--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > Although I really, really don't want to get into > > > an intellectual circle jerk about the nature of > > > life as a hologram, I will say that based on my > > > own personal experiences, I have no problem with > > > the concept. > > > > > > In all of my highest experiences in this incarn- > > > ation -- both chemically-induced and not -- the > > > world looked to me *like* a hologram. I would try > > > to focus on something and all I could see were > > > those pixel-like dots of light you see when you > > > closely examine a physical hologram. The dots > > > have no substance per se. They are, in fact, the > > > "difference tones" of the intersections of light. > > > And I could definitely see the light shining > > > "through" them. > > > > What drug were you on when you had this vision? If so, > > then we shouldn't accept the vision as part of reality. > > I'm replying only because of the insufferable > arrogance and stupidity of this comment, not > because I have anything to prove. > > First, it wasn't a "vision," whether back in > the late 60s under the influence of LSD or > psilocybin or over the last 30 years, during > Unity experiences that occurred as a result > of meditation or other spiritual (non-drug) > experiences. It was just how my vision > *worked* during those experiences. That is > how reality *looked* during those exper- > iences, not some fleeting "vision." Some- > times this lasted for weeks. > > But the really amazing thing from my point of > view is the arrogance and stupidity of someone > who wouldn't "accept the vision as part of > reality" if it happened as a result of drugs. > > WTF? > > What would such an experience be part OF, eh? > > What a dolt. > > > If there was no drugs involved, then the vision may have > > scientific significance or explanation for it. > > For those who are less arrogant, stupid and > judgmental, the experience would have scientific > validity no matter *what* caused it. Only someone > with an enormous chip on his shoulder and and > equally huge ego would see drug experiences of > a spiritual nature as "non scientific" and only > those that happened as the result of non-drug > spiritual practices as "scientifically significant." > > Sometimes the arrogance, prudery, elitism and bull- > headedness of long-term TMers astounds even me. > > Even *Maharishi* talked about the validity of drug > experiences, and used to give long talks on the > possibility that "soma" was a physical substance > that could have been ingested back in Vedic times. > > I assume that JohnR would listen to those tapes > and decide that they "shouldn't be included as part > of reality." :-)
Guru Dev also referred to such drugs and their abilities in his encounters with other ascetics during his time in the forest. "Various kinds of sidhhis are come to be seen by means of drugs. When Iwas staying in the jungles, on several occasions Kola and Bhil (tribal peoples) came and informed me of the properties of drugs. One time a Bhil brought one such which would make a tiger senseless who saw only a little of it from afar. By means of drugs a human being can live several hundred years. By means of drugs many siddhis can come. So there are also drugs that give the strength to fly for the one who put it in the mouth." [Shri Shankaracharya UpadeshAmrita kaNa 35 of 108] translation - Paul Mason http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/upadesh.htm#kaNa35
