--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > <snip> > > > FWIW, a former boyfriend of mine who was a TMer > > > would have profound witnessing experiences if he so > > > much as drank a glass of beer. That's never > > > happened to me! > > > > This (profound witnessing after having a drink > > or two) is far from uncommon. It is *all over* > > the literature of Tibet and India and Japan, > > an integral part of many of the stories about > > enlightened teachers there. > > Yeah, except what we're talking about is how > alcohol affects folks who *aren't* yet enlightened.
Everyone is always already enlightened. Some don't realize it yet, that's all. That's not just a throwaway neoAdvaitan oneliner; it's a very accurate way of describing the supposed "difference" between the enlightened and those who don't realize yet that they are enlightened. In other words, enlightenment *may* have nothing whatsoever to do with any physiological differences. It may be simply a matter of recognition. If it is, then alcohol or any other psychotropic substance may affect the "enlightened" *exactly* the same as it affects the so-called "unenlightened" because there has never been a point at which anyone was ever "unenlightened." I'm riffing on alternative language here Jude, trying to get you to see that your choice of language creates a possibly artificial distinction between enlightened and non-enlightened, and is narrowing your field of possibilities, as opposed to expanding it. > <snip> > > > Very different with pot, again in my experience > > > (many years ago). > > > > But there again, look into it and you will find > > whole spiritual traditions in India that smoke > > hashish as a sacrament, and in *huge* quantities. > > Different strokes for different folks. > > Or maybe different qualities of THC... > > In any case, the practice of these traditions > would seem to confirm what *I* said, that pot > *does* affect one's meditation. (Unless these > groups don't meditate, of course.) > > What we're debating here is whether psychoactive > substances such as alcohol and pot interfere with > one's progress toward enlightenment. And again, you are assuming the "unenlightened" model, which believes that "progress" *has* to be "made" "towards" enlightenment. If you shift to another equally accurate model and description of the process -- that everyone is always already enlightened and that the *only* thing that marks "enlightenment" is a realization of what has always already been going on -- then there is no "progress" possible. > So far, > nothing that anyone has said constitutes actual > evidence one way or the other. I would extend that statement to a description of the entirety of human history: "So far, nothing that anyone has said about *anything* constitutes actual evidence one way or another." :-)
