XPost: alt.support.depression, alt.support.schizophrenia, alt.bu   
   dha.short.fat.guy   
   XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism   
   From: slider@anashram.com   
      
   On Sat, 10 Aug 2024 13:29:14 +0100, someone  wrote:   
      
   > % wrote:   
   >   
   >> everyone can be all or part of the total   
   >   
   > Moving the goal-posts, everyone   
   > can do anything. Everyone is affected   
   > by everything and when an example shows   
   > how not everyone can nor does, then an other   
   > example is given to suggest everyone would be if ...   
      
   ### - that wasn't at all my intension... the debate commenced re 'insane'   
   people possibly (or potentially) actually being nearer to an advanced   
   state of being than ordinary/normal folks   
      
      
      
   > Mirrors may affect everyone.   
   > Then again, some are unable to see, to know.   
   > They can't see and don't know their own reflection.   
      
   ## - have already agreed that is true: that people's level of advancement   
   varies from not at all (commonly known as being normal) to that of a sage   
   or baba-type and beyond.   
      
      
      
      
      
      
   > Logically speaking, presumptions, axioms and such   
   > allow for a conclusion to be valid without being sound.   
   > Logical fallacies are known by logicians to include a few.   
      
   ### - true... but neither of us in this instance are even interested in   
   bringing such things into the debate as we've nothing personally to hide   
   or to hide behind; we're looking for clarity on the subject not to obscure   
   the issue, yes?   
      
      
      
   > Epistemologically speaking, to know, without doubt,   
   > everyone is or would be affected by a substance, a noun,   
   > a thing, falls into a category of not being able to be.   
      
   ### - then 'Epistemologically' has to go out the window along with other   
   words/terms that obfuscate/cloud the issue, let's not get lost in clever   
   words & denial when the evidence is right before our eyes   
      
      
      
      
   > Lots of people might insist, nouns exist.   
   > Their definition of what existence is may vary.   
      
   ### - there's all kinds of reasons why some people might 'insist', but if   
   they can't back-up their argument(s) with cogent reasonings but insist on   
   sticking to them, then in reality they're only being evasive, and that   
   raises the question why: as in are they being dishonest for example, or   
   just don't know...   
      
      
      
      
   > A state attained or obtained by some people   
   > may be called mystical, ecstatic, religious, etc.   
   >   
   > Not everyone who takes mushrooms has a mystical   
   > or religious type of experience nor becomes a sage.   
   >   
   > That was a point being made, until, far from being   
   > a sage, a statement was made about effects   
   > that, ahem, everyone will experience.   
      
   ### - that is correct... the experience will vary depending on the   
   personal evolution/state of mind of the participant, that's obvious... and   
   as such it was stated that an educated/disciplined person will likely have   
   a very different experience compared to someone less   
   educated/disciplined...   
      
   e.g., aldous huxley, a famous doctor and writer of books like brave new   
   world & doors of perception, took lsd many times and always had very   
   eye-opening experiences, enough to log/write about them in his book doors   
   of perception, his trained & disciplined mind allowing him to probe &   
   explore those altered states of awareness without becoming terrified or   
   losing his mind...   
      
      
      
      
   > Even in a set and setting predisposed to afford   
   > such a type of experience, not all people will.   
   > Some might have a horrible experience.   
      
   ### - also agreed... the fact remains, however, that everyone experienced   
   'something'   
      
      
      
      
   > When a so-called, individual, is already at   
   > an ecstatic state, to then presume a substance,   
   > a mushroom or an acid, will have an effect   
   > can be done, even though it does not.   
      
   ### - this is where we came unstuck... because clearly it DID affect him   
   else how could he remark/observe that it gives people little siddhis? the   
   fact that he wasn't moved to have even greater experiences only being a   
   testament to 'his' level of personal advancement, the remark 'little'   
   suggesting he knows of something much greater and so wasn't that impressed   
   by it... if it hadn't affected him at all he wouldn't have been able to   
   discern what it did compared to what he knew   
      
      
      
      
      
   > Neem Karori Baba was reported to have been   
   > unaffected by a substance. To know what it does   
   > does not entail being affected by it.   
      
   ### - changed 'unaffected' to 'unmoved' and we'd be back in agreement,   
   clearly it affected him just like it affects everybody else, only that was   
   nada to him, him basically commenting: yeah, yeah, i see what it does and   
   why you're all so impressed with it and the 'little powers' it affords   
   people like you, but in my world that's nothing really compared to   
   something even greater...   
      
   little siddhis only proving a 'glimpse' of what's out there waiting for   
   us...   
      
   and that's precisely my point: things like that do indeed provide a   
   'glimpse' of incredible possibilities, but only a glimpse not the whole   
   thing...   
      
      
      
      
   > When some body is already moving at light speed,   
   > that body is immediately where it is seen to be going   
   > by viewers who view it as going some where.   
      
   ### - if you've grasped any of the above then we've passed all that now...   
      
      
      
      
      
   > Statements were made about other people,   
   > e.g. Tolle, Chopra. To miss a point is possible.   
   > People who were diagnosed as being ill.   
   >   
   > Whether a necessary predisposition exists   
   > in order to arrive at a place of no place   
   > might place a body in the physical.   
   >   
   > Some people might insist they are bodies.   
   > Other people may say they have bodies.   
   >   
   > What is called, mental illness, varies   
   > as it is defined and redefined by cultures.   
      
   ### - that was my point too and we basically agree on that: that what some   
   people 'call' mental illness might not be illness at all, strange things   
   happening to 'reason' once we venture beyond it's limits... thus most   
   instruction is to move beyond that of reason altogether into the   
   silence/non-egoic state of being, iow: to turn all that nonsense 'off' and   
   to perceive accordingly...   
      
      
      
      
   > With a form of ego-loss, some non-dualists may speak,   
   > knowing full well how such talk doesn't go to show   
   > others who think, feel and/or know, they are.   
      
   ### - yeah well, it's assumed before we even started that we're not at all   
   interested in such people and their obviously petty problems & evasions...   
   people can learn to talk the talk fairly easily enough, but if that's all   
   they can do and they can't also walk the walk, then it will quickly emerge   
   in conversation that that's the case, there's no need to go looking for   
   it...   
      
      
      
      
   > Once upon a time, an individual arrived at a point   
   > where there was no individuality and he appeared   
   > to be as it were God. Paranormal activities were a   
   > common enough manifestation of his, siddhis.   
   >   
   > Ram Dass was impressed. His guru was God   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)