Re: Betrayel

On Sat, 10 Aug 2024 13:29:14 +0100, someone <[email protected]> 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
> as far as he was concerned at the time. Baba
> had the answers Richard was looking for.
>
> When he was ready, his guru appeared.
> The guru knew where he was the night before,
> thinking about his mother who had died, etc.
>
> He was above being affected by mushrooms, acid
> and other substances known to have an effect
> on most mortal men and women.

### - this is all just your personal interpretation, no? that there's a  
narrative running in the background here, some kind of mystical storyline  
that proposes to explain everything to the man in the street, other  
interpretations exist however; that baba wasn't unaffected by it, he just  
wasn't that impressed and considered it to only produce little siddhis not  
actually worth bothering with compared to what 'he' was aware of... that's  
what comes across in his remarks regarding it anyway, as such he passes  
judgment on it and finds it wanting, which was what richard wanted to know



> Within a philosophy called Daojia, a parent
> as it were of Zen, a phenomenon called
> immortality may occur. Transcending,
> as if in a butterfly dreaming it was
> an other more than Zhuangzi.
>
> When an individual is no longer an individual,
> to be affected by what effects a substance has
> might be subjected to words. Ore knots.

### - so that's what you're going on then huh, this narrative?

in which case i'd have to suggest that you've misunderstood it then  
because what am suggesting doesn't actually conflict with any of that...  
my original point that maybe not all mental illness is actually mental  
illness except in the minds of western science etc, such is their  
narrative on the subject, a completely dismissive one: that madness is  
madness and that's it, it not being in their limited wordy vocabulary to  
admit of there being anything else...

whereas, otoh, someone who's not quite right in the head, reason-wise,  
might actually be closer to that something else than a normal/average  
person by dint of their 'reason' NOT having such a complete grip over  
their perception...

thus some of the things they perceive could well be correct albeit  
garbled, although a psychiatrist would likely never be able to agree with  
that...