<snip> > <snip> > > > 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. > > Except progress toward realization of what has > always already been going on. > > See, the reason it's a throwaway neo-Advaita > one-liner is that the distinction is still there, > only now it's called "not realizing vs. realizing > what has always already been going on" instead of > "unenlightened vs. enlightened." > > In other words: > > unenlightened = not realizing what has always > already been going on > > enlightened = realizing what has always > already been going on > > It's the same distinction. So all I have to do > is change my wording: > > What we're debating here is whether psychoactive > substances such as alcohol and pot interfere with > one's progress toward realizing what has always > already been going on. > > The only difference is that my original wording > uses fewer words; the meaning is identical. >
and because 'realizing' is the essential criteria and because 'not realizing' is devoid of meaning and "what has always already been going on" is not an object Libations: sometimes one has to stumble, to stumble onto something.
