« Open Thread 15 (free speech for comments) | Main | Embrace beautiful imperfection. Push away judgement. »

August 05, 2018

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


"Hinduism" and all its many branches, RSSB being one of them, uses millions of scare tactics centered on the reincarnation theory.

Interesting conflation. Hinduism is not RSSB and certainly
not the path of mysticism.

We create our own fear. Every day. The mystic's path is
to go inward, slowly, mindfully, and dissolve fear. It's
that very discipline and insistence on experience within
that differentiates it from the blind faith of religion.

The mystic doesn't use "scare tactics centered on the
reincarnation theory". If you cling to blind faith alone,
however, you will remain afraid, paralyzed by shadows of
your own making. You become your own worst enemy.
Some descend into fanaticism to fill the void. Seek converts
despite the hollowness of their understanding, engage in
learned critiques, debate, lecture, argue. Others become
embittered, doubt the path altogether, began slandering
teachers and Gurus.

By the way, the mystic doesn't go about seeking recruits
either. There's no cabal. No secret cult looking to victimize,
to use fear to threaten, intimidate, insist you remain within
its walls mired in blind faith. Rather Ishwar Puri, echoing
Great Master, says "This is what has worked for me.
If you find something better, follow it. Please come back
and tell me too". Once, asked "What is the right path, the
right teacher?", he answered "The one that says the answers
will be found inside, not outside."


"Hinduism" and all its many branches, RSSB being one of them, uses millions of scare tactics centered on the reincarnation theory.

Interesting conflation. Hinduism is not RSSB and certainly
not the path of mysticism.

We create our own fear. Every day. The mystic's path is
to go inward, slowly, mindfully, and dissolve fear. It's
that very discipline and insistence on experience within
that differentiates it from the blind faith of religion.

The mystic doesn't use "scare tactics centered on the
reincarnation theory". If you cling to blind faith alone,
however, you will remain afraid, paralyzed by shadows of
your own making. You become your own worst enemy.
Some descend into fanaticism to fill the void. Seek converts
despite the hollowness of their understanding, engage in
learned critiques, debate, lecture, argue. Others become
embittered, doubt the path altogether, began slandering
teachers and Gurus.

By the way, the mystic doesn't go about seeking recruits
either. There's no cabal. No secret cult looking to victimize,
to use fear to threaten, intimidate, insist you remain within
its walls mired in blind faith. Rather Ishwar Puri, echoing
Great Master, says "This is what has worked for me.
If you find something better, follow it. Please come back
and tell me too". Once, asked "What is the right path, the
right teacher?", he answered "The one that says the answers
will be found inside, not outside."

Let's use August to read RUMI
next we might stay away
from iq based stuff

777

Although iq above 70 and Math
confirm God

777

"It may feel as if there is something grander out there"...

--Why does it necessarily have to be "grander" and "out there"? Why not 'here' and not 'grand' at all? Or something else entirely?

These assumptions about what the "Foundation of It All" is could be off the mark entirely, not even close. Like a snail comprehending auto mechanics and fixing an oxygen sensor. We humans are so arrogant when we know so little. We have trouble even getting the weather right.

"There is no God"... Hah! Like we know something.

Maybe the God we imagine is a precursor.

Agreed Tucson

Solispism or Solopism, the perfect interpretation

YOU, Tuscon is the only existing, we ( the others ) are just ornaments of what
exists in YOU, Sir now,
and you must shed off a little bit of amnesia, . . you were so wise to apply

The original Almighty Inventor found a way to accumulate LOVE like an H bomb explosion and much more

Everything, everybody will enjoy the end product,
only some difference in "time"

Rssb does nothing than speed it up for the willing
making the ground level energies easier audible

777

"Interesting conflation. Hinduism is not RSSB and certainly
not the path of mysticism."

You're replying on the wrong post and you also have no idea what you're talking about.

Almost every single piece of terminology used by RSSB has Hindu origins. The entire concept of a guru at all is Hindu. Karma is Hindu. Reincarnation is Hindu. Brahma is Hindu. Mantras are Hindu.

To say hinduism isn't mysticism is bordering on insanity.

You're so deep in the cult that you can't even honestly respond to the criticism of infinite worm birth threats. And speaking of conflation,you're trying to hide the realities of RSSB doctrines with new age terms about creating our own realities and fears. Those aren't RSSB concepts, but they certainly serve a great purpose as convenient deflections.

"Most of us stop short of actually believing these objects possess mental states"

Not in Southeast Asia.

This aspect of our mentality is already causing problems in the world of robotics and AI. The conundrum faced by Harrison Ford as himself in Blade Runner is coming true.

At least if the headline I glanced at covered the topic well. Basically it said that people were less prone to unplugging a machine if it pleaded to remain on.

Imagine how manipulative these new sex robots are gonna be when they're taught to express emotions.

How can you write "By the way, the mystic doesn't go about seeking recruits" and then subsequently quote a man who claims to be a mystic master guru and who goes on tours where he tries to get recruits?

This whole rada swami thing is insanity. Shiv Dayal was an insane man and his legacy is nothing but confusion and destruction. May the whole cult be cursed.

Tucson, you asked "Why does it necessarily have to be "grander" and "out there"? Why not 'here' and not 'grand' at all? Or something else entirely?"

"It" may not NEED be grander or here or there, but I've yet to come across any theory about god or the supernatural that doesn't describe it as such.

Even when people talk about a kind of silent infinity, that silent infinity is considered amazing and grand as well as distant. Nirvana, to be extinguished, is never spoken of as a minor happening. It's also far off,or even spoken of as so near that it's far away. Majestic in its nothingness.

We're all pretty uncreative in imagining god, yet people are so desperate to meet this god they imagine that any foreigner with a beard is immediately considered gods gatekeeper.


You're so deep in the cult that you can't even honestly respond to the criticism of infinite worm birth threats. And speaking of conflation,you're trying to hide the realities of RSSB doctrines with new age terms about creating our own realities and fears. Those aren't RSSB concepts, but they certainly serve a great purpose as convenient deflections.

Dismissive, deflective... works both ways.

No, fear is spoken of pervasively in RSSB. Look at the literature, the
Satsangs, the Q&A. It's a reality, not a "New Age" concept. For
many the fear of death is the most overarching concern of life.
Yes, mystics do deal "honestly" with it. They offer a path, a
discipline, a way of life to dissolve that fear.

Vitriol and attack will never assuage whatever hatred you're
harboring. No matter how many times you toss the word "cult"
around, it rings hollow.

I'm happy you said "honestly" in that way, since we both know it's not truly honest what bearded guys prescribe to fools.

Do you think being born as an animal and chained to a primitive pump and forced to walk around in circles your entire life sounds good? That's what Sawan "dementia" Singh said is your fate if you don't worship him.

He couldn't choose an honest guru himself, his successor was a fraud, and the next in line has decades of accusations of speaking perversely about western women. But sure, he is the Lord of the souls of all mankind.

Sounds legit. Totally not a weird cult that scares people into thinking they'll be born as animals. Not at all.

On this subject of imagining gods and attributing emotions to inanimate things, there are a few anecdotes I'd like to submit that expand on this aspect of our minds.

The first is that as much as gods can be imagined or stones thought to have emotions, so too do we imagine these gurus to possess omniscience and personal affection for us based on nothing. We also attribute magical powers to them to explain not so special events.

If you've met anyone who has visited a satsang where the bearded one was present, you've undoubtedly heard how lovingly he looked at the crowd or even an individual. How does one sit in a crowd of hundreds or thousands of people and feel they're personally loved by the one giving a speech? Imagination is how.

If you'd taken the time to read a lot of RSSB literature you likely remember the story of Charan Singh seeing some clouds in the distance and by using his magic god powers stopping the clouds from raining on the sangat. Do you also remember the story of the clouds pouring rain on the sangat and how the water was some kind of blessing because it showed how much love was in the air?
Do you feel stupid for accepting this stuff? I do. That I would imagine sumdood to be magical because he stopped rain and also didn't stop rain is pretty embarrassing. He had no power. I wanted him to have power and to be god.

But this last anecdote is the funniest in my opinion. One day during a long talk with a satsangi, I was told that he could "sense the shabd" in me lol. Again, all imagination, all attempting to realize things from Indian mysticism books. All sad.

Imagine that. Me, Jesse, the absolute denier of RSSB was a living embodiment of the source of all existence aac defined by RSSB.

I really am your guru I guess.

Unrelated to the post, but since it's already discussed:

RSSB is not Hinduism.

Soami Ji Maharaj has mentioned clearly in Sarbachan,
the origins and the setup of Hindu religion.

"Karma is Hindu. Reincarnation is Hindu. Brahma is Hindu"
Not sure where you are getting that from, Jesse.

That's totally false even by the Hindu mythology.

These ideas were already being followed
much before the inception of Hindu Religion.

It appears that you are mixing Hindi language with Hindu religion. Is that so ?

I can also sense the Shabd in you, Jesse.
You are enforcing yourself to unlisten it.
You will fail and you will be so happy to be failed.

Love is in the air for sure.

What does mythology have to do with anything? The things I mentioned are common shared aspects of almost every school of thought within sanatan dharma. Pre "Hindu" or post. They're in the Vedas according to some and certainly those ideas are expressed in various Upanishads.

Mahabharat includes reincarnation. Ramayan too. So even the myths that you're claiming don't include these concepts actually do.

The entire Bhagvad Gita is a treatise on these subjects.

But as I said a few times already, I'm not dealing with honest people here. I'm here attempting to expose liars because it's not my website and I can't ban you for being absolutely dishonest.

And by the way, I've written to you in hindi on this site and you think I confuse the terms hindu and hindi? You're even less sentient than I imagined.

Yes, it appears you do.
Because everything in sanatan dharm is in Sanskrit and not Hindi.
Hindi books on religion are all translations.
Unlike Pali, Hindi is a fairly simplified derivation of Sanskrit.

Pali is very close to Sanskrit,
if you know Sanskrit, you will quickly understand Pali.
And then reading the Tipitaka is a very different experience,
than reading the translations or transliterations.

Dude, what kind of gibberish is this? Nobody cares about these languages.

You just said that concepts such as transmutation are not Hindu concepts. Language is irrelevant and you're only mentioning it to change the subject.

Gibberish ?

I mentioned about the contemporary religion,
world's fourth largest as they say, i.e. Buddhism

Only if you know what Tipitaka is ?
It's the core literature of Buddhism - written in Pali.

Tipitaka's literal meaning is Ti - three, Pitaka - baskets.
This whole buddhist literature is divided into 3 main parts:
Vinay Pitaka, Sutra Pitaka and Abhidharma Pitaka.

In English it's popularly known as The Pali Canon.
It's online english version is interesting to read: https://www.palicanon.org/
This website provides a great translation to the original text.
But, it needs patience to go through this literature
and actually become comfortable with it's unique style.

Just like Rumi has a peculiar style.

Even in the literature available before the inception of the religions,
irrespective of the languages,
everywhere there is a mention of Shabd.

Shabd is the eternal truth.
which is also the basis of RSSB's teachings,
and calling RSSB an extension of Hinduism is completely wrong.

Jesse wrote: "It" may not NEED be grander or here or there, but I've yet to come across any theory about god or the supernatural that doesn't describe it as such.

-- The operative word is "theory".

Atheists aren't happy because nobody has come up with a good one yet... "There are no sensible theories!! I'm out. No God. That's my final word. I'm right. You god people are full of it. Period. Why doesn't God show himself if he is so high and mighty?"

Maybe God does but we don't have the eyes to see it?

So, they say, "Nope. No God. I can't see it. Science can't see it. We must be right."

Where is the humility in our ignorance of why life is?

"calling RSSB an extension of Hinduism is completely wrong."

Only if you're an idiot who doesn't understand the indic origins of every single aspect of ever single one of RSSB's teachings, which was my only point, and the thing you've yet to respond to other than saying "all religions are about shabd bro" which they demonstrably are not. Funny too that you mention another Upanishadic response religion ie hinduism, to support this theory with your Buddhist reference. "It's not Hindu man, it's post-Hindu!" Let's talk about punk rock next.

Had you looked into primary sources instead of the timeless genius of Charan Singh, maybe you'd know the vast differences between the definitions of these seemingly similar words that RSSB tells you are the same, such as logos and shabd.

But either way, hookah man Swami G didn't know the difference between Jesus and the Bab, and his sources were Hindu. He was teaching a form of Hinduism.

"The operative word is "theory"

Yes, Tucson, because theories are the only thing ever being discussed. Unless of course we assume that everyone's experience of God is valid, or that satsangis are correct and a certain Singh family are the new Pharaohs which is amazingly lulzy.

But then we're dealing with a being that is so abstract as to not be definable anyway since this god appears as silence, noise, violent, peaceful, human, stone, amazing, nothing. Which may all be true even in their contradictions, but again, for those not experiencing this loud silence personally, it doesn't matter much since we're going to hear the description, which we can only accept as a theory.

One more theory, or claim, out of millions of other contradictory claims.

Yes, you're right to say we can't say one way or another. And I agree, which is why I refer to myself as agnostic, because the literal definition of the word simply means "unknowing." Not knowing is the only honest answer, and it's the only answer you're not allowed to have once you become religious.

Jesse:
"He was teaching a form of Hinduism."

So you agree what HE was teaching
was a tiny bit different from Hinduism.

Some receives that tiny bit and some mega and giga bytes.

Jesse says: "But then we're dealing with a being that is so abstract as to not be definable anyway since this god appears as silence, noise, violent, peaceful, human, stone, amazing, nothing. Which may all be true even in their contradictions, but again, for those not experiencing this loud silence personally, it doesn't matter much since we're going to hear the description, which we can only accept as a theory.

-- Abstract only because we lack the nervous systems and communication tools to comprehend and convey it. but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist right here and now. We think we know something but maybe we're merely unevolved cockroaches blathering. I think atheism is arrogance. I, too, prefer the term "agnostic". It's more honest.

"we lack the nervous systems and communication tools to comprehend and convey it."

Assuming any "it" exists.


One Initiated,

No, I don't agree that anything swami money bags taught "was a tiny bit different from Hinduism." I specifically said the opposite of that and you quoted me. How could you possibly come to the conclusion that I agree with the opposite of what I just said while using my quote as evidence?

Shaktism and Shaivism are not slightly different FROM hinduism. They, too, are exactly what I said and what you quoted me as saying different forms OF hinduism. All parts of one conglomerate of mystical systems/obsessions.

There is not one word of original content in all of RS cult, and this is even more true going back to pre Beas days. Agra's #1 Hookah Man Swami Ghat Sitter's Sar Bachan provides no new content at all. It's just one of a trillion Hindu Guru cults with a fancy name.

Didn't he use the wagh bakri story? There's a brand of tea that uses that name, but when westerners read it from RS they think he was some kind of original poet. "Oh my lord, a tiger and a goat drinking from the same well? AMAZING!!!"

"There is not one word of original content in all of RS cult"

And nobody claims there is. You missed the point.

That's what is being said every time and everywhere in RSSB,
this method of meditation is exactly the same since the beginning.

Surat Shabd Yog is not bound in the boundaries of any religion.
Only the terminology is in Hindi which is a language not religion.

"Surat Shabd Yog is not bound in the boundaries of any religion."

Nobody says that you can practice surat shabd yoga in Christianity. It would be impossible, actually, to worship Religare's CEO if you believe that Christ is THE incarnation.

No Muslim can practice surat shabd yog, obviously, and there are major differences between tasawuuf and surat shabd yog that RS glosses over when selling itself as universal. But I already said this earlier.

You have to convert and be "initiated" or take "namdaan" and join a particular sect of post-Hinduism which means what? Leaving your religion, and likely ruining your family with your weirdo life, unless you're already a Hindu.

You're using one of RS's most deceptive tactics, which is that it's a universal practice, when clearly it isn't. It goes against the beliefs of every single religion outside of generally open vedantic Hinduism. There are superficial similarities between RS and other forms of mysticism, but they're not all the same. If they were already the same, RS wouldn't exist, nor would RS be making enemies.

As I said in an earlier comment,Radha Soami is making an attempt to present itself as a bastardized and warped perennial philosophy. Everything they say is lies, and the more you start thinking about it, the more obvious it becomes. Perennial philosophy asks people to remain in their tradition. RS says that you don't have to leave your religion, while also telling you never to attend a Church or Gurdwara because they're just places of ritual i.e. dirty pagan temples. It's a mindf*** of nonsense.

The dirtiest thing in religion is worshipping obviously ungodly men who love money like Gurinder Dhillon.

Each human of compassion needs only a person that says

Try to have 100% silence, . . . you cannot !

Next observe what you hear and pray a little
The "base_call_it_quantum_Sound" . . . It will react
Not immediately, but it will, . . . . try to calm your thoughts . . . don't argue
No single text needed

That's all

If by chance you meet a Sound_Master , ° ° ° that little tiny Sound will confirm His/Her authenticity ° ° ° it will swell
what swell means you will find out

777

"God is Man Made" Obviously so!

It's so ingrained in us to invest meaning and purpose in the world around us I don't think any amount of logic, common sense or evidence will ever shake our reliance on 'supernatural' thinking and beliefs. Such beliefs/thinking seems to be a natural reaction to the fears and insecurities we encounter - or imagine. A few may drop beliefs in the supernatural but will invariably gravitate to some other belief, perhaps a cause, the tribe or some nationalistic fervour . All just other ways of identifying with the (imagined) greater.

Regardless of the evidence and facts that we are regular confronted with, we still cling desperately to our conditioned thinking processes. To abandon them feels exactly like abandoning our life. Basically, we are stuck - we will continue to live and die defending our illusions

Brian have you ever tried LSD or 5meo-dmt?

It is not for nothing dmt is called the God molecule. If you have tried it, what was your experience?

I think 5meo is still legal in Canada.

Materialist atheism is easily and logically disproved. The atheism of buddhism is something else and revolves around how we define "nirvana," and "nothing."

Proof in simple form:

Opening irrefutable statement:
We know we exist.

Possible explanations:
Two theories.

    Theory one:
Existence always is. Simple, does not contradict nde's, psychedelics, religions, or mystics.

    Theory two:
There is nonexistence which we will go into when we die. We pop out of nonexistence when we are born. This theory contradicts nde's, psychedelics, religions and mystics. That's ok though if it is rational. Is it rational? No, it is the most irrational theory possible.

Why?

What properties does nonexistence have? Non-existence doesn't have any properties and doesn't even exist. What can come out of that which has no properties and doesn't exist? Answer: Not existence. Existence cannot come from nonexistence. Nonexistence cannot give rise to existence. Since we exist, we know existence gave rise to us and not non-existence.

Since non-existence does not exist by definition, and has no properties that could give rise to existence, and since we know we exist, we therefore know we cannot come from nonexistence. Can we go into nonexistence when we die? No, nonexistence does not exist so we cannot. We can go into nothing, but not nonexistence.

Did the universe arise from nothing? Of course. But it is an existing nothing. Nothing for example could be said to contain all the positive and all the negative numbers. They all add up to nothing. An existing nothing that contains everything.

You can cease to exist,287. If your consciousness is the product of the material body, which it most likely is. Call it non existence, nothing or whatever you want. You're gonna be gone regardless of the nature of existence itself.

The rest of it doesn't matter.

Jesse:
Fine. Saying something doesn't make it so.

Please post your rational explanation for how you came from nonexistence.

287,
The problem isn't non existence or existence. Sure, something has always existed.

The problem is your assumption of continuity of consciousness that you slipped in there by talking about people. Existence being a reality doesn't mean all particulars are eternal. I can personally not exist because I am just the coalesence of matter that will decompose.


The problem isn't non existence or existence. Sure, something has always existed.

It has? What is "something"... molecules? time? space? consciousness?


The problem is your assumption of continuity of consciousness that you slipped in there by talking about people. Existence being a reality doesn't mean all particulars are eternal. I can personally not exist because I am just the coalesence of matter that will decompose.

Hm, "something has always existed" but "consciousness" can't 'cuz
it seems to be dependent on "coalescence of matter". Right?

But molecules go on spinning... how long, forever? Space goes on
stretching out... to where? You're giving hegemony to molecules
and space. Are they the only things that are eternal? Where were
they before the "Big Bang"? How can we be sure consciousness itself
isn't eternal and gave rise to the "Big Bang"? That's the mystic view.

How do you know "you" personally will not exist when the molecular "coalescence" gets less sticky? The molecules will transform but they'll
still exist. Why can't consciousness hang around too? We only assume because, sans body, we won't be able to go on ranting in ways we
know and love, that we no longer exist. We assume consciousness
will die eternally while its creative molecular force just goes for a little
dirt nap.

Consciousness is no more. Let us praise the holy dirt from whence it
springeth!


The problem isn't non existence or existence. Sure, something has always existed.

It has? What is "something"... molecules? time? space? consciousness?


The problem is your assumption of continuity of consciousness that you slipped in there by talking about people. Existence being a reality doesn't mean all particulars are eternal. I can personally not exist because I am just the coalesence of matter that will decompose.

Hm, "something has always existed" but "consciousness" can't 'cuz
it seems to be dependent on "coalescence of matter". Right?

But molecules go on spinning... how long, forever? Space goes on
stretching out... to where? You're giving hegemony to molecules
and space. Are they the only things that are eternal? Where were
they before the "Big Bang"? How can we be sure consciousness itself
isn't eternal and gave rise to the "Big Bang"? That's the mystic view.

How do you know "you" personally will not exist when the molecular "coalescence" gets less sticky? The molecules will transform but they'll
still exist. Why can't consciousness hang around too? We only assume because, sans body, we won't be able to go on ranting in ways we
know and love, that we no longer exist. We assume consciousness
will die eternally while its creative molecular force just goes for a little
dirt nap.

Consciousness is no more. Let us praise the holy dirt from whence it
springeth!

Are there any mystics alive in today's intellectual materialistic rational boring non-imaginative world? I'm looking forward to my next life...

I died from minerality and became vegetable;
And From vegetativeness I died and became animal.
I died from animality and became man.
Then why fear disappearance through death?
Next time I shall die
Bringing forth wings and feathers like angels;
After that, soaring higher than angels -
What you cannot imagine,
I shall be that.

Rumi

Hi Jen, may we find a little light before we die...

Jen,

You basically just summed up mysticism perfectly. It's imagination for people who are easily bored by what's real and the wonderful world of what can be explained rationally.

In other words, play time or fantasy.

I agree.

Jesse,

We all create our reality subject to our upbringing, personality, countries we live in, education and all that jazz. Creative people are the musicians, artists - especially those who paint abstracts - (me :) Nothing wrong with using our imagination and feelings to make life a little more exciting and interesting.

"We all create our reality"

We do? I don't remember choosing my parents, imagining trees into existence, or anything else.

I seem to have been born into an already existing reality that I have very little control over and that I most certainly did not create.

As for making life interesting by using imagination and being creative, I agree, but that doesn't make the things of imagination real.

Jesse,
Just dashing out the door to catch a bus in the really real reality ;)

Jesse:

I thought you were making the case for atheism. Now you are saying that something always existed. If you agree to that then you are not really an atheist. Deists just say that that something that always existed is God. In fact that is the traditional definition of God, that which always existed.

Regarding the argument that you will go into nonexistence. Let's forget that you are now contradicting the 2nd law of thermodynamics... the thing is, no doubt your body, mind, emotions, even consciousness* will end. The question is will existence end? Is there a "your existence" and a "my existence?" What would make it yours or mine? Who owns it?

Do you own "your" existence? How did you come to own it? It seems to me the owner is what comes and goes, not existence itself.

* depending how you define that word

Do you own "your" existence? How did you come to own it? It seems to me the owner is what comes and goes, not existence itself.
* depending how you define that word
Posted by: 287daysleft | August 21, 2018 at 12:16 AM

I LIKE THIS
Solopism fits perfectly in quantum reasoning
SOON IBM 50Quantum devices will affirm this
Brian did already with : "EXISTANCE" IS IT
Even Madame Hines will come

777

PS
Solopism/Solispism fits also perfectly in Gurinders reasoning
and in . . . "Before Abraham, . . " I AM "


And after Laura, . . . Even Zulu will catch it . . . 777

I don't know what to say, 287.

Go take a first year philosophy course. A lot of people are discussing these things there with great fervor.

I no longe have answers, nor do I care or think they're important things to answer. My only belief is that we are likely not permanently in existence as individuals.

I have a questio
that might clear up
Brians semantics on "Existence"

Do You mean : "Yes there is an ever
exitant energy , that did all this
but it's unconcerned with "humans" , earthlings
planets etc because there are so many

and we are si hugely insignificant

Is THAT your stand on Atheism ?

777

or even :

That force might detest us

or

I don't know and I'm not interested ?


287daysleft, I used LSD quite a few times during my college years, around 1968, so a long time ago. I had both some good trips and some not-so-good trips. Mostly good. I also tried mescaline. Wrote about discovering the secret of the universe in a blog post.

https://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2010/02/the-universe-is-a-paper-bag-turned-inside-out.html

And in another post I wrote about another psychedelic experience.

https://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2007/11/loosening-the-b.html

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Welcome


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...