“The Big If,” a kindred weblog

Laurel’s “Fearing Fundamentalism” article that was published in “Salem Monthly” caught the eye of a Salem writer. He emailed Laurel, expressing interest in our plans to organize a local Church of the Churchless discussion group.

I’ve enjoyed browsing his “The Big If” weblog, whose masthead reads: “Some people think it’s crazy to believe in anything but death after life. Other people think it’s crazy to believe that death ends life. If death doesn't truly kill us--that's the big if--it changes everything.”

Amen to that, The Muse Guy (nom de plume of the weblog’s author). It does indeed change everything. Most postings on The Big If focus on near-death experiences and the evidence (or lack of it) for life after death. But “The Universe Made Me Do It” takes a broad look at how “the Universe” has become a substitute term for “God,” as in “Your house will sell when the Universe says it’s time.”

This is an apt observation that I had never thought of before. Nonetheless, when Laurel had finished reading that post she exclaimed, “Are you sure you don’t have another weblog? This guy sounds just like you.” I not-so-humbly thought, “Ah, how wonderful that Salem has another wise and eloquent writer on metaphysical matters.”

We do indeed seem to be kindred spirits. The Muse Guy has, well, mused on what it would be like to invent the church of your fondest dreams. Most of his vision sounds wonderful to me, though as a singing- and dancing-impaired person I’m not wild about the idea of expressing my spirituality in these fashions. My dream would be to observe the singers and dancers from a stationary mute position, waiting for the “service” to revolve back to talking.

Laurel and I are visualizing the Church of the Churchless as more of a discussion group. But it certainly is true that people “discuss” in different ways. Some are cerebral, some are emotional. Some are highly verbal, others are largely non-verbal. Some are looking for support, others seek to be challenged. A truly open, inclusive church would accommodate many types of people.

Concerning near-death experiences (NDEs), I enjoyed reading Treesha Richie’s account: “Near-Death Experience Of God As Holographic Presence Of Light And Sound.” Treesha facilitates meetings of the Portland Oregon Friends of IANDS (International Association for Near-Death Studies). I’m fascinated by stories of near-death experiences, largely because I readily admit to a deep fear of death. I’ve never had a NDE, per se, but I’ve experienced being embraced by the dark—the scary flip side of being embraced by the light.

Philosophically, near-death experiences tend to support a belief in reincarnation and karma. However, the Western (or at least American) mind seems to have a different “take” on this than Eastern mystics. For Hindu and Buddhist sages, reincarnation is unwanted and karma is its cause. But often the New Age approach is to look upon desire, the root of karma, as a good thing. “We are born again so that we may experience fresh desired forms of earthly life.” This is just what the Buddha said is the cause of suffering: desire.

So I’ve always found it hard to understand why coming back for another earthly life is supposed to be so great. If I’m confused, anxious, and looking for answers to the big questions of life now, what is going to change the next time around? I really like the prospect of experiencing God as a presence of light and sound, holographic or otherwise. Give it to me now though, not just after death. And don’t take it away once I have it.

Many forms of meditative practice refer to “dying while living.” This interests me more than actually coming close to dying and seeing what I experience, a decidedly chancy proposition. Voluntarily attempting to die to physicality while sitting comfortably on my meditation cushion is more appealing to me than non-voluntarily crashing head-on into a semi truck.

To my mind, NDEs offer an advance peek at what lies near the end of the spiritual path. Meditation is the path itself.

Comments

[Robert Searle]

THE PROBLEM WITH RE-BIRTH.

The idea of reincarnation has been around for centuries. Most religions, cult, and sects accept it. It is indeed the only real explanation for the so-called injustices of life. Gina Cerminara in her writings on the psychic Edgar Cayce gives some fascinating light into this subject. Evidence suggests that reincarnation was accepted as part of the original Christian faith, and certain sects in Islam or rather Sufism also believe in it.

There appears though an ethical problem concerning the doctrine of re-birth. Most people would probably not do wrong actions, or karmas. It is the mind which is largely if not wholly responsible for it. It has over-powered the soul almost completely. How then can the former be blamed by the actions of the latter. The whole thing becomes sheer farce. In Sant Mat this mental enslavement of the soul was due to a deal with Kal or the Negative Power. This adds insult to injury.

Ofcourse, many mystics not just Shabd Yoga ones would claim that the answer to such "mysteries" lies within. But the problem is that we have probably enough information to reach the conclusion that the Law of Karma is not totally ethical, or just. There have been attempts to fully justify it but they fail to reach their mark. All this may be discussed further.

[Who Am I ?]

The following are some comments regarding the statements, ideas, and conclusions about Karma, and the related subject of re-incarnation, which were made by Robert Searle:

Robert Searle wrote: "There appears though an ethical problem concerning the doctrine of re-birth."

Response: To presume that there is an "ethical problem" regarding "doctrine" of re-birth, clearly reveals an incomplete understanding of several inter-related factors:

1.) All phenomena such as: action, re-action, form, birth, death, and suffering, occur only in the duality of the Mind.

2.) All actions, and consequent re-actions, are direct manifestations of, and driven by the play of the 'Gunas', the modes of material nature (mind).

3.) "Karma" means action. "Karma" is all action. (not just the negative repercussions or re-actions of previous actions)

4.) Karma, or action, which is the manifestation of the play of the Gunas, is only confined within duality, the mind. Karma never involves the "soul", or more properly, the 'Atman', which is the true Self (ie: pure consciousness).

5.) The cause and perception of duality, the mind, results from ignorance. In Reality, there is no duality, no mind, no birth, no karma, no death. From the point of view of real knowledge, Self-knowledge, there is no "ethical" question, because karma and re-birth are predicated upon ignorance and illusion.

Robert Searle wrote: "...wrong actions, or karmas."

Response: Again, Karma is simply Action, not just negative re-actions.

Robert Searle wrote: "It is the mind which is largely if not wholly responsible for it."

Response: Not only is the mind responsible, but karma, birth, and re-birth are identical and synonymous with the mind. Karma, birth, and re-birth are never attributes of the Atman, the Self.

Robert Searle: "How then can the former (soul ?) be blamed by the actions of the latter (mind ?)."

Response: The soul (the atman) is ever free from the karma, duality, and conditions of the mind. The 'doer' of karma (action) is the interaction of the gunas. The Atman is never the doer, the cause, or the "blame" of action and mind.

Robert Searle wrote: "The whole thing (karma ?) becomes sheer farce."

Response: Karma, birth, and re-birth are surely not "farce". Karma, birth, and re-birth are simply the mechanics and inter-play of false-ego (ahamkara), the gunas, and sense perception which comprise the phenomena of duality that is Mind.

Robert Searle wrote: "In Sant Mat this mental enslavement of the soul was due to a deal with Kal or the Negative Power."

Response: The "soul" or Atman, is never under "enslavement". "Kal" or kala, means Time. The notion that "kal" or time is "negative" is relative. In truth, "kal" or time is an illusion. Kal is not an attribute of the Atman. "Kal" is the duality of mind. Atman is ever-free and not bound by time. Kal or time is the nature of mind. The thought or notion of "a deal" is merely an illusory notion.

Robert Searle wrote: "...we have probably enough information to reach the conclusion that the Law of Karma is not totally ethical, or just."

Response: How could karma, and the Law of Karma, not be just ? This would be to say that somehow the universe, which is the mind, is not perfect in its polarity, balance, and equanimity. To doubt that karma and the Law of Karma is somehow flawed, and not fundamentally perfect, is simply ignorance, or an absence of True Knowlewdge.

Robert Searle wrote: "There have been attempts to fully justify it but they fail to reach their mark."

Response: There is no need to "justify" it. It operates whether one accepts it or not, whether one believes it or not, whether one understands it or not. However, the Atman, the One Self, ever transcends the mind and its mechanics of karma, birth, and re-birth.

[Robert Searle]

IGNORANCE IS BLISS.

I was interested to read what Who Am I? had to say that the Law of Karma is not totally perfect. I agree that the ATMAN, or THE SELF, OR HIGHER SELF is beyond time, and space altogether, and is unaffected by the actions or karmas of the lower self, and mind. However, a part of It is clearly enslaved by the mind. To say otherwise is twaddle. It does not require a genius, or a realized sage to state the obvious. It simply cannot be otherwise.

I will explain more if I have the time, and interest...

[Who Am I ?]

Robert Searle wrote: "IGNORANCE IS BLISS."

Response: A statement such as this is clear evidence and testimony of Robert Searle's own ignorance. For your information, "ignorance" is actually the cause of all suffering, and not the cause of bliss. Bliss results from true Knowledge. If you don't understand this, then go back and study the Four Noble Truths taught by Gautama Buddha.

Robert Searle wrote: "... Who Am I? had to say that the Law of Karma is not totally perfect."

Response: This statement is comletely false and incorrect. I never said: "the Law of Karma is not totally perfect". What I did say is that Karma is cannot be anything other than perfect.

Robert Searle wrote:

"...the ATMAN, or THE SELF, OR HIGHER SELF is beyond time, and space altogether, and is unaffected by the actions or karmas of the lower self, and mind." .... "However, a part of It is clearly enslaved by the mind."

Response: These two statements are contradictory. First Searle agrees that the the Atman, or Supreme Self, is beyond karma and the mind. But then he contradicts himself by saying that "a part of it" (the Atman) is "enslaved" by the mind. This is incorrect. The Atman is pure and beyond karma and mind. The mind/ego/karma has no existence in reality. The mind is merely a reflection of the Atman. Therefore the Atman can never be "enslaved" by the mind. Karma is action predicated upon ignorance, which results from the mis-identification with body and mind. The Atman, The True Self, is eternally free, unborn, and indestructible pure Awareness. The Atman is never "enslaved" by the mind. There is no bondage, except as an illusion resulting from ignorance. (Ignorance is simply an absence of true Knowledge, or Self-knowledge)

Robert Searle wrote: "To say otherwise is twaddle."

Response: If that is true, then why has Robert Searle not given any reasonble or logical evidence to substantiate such a trite statement. Just because you vainly utter "twaddle", such can not, and does not, refute anything.

Robert Searle wrote: "It does not require a genius, or a realized sage to state the obvious. It simply cannot be otherwise.

Response: On the contrary, when it comes to true knowledge, Self-knowledge, and the wisdom of the awakened state, it absolutely does require a "realized sage". Which is why one would be well advised to first achieve true spiritual awakening and tacit realization of Self-knowledge, before one goes spouting all kinds of nonsense ideas, dogmatic beliefs, and dualistic notions as if they are unquestionable. It would be wise if Robert Searle would gain the direct experience of true Self-knowledge, before making such baseless assertions and challenges.

Robert Searle wrote: "I will explain more if I have the time, and interest."

Response: Oh really ! ... Well Robert Searle is going to have to do a great deal more "explaining", if he thinks that he is going to challenge the conclusions derived from the true knowledge, realization, and enlightened wisdom of all the Sages from time immemorial....But I for one, am not holding my breath.

[Netemara]

It's nice to see that Brian and Dave have a mutual admiration society going on. Dave is cool with me. I've learned much from him over the years and incorporated some of it in my book.

I wrote unquestionably about rebirth, originally 600 pages worth, but rewrote it with far fewer pages for publication. While the final word on the reality of "after death" may never satisfy the "die hards" excuse the pun, but I hope to lay to rest much of the confusion by codifying rebirth into neat "laws."

I know I will be severely castigated by "The churchies" and called an "AntiChrist" for taking such feats of liberty sipped with a dose of spiritual insanity but hell you only live once...nada...

If you had not returned you would not be reading this post...LOL

Netemara