--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> 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;
Sure it is. <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.
