound, of color, and just as no one is making it, it isn't happening to anyone. There is simply no problem of life; it is completely purposeless play—exuberance which is its own end. Basically there is the gesture. Time, space, and multiplicity are complications of it. There is no reason whatever to explain it, for explanations are just another form of complexity, a new manifestation of life on top of life, of gestures gesturing. Pain and suffering are simply extreme forms of play, and there isn't anything in the whole universe to be afraid of because it doesn't happen to anyone! There isn't any substantial ego at all. The ego is a kind of flip, a knowing of knowing, a fearing of fearing. It's a curlicue, an extra jazz to experience, a sort of double-take or reverberation, a dithering of consciousness which is the same as anxiety."