Over my 59 years I've heard a lot of talk about grace. God's grace. Guru's grace. The word – "grace" – sounds good, maybe because it's what would be said before family Thanksgiving get-togethers.
Someone would utter, "Let's say grace." We would. Then we could eat.
In this sense grace was a predictable prelude to something desirable. But in spirituality and religion grace is much more mysterious.
An Indian word, "mauj," sort of sums it up. It means the will of God or the guru, which often is considered to be one and the same, as in this passage (#23).
One should have faith in the Supreme Being and Sant at [as?] Guru. As far as possible, one should conform to His Mauj (will, please [pleasure?]) and ordainments.
God or His delegate can do whatever the heck He wants. When this divine will is to our liking, it's known as "grace." When the mauj is much less desirable, as in much of the Old Testament (consider Job), it's the theological equivalent of the colloquialism shit happens.
I got thinking about all this after reading more of the previously mentioned notes from a talk (satsang) given by the current Radha Soami Satsang Beas guru, Gurinder Singh.
Meditation is nothing but begging for His mercy…Meditation is begging for His mercy and asking for his forgiveness…the rest is His Grace which will come in His Mauj.
Now, as I so frequently say, I don't know. It could be that the guru (who is the "His" referred to above, being viewed as equivalent to God) has the power to erase karma, sins, and other barriers to spiritual elevation.
However, I doubt it, just as I doubt that Jesus saves in a similar fashion.
And increasingly I'm also distrustful, even repelled, by this talk of grace and mercy. Cause and effect strikes me as a concept that's more appealing and more scientific, not to mention more likely.
I wrote a book called "Life is Fair." It was published by Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB), so we're on the same wavelength when it comes to the primacy of cause and effect in the cosmos.
The difference between us is that RSSB holds out the promise of grace and mercy as a "get out of karma free" card, and I'm not even sure I would want to play such a card if it were handed to me – as well as doubtful that such a card exists.
I talked about this in my Life is Fair post.
So when we look for fairness or unfairness in life, there aren't any objective signs of either. What we find are people who stamp something as "Fair" or "Unfair" on the basis of their subjective perspectives.
How, then, can I believe so confidently that life is fair? Simple. I don't see any evidence of the privileged position that unfairness requires. There's no Fairness King or Queen who can sit on his or her throne and proclaim, "This is fair; that is unfair."
What we do have is a demonstrably interconnected universe where no thing, living or inert, stands alone.
Grace and mercy require a disconnected dualism. Cause and effect require an integrated unity.
I like the notion of cosmic oneness more than twoness, just as I like the saying "we're all in this together" more than "each to his own" (though I use both of them depending on my mauj).
Consider a "fair" roulette wheel in Las Vegas. The physical laws of motion determine where the ball lands after the wheel is spun.
The gamblers place their bets with the understanding that they're all standing on a level playing field. The roulette wheel doesn't divvy out "grace" or "punishment." It just does what it does.
Spin, with the ball falling fairly in accord with universal laws of cause and effect.
I like to win. But I wouldn't enjoy making money from a roulette wheel where the outcome was fixed by the casino management.
Yet most religious people have no problem believing that they're going to get special treatment from God or a guru. They look forward to cutting to the front of the salvation line through divine grace and mercy, undeserved as this may be.
I've said that salvation isn't so serious to me anymore. Especially if it comes unfairly.
As Patrick Henry might have said, if he was me, "give me cause and effect or give me death." I suspect I'm going to get both.
And that isn't a bad thing. (As if I have a choice about it.)
Like all RSSB initiate, I wish the teachings were true, so that the marked soul in me could get out of all bondage as soon as possible. However, I am beginning to doubt this concept of partial GOd. Though I am leaving the choice open.
Posted by: Deepak | November 23, 2007 at 09:35 PM
For your viewing pleasure or displeasure on this thanksgiving weekend depending on your beliefs.
There are nine you tube videos on this life after death series of videos “proven” by entities coming through mediums. Video six is very good as the father of a son that came through with the phone number of his parents and this father a very articulate person stated it depends on how much effort we put into our seeking will reveal to us the ability to consider these videos as reality.
I find that most people put very little effort into these so-called mysteries, but speak from opinions.
Has everyone on these videos been conned or are they liars or delusional? Was William Crookes delusional? Oh the power of paradigms? Most people I suspect will not even take the time to view these videos and if they do will discredit them without doing further in depth research. That is the power of paradigms.
As far as grace. When we understand the origin of ignorance grace is a given. There ain’t nothing but grace. We are created/manifested/expressed in innocence of our true reality.
How else could oneness express itself as infinite possibilities/potentials without this innocence?
We are that that is expressing itself by “having” dynamic experiences of its infinite potential. Think of it this way: pure awareness (god) is static but becomes dynamic through the expression and manifestation of phenomena. (I.e. the phenomenal universe)
Posted by: william | November 24, 2007 at 10:34 AM
here what may be an interesting op-ed in the nytimes
Posted by: the elephant | November 24, 2007 at 02:08 PM
OK, we are ignorant and innocent and god is static but becomes dynamic through the expression and manifestation of phenomena.
What are we supposed to do about it? Should we become less ignorant and innocent? How do we go about doing that? How do we know that in our efforts to become less ignorant we aren't just getting more tangled up in our own web of ignorance sort of like quicksand. Maybe we need to unlearn and through innocence see God for what it is. Maybe God wants to keep us ignorant and innocent so that he can continue to be dynamic and not static. Maybe he will be pissed off if we figure out how to not be innocent and ignorant because we will be static which is a bummer compared to being dynamic and he won't be having as much fun and variety. Maybe hell is static and heaven is dynamic. Maybe God's greatest fear is waking up to an eternity of being static because he can't go back to being innocent because he is no longer ignorant. What do you think?
Posted by: Springer | November 24, 2007 at 02:41 PM
Good points Springer. Like what if God has dreamed itself into duality and has become the Cosmos for one very good reason, and so God actually does NOT want to return to an eternal static state of being God all alone, all by itself.
And maybe God deliberately does NOT want to wake-up. Maybe God simply wants to dream, and thus to become and to appear as exactly what is presently happening - time, space, birth, growth, decay, death, and universes of myriad aware beings.
Posted by: tAo | November 24, 2007 at 04:06 PM
The end of the article Elephant presented said, "until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus."
--I see what the author is getting at, but I think he is making an issue out of nothing...comparing apples to oranges at best, or playing games with words in order to get a paycheck for his dumbass (in my opinion) article at worst.
True, a pilot has faith the laws of physics will keep her plane in the air as they have in the past. But this faith is confidence based on consistently validated principles.
Faith is believing that when she runs out of fuel, God, Jesus or Apollo will keep the plane going until she can land.
Aren't these different things unless you equate faith in what is observable with faith in what isn't?...True, we can be deceived or fool ourselves by what is observed, but that is not the fault of Science.
Suppose there are two pilots. One who says he can get from Denver to Vegas because there is X amount of fuel in the tank, and another with a near empty tank who says she can complete the journey on fumes alone because it is the will of Archangel Gabriel.
By the writer's logic both pilots are in the same boat (so to speak).
Maybe I'm the dumbass and all this is way over my head and it is me who is missing the point. Clue me in.
Posted by: Tucson | November 24, 2007 at 04:44 PM
“OK, we are ignorant and innocent and god is static but becomes dynamic through the expression and manifestation of phenomena.
What are we supposed to do about it? “
Nothing. Don’t have to do a thing. Karma will take care of that for you and me. That is the journey of the soul. Through experiences and our responses to those experiences karma provides us perfect feedback and gives us the opportunity to be less ignorant. Some souls will take longer than others but then time is a variable in this phenomenal world, so why care.
Well the problem with not caring is suffering. The Buddha was right on when he connected ignorance to suffering.
All the statements Tao and Springer made show clearly their lack of understanding of the journey of the soul. No problem the law of progress will take care of that for all of us. Consciousness evolution is all around us but for our ignorance we would see it clearly.
No comments on the videos oh the power of paradigms.
Posted by: william | November 24, 2007 at 11:44 PM
I watched 6 of these videos. They were outrageously absurd. Dangerous and sinister undertones too, if you understand their methodology & implications.
This is cult like intellectual manipulation, imo. Deeply deceptive, erroneous, flawed, propaganda etc.
Science should be removed from the title, as there was absolutely none contained therein.
To even hint this programme contains anything even remotely approximating proof, or even *suggestive* of 'life after death', or 'journey of soul', is an outrage against the intellect... nay humanity itself.
Is that enough comments for ya? :)
Posted by: Manjit | November 25, 2007 at 04:11 AM
PS, I stopped watching when David Icke was introduced.
Of course, Icke is infamous for having picked up from the ether that the world is run by alien shape shifting lizards. The British royal family being amongst them.
I really don't consider listening to Icke 'revealing' to us the sinister goings on in the scientific community which are conspiring to hide the 'truth' about the science behind life after death a valuable use of my time and intellect!
I'd rather live my one life more enjoyably :)
Perhaps those who didn't even bother watching the videos were thinking just that?
One thing I am now sure about, they were definitely wiser than I!!
Posted by: Manjit | November 25, 2007 at 04:21 AM
Can we accept the fact that all are entitled to an opinion? If opinions are of the mind only, then all opinions are untrue. We should concern ourselves with getting back to our original point of departure, before descent into matter and mind. All thought and feeling is colored and covered by the veils (covers) of matter and mind. Freeing ourselves of these "delusional filters" has been the object of every high path since recorded history. Every yoga (that I am aware of) attempts to free the indwelling spirit entity. Thank our lucky stars that history has left us with great men and women who have made this most difficult journey. Dying while alive is the pain that every spirit must undergo while still in a physical body. Fleeing from this all important understanding is a flight of fancy. Sooner or later, one must face the music and the conductor.
Posted by: albert | November 25, 2007 at 08:26 AM
***All the statements Tao and Springer made show clearly their lack of understanding of the journey of the soul. No problem the law of progress will take care of that for all of us. Consciousness evolution is all around us but for our ignorance we would see it clearly.***Well the problem with not caring is suffering.***
How about: the problem with caring is suffering? Not that I don't care, but just thought I'd throw that out there.
William, how do you know you aren't ignorant about all this? What is your authority for knowing the "journey of the soul" and "the law of progress"? Who pinned the "Journey of the Soul" merit badge on your shirt? This sounds like a "Journey of the Soul" religious belief governed by the "law of progress" and Lord Karma which is very church-full for this church-less site. Maybe things are set up quite differently than you think and you are being tricked by your own conditioning and prejudices? There seems to be cause and effect, but how do you know there is a soul that learns lessons from this as you imply?
I think Tao's hypothesis is as good as any even if it turns out not to be any good at all, or as I said, maybe there is nothing to learn except to clean the window of perception, return to innocence and see, which may not be any good either.
Maybe we're all a bunch of Laurel and Hardys and God is laughing at the show. Maybe we are God making a fool of himself.
Posted by: Springer | November 25, 2007 at 08:34 AM
Albert, your comment reflects a viewpoint that I hear all the time: scientific skepticism is just another opinion.
Well, your comment also is an opinion. It came from your mind, right? That entity you say we can't trust, and must go beyond.
Otherwise, how did you manage to get onto the Internet, find this blog, write a comment, and get it accepted by TypePad? Wasn't all that done by the mind that you say we need to go beyond?
Yes, death is real. And we all have "delusional filters." That's the goal of scientific skepticism -- to see reality as clearly as possible.
But I don't see how your proclaiming the validity of a particular metaphysical worldview, yoga, gets us away from delusional filters.
Yoga is another filter, one which you happen to accept. Give me an example of a non-delusional worldview, a filter that doesn't filter. I'm quite certain that you can't, because the giving of it would need to occur via a conceptual filter.
It may be possible to experience ultimate reality directly, without a filter. I'm skeptical about this, but it could happen.
However, any description of that experience would be filtered. Just as your comment decrying untrue opinions is itself an opinion.
Posted by: Brian | November 25, 2007 at 10:24 AM
Springer one does not have to go to church to make their beliefs a religion.
I see the same dedication to ones beliefs on a church of the churchless blog from many that post on here that I see in many other religions blogs.
I can only relate to what my research leads me to believe at this time and challenge my own beliefs and filters and be willing to suffer the mental pain (cognitive dissonance) for doing so, if I seek to move beyond my existing paradigm.
It is my view that we are in the very early stages of our evolution of consciousness.
Just because we don’t go to church does not mean we don’t have filters. Atheism can be as much about paradigm paralysis as religious fundamentalism. And if you want to see excellent examples of paradigm paralyses in action visit some ultra skeptics that claim to be debunkers websites.
Posted by: william | November 25, 2007 at 11:58 AM
whoops I meant debunkers of the paranormal websites.
Posted by: william | November 25, 2007 at 12:05 PM
Regarding Albert's comments:
I see Brian has already said more or less what I was going to say... sooo I'll just point out the many obvious examples of Albert's unproven personal opinions:
"If opinions are of the mind only, then all opinions are untrue."
"We should concern ourselves with getting back to our original point of departure, before descent into matter and mind."
"All thought and feeling is colored and covered by the veils (covers) of matter and mind."
""delusional filters" has been the object of every high path since recorded history."
"Every yoga attempts to free the indwelling spirit entity."
"history has left us with great men and women who have made this most difficult journey."
"Dying while alive is the pain that every spirit must undergo while still in a physical body."
"Sooner or later, one must face the music and the conductor."
Posted by: tAo | November 25, 2007 at 12:59 PM
Regarding the six videos:
I did not bother to watch those videos more than about a minute. I am just not interested in wasting even a little bit of my precious time on such absurd nonsense. So I will both support and defer to Manjit's intelligent conclusions about them. I know I can trust Manjits observations. And I also thank him for saving me (and others) the trouble of wading through such misleading garbage, not to mention the well intentioned but delusional delusions of Icke.
And it amazes me how people like William seem to be and to remain so hung-up in all that sort of metaphysical baloney, duality, and beliefs.
Posted by: tAo | November 25, 2007 at 01:25 PM
Being the curious fool that I am, I unwisely did not heed Manjit's sage advice and I looked at portions of each of William's videos only to come to the same conclusions Manjit did. To some Americans the urbane English accents could add an air of authority to the material, but it really was sort of like putting tuxedos on chimpanzees.
Posted by: Tucson | November 25, 2007 at 04:33 PM
“To some Americans the urbane English accents could add an air of authority to the material, but it really was sort of like putting tuxedos on chimpanzees.”
Typical ultra skeptic head in the sand approach calling anyone that does not share your views chimpanzees suggesting of course these folks lack any mental reasoning power. Surely not the reasoning power of Tucson that is why they are chimpanzees. When we call others names it is our own lack of faith in our own beliefs that force us to attack others with name-calling.
What a slam on those sincere people. Do you ever think to yourself if I call others names like chimpanzees I must have these feelings of supreme dislike about myself or supreme insincerity about my beliefs? It is a common approach to call others names to protect the ego’s belief that it knows reality.
Please note you did not explain how a medium knew the phone number of the parents of the child that came through. But of course the medium could have searched out the parent’s number and then fooled them for two years in séances and of course did not receive one dime for that little stunt. Or they all could be liars another common atheist ultra skeptic approach to explain away paranormal events.
I felt the father was very well spoken much more so than many people that I blog with. But I suspect you did not watch all the videos but if a person that calls others chimpanzees I suspect all the videos in the world would not alter their views.
Again the power of paradigms when my beliefs become thee beliefs even Joel Barker the person that sold 10 million copies of the business of paradigms has his own paradigms with his Christian religion.
Interesting the other website I blog on we are discussing this very subject about the closed minds of the ultra skeptics and how they often resort to calling others names to discredit them. Tucson welcome to the interesting world of the ultra skeptics.
Posted by: william | November 25, 2007 at 05:16 PM
tucson here are some reading materials and comments on the ultra skeptics. you may find they revealing or not.
http://www.online-translator.com/ on line translator from german to english
Posted by: william | November 25, 2007 at 05:37 PM
I'll check out your links later. I think it is interesting that you chose to respond to my comment rather than Manjit's which was even more critical as follows:
"I watched 6 of these videos. They were outrageously absurd. Dangerous and sinister undertones too, if you understand their methodology & implications.
This is cult like intellectual manipulation, imo. Deeply deceptive, erroneous, flawed, propaganda etc.
Science should be removed from the title, as there was absolutely none contained therein.
To even hint this programme contains anything even remotely approximating proof, or even *suggestive* of 'life after death', or 'journey of soul', is an outrage against the intellect... nay humanity itself."
--I guess "chimpanzee" elicited an emotional reaction. It was just a joke.
Posted by: Tucson | November 25, 2007 at 06:12 PM
actually I missed his comments my bad. he has made himself an authority on spiritualism? calling it a cult is old news. a cult is a group of people that follow a person. christianty is a cult as many other religions.
as always the person that knows the least about the paranormal is the person that voices the strongest opinion.
calling these people chimpanzees was not a joke at least not my idea of a joke.
again the same old charges only a select few can have science in their titles or understand the scientific method. and this select few claim to have the knowledge to determine what is science.
this is the same kind of mentality that I suspect hung on to the flat earth paradigm in spite of the evidence.
the greatest discoveries in the future will be in the area of the paranormal but it will take time as a lot of flat earth materialistic earth as a giant machine people still exist.
some very great scientists have come out in favor of the very things they were talking about on these videos.
oh the power of paradigms. cult and chimpanzees were predictable responses. personally I think the challenge should have been ron pearson's so called new physics which he did little to explain.
I continue to be surprised by how the human mind will go into an attack mode when information is presented that challeges its cherished beliefs.
much research needs to be done as to why the human mind responds this way. years of consulting taught me well that those that claim to have an open mind very seldom do.
the ego is deceptive beyond belief.
Posted by: william | November 25, 2007 at 10:34 PM
I shouldn't have to explain this. I was just using an analogy of chimps in tuxedos to compare the quality of their speech with the quality of their reasoning. They spoke well, but said nothing that proved anything.
I have consulted with psychics a fair number of times over the years. In general, I have found this interesting, but not very helpful or accurate. I once went to a rather well-known psychic/medium, Kevin Ryerson, who used to show up on TV or in movies. He would enter, or pretend to enter, some sort of trance state and a supposedly disembodied Irishman would come through to give advice and answer questions. His accent was so bizzare that it took a great act of will on my part to keep from laughing out loud. He told me of a past life in Atlantis when I made golden masks and about another life in Egypt when I was a dark-skinned merchant of some kind of special objects. Then he went on to tell me I would live in Hawaii which never happened (yet) and some other mostly unintelligible stuff. I was not impressed.
Another psychic told me I was a murdered goat herder along with my seamstress wife in my previous life. At least he didn't tell me I was Teddy Roosevelt or Henry XIII.
One psychic was pretty good in picking up on my occupation. I asked her what she saw me doing in the way of a career. She said she saw me at a desk working on charts or graphs and making calculations. At the time I was a commodity futures analyst, so that was pretty impressive.
Another young female psychic who lived in an old school bus near Guerneville, CA was helpful. She gave me some "grounding" exercises that worked for me and I still occasionally do them. She also accurately described a place where I lived a year or two later.
Another female psychic, who happened to be associated with RSSB, accurately described my future family and their physical appearance and other characteristics.
I used to dabble with astrology, but never developed a high level of skill. Mostly hit or miss. I have accurately picked up on things psychically, but I think many do this from time to time and none of any of this proves that we have individual souls that transmigrate, survive physical death and evolve on a journey. To where? Where is always here. No matter where you go, there you are! ;) It is all just phenomena in mind.
Posted by: Tucson | November 26, 2007 at 10:02 AM
Tucson: my own experience with psychics has been less than satisfactory but I must admit that three of the five I went to did read me as the having the same profession in my past life, which I though was interesting.
I do know of a mother that took her sixteen year old daughter to a psychic to read her in a past life and she revealed under hypnosis that she had been killed in a past life with a stab wound to the stomach and the daughter had had years of pain in her stomach and no doctor could find anything wrong with her. After reliving this experience under hypnosis she no longer had pain in her stomach.
These stories are common when one studies past life regression that can lead to healing. This may not prove validity but it should open the door for more research.
I think psychics have degrees of ability and most I think are very limited. Before radio and TV home circles became popular and it appears some mediums with great abilities were discovered. I would never recommend anyone see a psychic but here we are talking about mediums and my research into some mediums highly suggests their is something to their ability to reach the other side in various forms of communication. And instead of attacking the scientific approach is to do more research not less.
Such great scientists as William Crookes, Oliver lodge and William James and many others came out in favor of these mediums abilities and had to endure such attacks as majit has done on this blog.
These attacks are based in fear. What fear? It is often referred to as cognitive dissonance (conflict) and it means that if we have two conflicting thoughts it causes mental pain so we usually attack and project that pain outward to relief the ego of this mental pain.
If you want to have a discussion then from my point of view I think Ron Pearson did a very insufficient job of explaining what he meant by his new physics. But we also must keep in mind this was on video and he may have explained his theory but this part of his presentation was cut. This is often the case when doing videos. Think about it how many people viewing a video on life after death want to listen to a new theory on physics.
The others were very sincere whether they had been conned remains to be seen. It is not about the accuracy of their statements it is about how people respond when presented new information outside their cherished beliefs. That has been my main point on this blog since day one.
“To where? Where is always here. No matter where you go, there you are! ;) It is all just phenomena in mind.” All is phenomena how else could oneness express its creative abilities. We are that that is having experiences.
People want to know if life continues beyond death it is one of humankind’s greatest fears and many think it leads to much neurotic behavior maybe even psychotic.
Maybe our huge drug problem and mental and physical problems in this country has something to do with people losing any meaning to their lives and/or their fear of death. Maybe not. As religious beliefs based in faith and fear and ignorance lose their grip on humans something needs to replace it besides drugs and fear. I.e. knowledge?
Posted by: william | November 26, 2007 at 10:55 AM
Dear William, Ron Pearson did NOT provide ANY science in the video at all. He provided a brief, basic overview of recent physics, and then proceeded to superimpose over it *totally unsubstantiated* philosophical speculations. Anyone with even a little understanding of science would notice that immediately.
This is termed pseudo-science. Personally, I don't really appreciate pseudo-science. I have seen it used to manipulate gullible, unknowledgeable people way too many times. It's not a nice thing.
People often use scientific terminology to lend credence to their view *only* for the unknowledgable persons. What Ron Pearson says would not interest or impress a singular objective scientist (one that is searching for a truth not based upon pre-held belief systems). This is not because scientists are somehow consiring to 'hide the evidence', as David Icke in the video suggests, or because they 'paradigm paralysed', but rather more simply and innocently....because it is NOT science!
Posted by: Manjit | November 26, 2007 at 11:59 AM
And oh, sorry, hello Tao & Tucson, hope all is well with you guys?
Thanks for the nice comments.
One thing that deeply offended me (:-), was William's claim that I know the 'least' about the paranormal, that's why I shout the loudest.
Ahh, how little William knows me, and my life!! If William knew me, he would know I would NEVER speak with such authority on any subject unless I had spent years & tears on it first.
My first book on the paranormal that I remember was called something like Telekenitic Power. I remember badgering my father endlessly to buy it for me, but he didn't want to for obvious reasons. I was about 8 years old. I never stopped researching since......
For years and years a believer. Then came wisdon, and understanding of psychology, hypnosis, suggestion, biology, neurology, the power of the mind etc. Never have I both understood and had *control* over such phenomena previously.
These things were shown for the illusions they are.
Peace n good bye for another few weeks!! :-)
Posted by: Manjit | November 26, 2007 at 12:11 PM
Sorry to take up postage space, but I forgot to add...
William - you use the story of somebody healed of a physical ailment through past life hypnotic regression. You admit this is not 'proof', but suggestive and a starting place.
Well, even if we are STILL merely dealing with anecdote, this sounds pretty genuine at least.
Unfortunately, it does nothing of the sort in even being suggestive of life after death.
You need to thoroughly study the hypnotic phenomena, the structure of language, and psychological symbolism. Then you may understand what has REALLY happened here, and any DECENT intelligent hypnotist will know too.
Hint; read the linguistic scripts of Milton Erickson, a healing genius. You will not be able to distinguish between your anecdote and several of Milton's scripts. However, he explains in a profoundly more interesting and logical reason HOW it works. Sub-hint; it doesn't involve past lives. Sub-sub-hint; No spritualist, past-life regressionist or medium etc has had the healing qualities of Milton Erickson (I dare you to challenge this by naming someone!)
2nd Hint; why does somebody who goes to an 'abduction' hypnotist always encounter aliens in their regression? Why does somebody who goes to a 'past life regressionist' always encounter past lives? Why does somebody who goes to a 'child abuse' specialist always remember suppressed memories of abuse? (ps, this isn't speculation, there is REAL data which confirms this is the case.......I've actually done SOME research on this :-)
Peace my friend
Posted by: Manjit | November 26, 2007 at 12:22 PM
majit: oh the deception abilities of the ego that is certain that it knows truth.
My greatest suspicions in life is about those that claim to know and feel so certain they are absolutely right and no further research is needed. Kind of like the flat earth people were certain that the earth was flat.
Or the folks that claimed the earth was the center of the universe and when someone came along and said it was not the center he spent how many years under house arrest. (i.e. until he died) Oh but that could not happened today we humans with our science are above that certain we are right thinking now. Yea right.
Your certainty is the most dangerous type that hinders human progression in love and intelligence and for science to work. Your certainty goes against the very foundation and meaning of science. I am sure you feel your really understand the scientific principle. The amazing randi would love to have you on his staff. You would fit right in to their certainties.
Do you have any idea how many scientists have proclaimed some new discovery bogus and it was latter found to be valid? Scientists suffer from paradigm paralysis and cognitive dissonance just like the rest of us.
Must feel good to your ego to feel so certain and know that all hypnosis is bogus. I only suggested more research is needed but no now we don’t need more research because majit says we don’t and he knows with certainty that he knows truth. Greatest danger to humankind is those that are certain they know the truth.
Hitler and bush jr knew truth with no uncertainties and we all see how that worked out for them and their countries and the countries they invaded. How many people died and suffered in the Second World War due to Hitler’s certainty.
Oh one more thing you did not explain how the girl was healed of her stomach pain if not due to past life hypnosis. Can’t wait for that answer and I suspect you are certain you know the answer.
Posted by: william | November 26, 2007 at 01:34 PM
"Where is always here. No matter where you go, there you are!"
I think your statement above sums it all up in the nut shell.
Posted by: Bob | November 26, 2007 at 02:08 PM
William wrote: "Oh one more thing you did not explain how the girl was healed of her stomach pain if not due to past life hypnosis. Can’t wait for that answer and I suspect you are certain you know the answer."
--In case Manjit is gone for awile, I will be so bold as to answer for him. The answer is: the power of suggestion.
Cool. I'm glad you got it.
Posted by: Tucson | November 26, 2007 at 02:47 PM
Lets see how much research you have done on past life regression.
The Bridey Murphy case of hypnosis showed the person under hypnosis knew a lot about her past life and conditions on Ireland in early 19th century Ireland.
Warning: This is a test so answer carefully. 99.99 percent voice an opinion on what popular media has told them and not research.
Posted by: william | November 26, 2007 at 02:50 PM
Why william is so full of shit:
Posted by: tAo | November 26, 2007 at 10:56 PM
Some excerpts from first video and some comments. Typical Advaita teachings there is only oneness so we don’t exist. Cant wait to see what happens when he tells his government that he does not have to pay taxes because he does not exist. Ignorance knows no bounds when it comes to religion.
Or I am walking near a cliff with Parson’s and he slips and as he is falling over 500 feet I yell don’t worry you don’t exist there is only emptiness and that thud you hear when you hit that is only a happening and I won’t need to call the medics as there is no one for them to pick up. More religious insanity being taught based in ignorance.
“Oneness expressing itself.” By the very act of Tao saying William is full of shit sends a clear message that Tao feels separate and superior. Actually inferior but that’s another story. It will be impossible for Tao to see that. If Tao would take time to listen/read Tao would have seen that I have been saying that exact phase (oneness expressing itself) since I started to post on this blog.
“It is all basically based in ignorance” been writing that all along but you Tao were not listening, too busy thinking and claiming you know and defending your cherished beliefs. Actually he is on the path to discovering the origin of ignorance but I suspect he will have to wait until his next life.
“In the emptiness things apparently are happening,” whoops he needs to look deeply into the word “apparently”. That one word used the way he uses it in that sentence shows his lack of understanding of form and the underlying reality of experiences (i.e. phenomena). Form is not an illusion but it is temporal. This self proclaimed guru needs to be able to look outside his existing paradigm.
“The adventure of living in unknowing”. The universe will not let him continue in his ignorance (i.e. unknowing) that there is only emptiness. He fails to see that emptiness is awareness and awareness is everything. Karma will take care of that if not in this life then a future life. As it will for all of us.
Another intellectual playing guru and then stating no such thing as a guru. Got to love the human mind it can deceive itself into contradicting itself and not miss a beat. Bet he sells books too. It is called fleecing the gullible in their innocence.
Posted by: william | November 26, 2007 at 11:51 PM
I don't think bringing Tony Parson will help (and particularly insofar as william's sake is concerned ...)
The man can be dishonest and 'twist' narratives in his favor or simply disengage himself as soon as someone questions his own narratives. Somehow he has adopted the view that he can question anyone narrative but for god sake no one should question his own assumptions ...
Whether he realizes it or not - Tony Parson is making 'something' of Oneness. Utmost conceptually, and also a few bucks ...
Any fool can repeat ad nauseam 'reality is what it is', 'Oneness is', and deny any question by simply affirming that there is no-one to do so ...
There is the saying - cognize the false as the false. Only that can be communicated and eventually help people. But what happens when you simply denying the false?
I am not trying to say that what he says is incorrect in a way - I am just saying any fool today can repeat that stuff and if this foolishness would seen through and through as foolishness, Tony Parson would not be adopting the narratives he does ...
Posted by: the elephant | November 27, 2007 at 03:29 AM
Just to be clear: when I wrote
The man can be dishonest and 'twist' narratives in his favor or simply disengage himself as soon as someone questions his own narratives. Somehow he has adopted the view that he can question anyone narrative but for god sake no one should question his own assumptions ...
I was talking about Tony not William ...
Posted by: the elephant | November 27, 2007 at 03:31 AM
Reading an advaita guru's words about how the universe began I found this person stated::
"There is a process whereby, from the nothingness, a particle can
manifest. This entire universe began with the instantaneous
an atom within a vacuum."
please note this guru stated there is a process not a theory. oh the tangled webs we create to prove our paradigms as valid.
so I ask this guru where would I look to find out more about the manifestation of an atom within a vacuum that would and could create an entire universe.
Below is the reply:
“You might try researching the "Genesis Vacuum."”
So I did research into genesis vacuum and found that theory has more gaps in it than Darwinism. But the theory does allow the materialists to keep their materialistic paradigm. Seems to always get back to protecting our paradigms.
The advaita emptiness cannot explain intelligence or awareness or consciousness or the origin of the universe without resorting to a theory that matter creates intelligence and one atom suddenly appeared in a pure vacuum and manifested an entire universe.
And it cannot explain how consciousness can survive outside the human brain and this materialistic paradigm cannot explain what William Crookes and other scientists discovered while working with mediums without resorting to calling them liars, frauds, or being conned by the medium in one case for over 20 years and the worst of them accusing Crookes of having an affair with the medium. When all else fails blame it on lust. Attack attack attack to protect our cherished paradigms.
Posted by: william | November 27, 2007 at 09:46 AM
William wrote: "..that there is only emptiness."
--YOU say it yourself William, that there is only emptiness, yet YOU bristle when others say the self doesn't exist! You refer to things like taxes, falling off cliffs as proof of the existence of self. Yes, of course we are perceiving ourselves paying taxes and having pain when we fall off cliffs, but what is the source of this? It is this non-objectifiable emptiness which YOU espouse that is what we really are and what is refered to when someone says there is no individual self, that nothing is real, no where to go, etc.
Phenomena appear as others, mountains, ourselves, pleasure and pain, but as what we really are, we are not. That is, no objectifiable thing. We can only know ourselves as transient phenomenal appearance. The universe is I, but I am not. Anyone can say it at any time. This is forever present. It is not necessary to evolve to it, nor is that even possible. Can a platypus evolve into a platypus? It already is a platypus!
This is easy to say. It is written over and over again by literally scores of writers and teachers. Read enough and you'll have it memorized and can set up shop as a teacher yourself if you want. People like Tony Parsons can make a living saying it even without knowing it because it is so simple to say and to intellectually understand. The very simplicity of it seems to be the barrier to really getting it. It is already fully present. I don't know what Tony Parson's actual experience is, but I do know it is possible to intuitively apperceive this reality of what we are that people are writing/talking about.
I call it the unidentified state which is immediately misleading terminology because it is not a state as any sort of 'thing' like being happy or sad or peace, bliss, etc. It is just an isness without shape, boundary or quality. In perceiving this, there is a lifting of a great burden, the absence of responsibility of being an autonomous person which is a relief that some may describe as bliss, but it is not bliss, it is something simultaneously more and less than that.
I think we can awaken to our unidentified true nature, to recognise it, and still function much of the time as 'someone' doing things... I am Tucson typing on this computer, that is, when it is required to be aware of that. There is a personality and egoic responses to stimuli. Other times this body, this life, is being lived and no one is doing it. We all slip into this. We forget ourselves for awile and the dishwashing, the typing, the living goes on automatically without the self-sense until we think about it.
What happens when we die? I don't know, but I think it will be a disappearance of the universe back to the unprojected, unified isness. I won't go anywhere because as what I really am there is no time or space or movement. The Presense always is. There will be no boundaries, only boundlessness. Perhaps a tension will again arise that will cause self -awareness and.. bang, there will be movement, energy, appearance, space and time again ever revolving, appearing and disappearing into itself.
Posted by: Tucson | November 27, 2007 at 09:49 AM
This is a quote from another blog that I post on concerning near death experiences and how it is futile to engage skeptics of the paranormal. From my point of view it shows the power of paradigms and the affect they can have on our actions. I spent years studying NDE’s and found it to be an interesting topic to research.
(Neal Grossman relates this conversation with a colleague regarding NDE’s in his excellent piece “Who’s Afraid of Life After Death?”:
I asked, “What about people who accurately report the details of their operation?”
“Oh,” came the reply, “they probably just subconsciously heard the conversation in the operating room, and their brain subconsciously transposed the audio information into a visual format.”
“Well,” I responded, “what about cases where people report veridical perception of events remote from their body?”
“Oh, that’s just a coincidence or a lucky guess.”
Exasperated, I asked, “What will it take, short of having a near-death experience yourself, to convince you that it’s real?”
Very nonchalantly, without batting an eye, the response was: “Even if I were to have a near-death experience myself, I would conclude that I was hallucinating, rather than believe that my mind can exist independently of my brain.”)
This answer is a classic description of paradigm paralysis.
Posted by: william | November 27, 2007 at 10:13 AM
William, you keep speaking of "paradigm paralysis" as if you weren't stuck in your own world view.
Experiments have been set up to determine if those who have a near death experience really leave their bodies and can accurately report on things/events that would be impossible to know about from an embodied state.
So far none of these experiments have shown positive results, to my knowledge. From your repeated comments, you seem to believe that scientists actively shy away from making a discovery that would bring them worldwide acclaim, fame, money, and prizes.
The best argument for science is that scientists have egos, like the rest of us. They want to make ground- breaking discoveries. They want to shatter paradigms, because that's a route to major scientific stardom.
Yes, there's also a certain conservatism in science. There should be. If someone claims to have discovered evidence of a brand new phenomenon, like disembodied life after death, the evidence needs to be very solid, very perusasive, very believable.
You seem to expect that people will look at a video or two, or read some unsubstantiated Internet posts, and accept that your point of view is true.
Sorry. Science (and reality) has much higher standards. Like, proof.
Posted by: Brian | November 27, 2007 at 10:37 AM
Dear William, being very short on time, I still had to respond to this one.
'Full of more holes than Darwinism'. Coming from a person who considered Ron Pearson's 'science' pretty convincing, that is a *perfect* indicator of 'paradigm paralysis'. Can you see and accept why?
Ahhh, the power of paradigms :-)
Ron Pearson's 'science' (which it clearly is not) is not full of holes, it IS a chasm. To consider it science, you need to make massive leaps of intellect. Quantum leaps. (He he :-)
Posted by: Manjit | November 27, 2007 at 12:19 PM
Manjit wrote: "Full of more holes than Darwinism'. Coming from a person who considered Ron Pearson's 'science' pretty convincing, that is a *perfect* indicator of 'paradigm paralysis'. Can you see and accept why?"
--Can you William? I think a few of us here get frustrated with you because of your own stubborn paradigm paralysis. You simply will not address or admit your contradictions possibly because you are unable to comprehend and see what you are doing, or more probably because you fear death. When your paradigm of psychics, the paranormal, reincarnation, evolution/journey of the soul, etc. are seriously challenged, you are left to face your mortality without the security these cherished beliefs give you. This is a scary thing, and you have my sympathies.
Posted by: Tucson | November 27, 2007 at 02:39 PM
"'Full of more holes than Darwinism'. Coming from a person who considered Ron Pearson's 'science' pretty convincing"
This just gets better and better. Please show the quote where I stated that Ron Pearson’s science was pretty convincing. Will state this Darwinism does not have holes but gaps large enough to drive an aircraft carrier through.
Unlike you majit I don’t automatically reject something just because it does fit my cherished paradigm. Ouch I suspect that came from my ego.
The only thing I stated was he did a lousy job of explaining his new physics but maybe because this was on video he presented it but it was not presented. Media does that all the time. Did not say a word about how convincing it was.
For your information I sent his new physics off to someone into theoretical quantum physics over a year ago for analysis and we discussed his hew physics in detail.
God you people prove over and over again my contention that the paradigm effect is alive and well in we humans. The other blog I blog on believes that I must be insane to continue to blog with people so ultra skeptical of the paranormal. But I learn so much from doing this. You people continue to prove (to me at least) that when we defend our beliefs with such aggression and passion it is doubt not certainty that causes us to do this. I suspect doubt like karma is one of the great gifts in this intelligent universe that helps us find our way back home to our source, which is pure awareness.
During the Vietnam War I was the only student on campus that attended both the Americans for freedom supporting the war and the group protesting the war. Have to listen to both sides to have any chance of overcoming the paradigm effect.
Majit: You read into my comments what you wanted to read not what I actually said. This is the power of the ego. It is deceptive beyond belief.
Still working on the Bridey Murphy reincarnation case? Don’t be part of the 99 per cent now. Go deep. May not want to use the skeptic’s dictionary for you response as a reference.
Tucson: thanks for your sympathies but you may want to check into the difference between sympathy and compassion. This link will put you in touch with someone who understood the profound difference between sympathy and compassion as it applies to an individuals level of love and intelligence. http://pagl.org/
Apparently your journey has not taught you the difference so may want to check this link out. Buddha was big on compassion not sympathy as was Jesus.
I learn so much from posting on this blog sorry you don’t feel that you do from my posts. You have my compassion for that. Just kidding. It is just hard for me not to smile when I read some of the comments.
Posted by: william | November 27, 2007 at 04:12 PM
Brian wrote: “The best argument for science is that scientists have egos, like the rest of us. They want to make ground- breaking discoveries. They want to shatter paradigms, because that's a route to major scientific stardom.”
Absolutely not true for most scientists. They hang on to their accepted paradigms worst than a person with no education. Scientists are willing to make discoveries but within their accepted paradigms. View the video and read the book on paradigms you and your group of skeptics understand little about the power of paradigms. To put scientists outside this paradigm effect is ignorance of this effect at its best.
I appreciate you having such high opinions of scientists but wake up this opinion is based in blind faith not reality. To shatter ones paradigm is the last thing they want to do. Their whole careers and self esteem is based on their existing paradigms to shatter their paradigm would be like asking them to go back to kindergarten and start back at ground zero.
You have made science your god and scientists the sons of god much like the Christians have done with Jesus. Watch a video or two and then you accept my idea of reality. You folks said you wanted evidence and all you did was attack the people on the video and call them such names as chimpanzees and some other choice names. Now tell me who suffers from paradigm paralysis. I am 16 years into this research if your journey tells you something different than so be it. Why do the people that post on here defend their reality/beliefs so much and even with personal attacks. Could it be doubt?
Cant you see that no matter what evidence you receive you are not going to accept anything outside your paradigm. Please explain how the journalist sitting in on the séance knew what phone number to call to get in touch with the son who had passed who wanted to contact his parents. Give it your best shot. The skeptics never explain such things and I doubt that you will. Of course you can always attack the creditability of the parents, the journalist, or the medium. When all else fails this is common for ultra skeptics to do.
William Crookes showed for three years with Holmes and Cook that contact was possible with the other side and most of his peers would not even attend the séances and they lived two to five miles away. Even in horse and buggy days that is doable considering the evidence Crookes was claiming. Why? They had already decided that materialism is reality. their truth was thee truth kind of like tao's truth and majit's and etc.
such is the power of paradigms. these peers of crookes who were scientists had no intention even considering taking a chance of shattering their existing paradigms. too painful to even consider.
Posted by: william | November 27, 2007 at 04:18 PM
Brian quoted below:
“Experiments have been set up to determine if those who have a near death experience really leave their bodies and can accurately report on things/events that would be impossible to know about from an embodied state.
So far none of these experiments have shown positive results, to my knowledge.”
You are right although I have not done much research into NDE’s lately I have read this may be so. NDE’s did not for me give me much confidence that they were leaving their bodies with some rare exceptions. Further research needs to be done. One explanation has been that consciousness does not focus on the electronic messages. That may be a copout. I think I read a nurse put a penny of top of a shelve in an operating room and somebody that had an NDE told her about the penny but that is only my memory so I cant be quoted on that.
I use a cross validation approach to my research and the evidence keeps rolling in that there is more to this world than meets the eye or nose or our senses at this time. The probability of all this evidence being invalid is astronomical. It goes against the existing materialistic paradigm and so it will be rejected by those that hold that paradigm especially most scientists.
In your case Brian I suspect from your blogs that you feel you have been duped once and never again. Religion is the very best at creating skeptics and even atheists. Hitchens is a classic case of this feeling he has been duped and now is one angry guy.
Posted by: william | November 27, 2007 at 04:38 PM
William wrote: "Tucson: thanks for your sympathies but you may want to check into the difference between sympathy and compassion."
--William, check out the meaning of "SYMPATHIES" according to this source:
Posted by: Tucson | November 27, 2007 at 05:49 PM
William's ego is getting very fat on all the critical attention he gets and the frustration that he causes whenever he posts his inane pseudo "research" mumbo-jumbo. William is living proof and proves over and over again his very own contention that the "paradigm effect" is alive and well. In fact, William's blind and rigid adherence to absurd paranormal pseudo-science is a near perfect example of such "paradigm paralysis". And it's not only bad pseudo-science, but rotten pseudo-spiritality as well.
So I tend to think Tucson is right on... William lives in myth and fantasy because he is fearful of reality, fearful of death... and so he desperately needs to believe in some sort of a "soul" and after-life. William has also shown that he has no comprehension whatsoever of non-duality, and especially no direct experience of Self-knowledge. Nearly everything William posts testifies to that.
Also, William's responses to other comments and commenters indicate a significant tendency towards distortion of facts, misinterpretation, and even deliberate dishonest misrepresentation of facts.
That being said, here are some examples of the kind of erroneous and disingenuous garbage that William floods this small forum with:
"Typical Advaita teachings there is only oneness so we don’t exist."
-- Wrong. That simply is NOT the teaching of advaita. Another prime example that William really is full of shit and does not know what the hell he is talking about.
"Ignorance knows no bounds when it comes to religion."
-- Self-knowledge and non-duality is not religion.
"Parson’s.... More religious insanity being taught based in ignorance."
-- "Religious insanity and ignorance"... that in this case clearly belongs to William.
"By the very act of Tao saying William is full of shit sends a clear message that Tao feels separate and superior."
-- No... it just simply means that imo, William is full of shit, and he also feels inferior and is trying to compensate.
"would have seen that I have been saying that exact phase (oneness expressing itself) since I started to post on this blog."
-- "oneness" is just a concept. "oneness expressing itself" is also just a concept. Both notions are duality.
"It is all basically based in ignorance" been writing that all along but you ... were not listening, too busy thinking and claiming you know and defending your cherished beliefs."
-- Another obvious example of Williams distortion, misrepresentation, and dishonesty. Because I heve never claimed to "know" anything, nor have I ever 'defended' any sort of "beliefs".
"Actually he is on the path to discovering the origin of ignorance but I suspect he will have to wait until his next life."
-- This is an example of a hugely over-inflated ego and spiritually immature one-up game.
"Form is not an illusion but it is temporal."
-- It all depends on what your definitions are. The traditional definition of illusion is that which is transitory, or not permanent. But then William is not very well-versed and rather uneduacated when it comes to Philosopy and Sematics.
"This self proclaimed guru needs to be able to look outside his..."
-- Another dishonest misrepresentation. Parsons never "self-proclaimed" himself to be any such thing, "guru" or otherwise.
"He fails to see that emptiness is awareness"
-- More typical ego-flexing. And moreover, William simply does NOT know what Parsons may see, or fail to see.
"Karma will take care of that if not in this life then a future life."
-- "Karma" is just another concept based in duality.
"Another intellectual playing guru"
-- Poor William... a wannabe intellectual and a wannabe guru.
"Bet he sells books too."
-- If William had any real wisdom, he would know the fact is that most book sales amount to little or nothing. And since when is it taboo to write books? I think this all clearly shows William to be a very spiritually immature individual, and downright dishonest when it comes to his representations and criticisms of others.
"Seems to always get back to protecting our paradigms."
-- But thats exactly what William does here isn't it?
"The advaita emptiness cannot explain intelligence or awareness or consciousness or the origin"
-- Another distortion. Fyi William, advaita has nothing to do with "emptiness". But advaita has much to do with "awareness or consciousness or the origin".
"to protect our cherished paradigms"
-- Sounds like William to me.
"believes that I must be insane to continue to blog with people so ultra skeptical of the paranormal."
Who said (besides William) that anyone here is "skeptical of the paranormal"? I don't think anyone here has shown any skepticism about the paranoral, just skepticism towards William's supposed proofs. I am sure that many here have had serious and powerful experiences of things paranormal... and without a doubt much more than William ever has. But having such experiences does not make them real or make them proof positive.
"You people continue to prove (to me at least) that when we defend our beliefs with such aggression and passion it is doubt not certainty that causes us to do this."
-- The funny thing is, is that it is William who is the one with all the beliefs and the defensiveness od those beliefs. And to one awake in the absolute certainty of Self-knowledge, all concerns with paranormal are based wholly in doubt and belief, and not at all in clarity, insight, or Self-knowledge.
"This is the power of the ego. It is deceptive beyond belief."
-- Yes William, your ego, and your deceptiveness.
"Buddha was big on compassion not sympathy as was Jesus."
-- More pretentious garbage. I don't think William has the slightest clue as to what the mythical Buddha or the fictional Jesus may or may not have felt or thought.
William responding to Brian: "I appreciate you having such high opinions of scientists but wake up this opinion is based in blind faith not reality. To shatter ones paradigm is the last thing they want to do. Their whole careers and self esteem is based on their existing paradigms to shatter their paradigm would be like asking them to go back to kindergarten and start back at ground zero."
-- What an utter load of rubbish. But considering who it is coming from, it's typical, if not pathetic. I wonder what actual formal academic degrees/credentials William posesses? Unlike myself or others here, I suspect that he has little or none.
"You folks said you wanted evidence and all you did was attack the people on the video..."
-- Because there was NO EVIDENCE on the videos.
"tell me who suffers from paradigm paralysis."
-- Thats too easy... All his posted comments reveal that WILLIAM suffers extremely from "paradigm paralysis".
"Why do the people that post on here defend their reality/beliefs so much"
-- The only one here who is obsessively defending his "reality/beliefs", is YOU William.
"you are not going to accept anything outside your paradigm."
-- And just what "paradigm" is that?
"They had already decided that materialism is reality. their truth was thee truth kind of like tao's truth and majit's and etc."
-- And just what would "taos truth" and "manjits" truth be? William seems to think he knows what others "truth" is (even though no one has said anything about possessing truth other than William) so what is it William?
Posted by: tAo | November 27, 2007 at 07:05 PM
A little basic education for William:
Posted by: tAo | November 27, 2007 at 07:18 PM
From the book “beyond the dream by Dr Thomas Hora. Pages 78 and 79.
“On the spiritual path we are studying to realize the glory of our “nothingness.” Unenlightened man clamors for confirmation of his personal somethingness…….
The compassionate man says, “ I love you because I understand you.” the sympathizing man says, “ I feel for you.”… “True compassion heals because it is based on understanding of the truth of man as an expression of the divine consciousness”.
Page 263: “instead of love the Buddhist prefer to speak of compassion, which is synonymous with spiritual love.”
Page 282: Compassion cannot be willed. It is existential. Man can decide to be sympathetic. He can make himself concerned and sad, he can will himself to feel pity. But true compassion is possible only when consciousness has awakened to the faculty of spiritual discernment of the difference between Reality and the dream.”
“It is helpful to realize that contrary to general belief sympathy, pity and empathy, are actually pathogenic, which means they can make a bad situation worst.”
My hope is that people that read this post will be able to see Dr Hora’s view of the profound difference between compassion and sympathy. One is based in love and the other is based in the ego.
Compassion is not about judging, criticizing, condemning, and getting upset when someone challenges our cherished paradigm. This is the journey to awaken in our consciousness compassion not sympathy.
You on this blog I suspect that believe there is no journey will find it very difficult to see the difference, even intellectually, between compassion and sympathy. In no way am I implying by quoting Dr Hora that I have this compassion for all of human kind that he alludes to. Just another soul on a journey.
Except for one person I have found arrogance not compassion from the advaita types. They believe they have found truth but their judgments and criticisms give them away as ego bound. Do I have compassion for them? No this is why my journey continues.
Posted by: william | November 27, 2007 at 09:54 PM
tao" please read the above statements by dr hora his comments suggest you are very much still deep into the dream as we all are on this blog when one looks at our comments.
Posted by: william | November 27, 2007 at 09:58 PM
William... it is actually your comments that suggest you are still very much deep into your "dream", and thus have no idea where myself or others are at. You can only speak for yourself. And like a parrot, you can only talk the talk, and obviously have never walked the walk. So unfortunately it appears that elephant is correct... communication with you is futile.
Posted by: tAo | November 27, 2007 at 11:42 PM
tao: please note what happened here. you accused me of being a parrot and look what happened here with your double entry.
this is karma doing what it does best but will you be able to see it? and better yet learn from it.
god I was hoping you would be able to see what dr hora is teaching here not me teaching but hora.
unfortunity it must have went right over your head.
instead of always on the attack be open to learn. my comments to you have not helped and have put you on the defensive.
Posted by: william | November 28, 2007 at 12:17 AM
William quoted Dr. Hora: Page 282: "Compassion cannot be willed. It is existential. Man can decide to be sympathetic. He can make himself concerned and sad, he can will himself to feel pity. But true compassion is possible only when consciousness has awakened to the faculty of spiritual discernment of the difference between Reality and the dream.”
William, Your Dr. Hora appears to be another chimp in a tuxedo, at least in this instance. That is, what he says sounds pretty and profound, but it's nonsense.
People don't decide to FEEL sympathy but they might decide to ACT sympathetic or campassionate. True compassion and sympathy come from the heart and are not an act of will in either case. This is human nature. Dr. Hora is off base on this IMO. Both sympathy and compassion come from the same place and are similar emotions. To split hairs about their meaning in a spiritual context is fatuous.
Posted by: Tucson | November 28, 2007 at 07:22 AM
Another chimp in tux? Classic. Expected more from you Tucson much more. Wish I could say I am showing compassion right now but only sadness. And I suspect this sadness is more of the ego than my level of inner awareness.
It appears we both have a very long journey ahead of us. Even I with my limited understanding of realty see the profound difference between compassion and sympathy.
But sympathy may be a necessary step on the road to compassion. Who knows?
Dr Hora had a saying that goes something like this: don’t share your pearls with unreceptive minds for they shall demean them. Several people on this blog are very much into demeaning anything that does not support their paradigm.
You just called a man a chimp in a tux that spent his life healing people. But then look at the profound statements Jesus made and the ignorant nailed him to a cross. Ignorance knows no bounds.
This chimp in a tux is a defensive remark and an attack based in doubt not certainty. The ego is forever protective of the insecurities of its existence.
Posted by: william | November 28, 2007 at 10:53 AM
I think you have a disorder where you are unable to hear what people are saying. I have already explained to you what I mean by "chimp in a tux". It is just a way of using an analogy to express a viewpoint. Hora may be a fine man. I just don't think the semantic difference, or one man's concept of the difference between sympathy and compassion has anything to do with Self Knowledge.
"Another chimp in tux? Classic. Expected more from you Tucson much more."
--If that remark was classic why would you expect more from me?
"Dr Hora had a saying that goes something like this: don’t share your pearls with unreceptive minds for they shall demean them."
--This certainly goes both ways, and the saying goes.."Don't cast your pearls before swine."
Don't hold back. Call me a swine if you like. After all, you think I called Hora a chimp.
"This chimp in a tux is a defensive remark and an attack based in doubt not certainty."
--No, I'm certain about my opinion and it is you who is interpreting it as an attack.
"The ego is forever protective of the insecurities of its existence."
Hey, there's something we can agree on. Let's leave it at that.
Posted by: Tucson | November 28, 2007 at 12:20 PM
You are an incorrigible dim-wit. I deliberately posted twice for a reason and to make a point, and not because of any ridiculous "karma" nonsense as you seem to think.
Sorry dude, but you are grasping for straws where there are none, just like the immature fool that you choose to be. Outside of a few religious nut-jobs, I've rarely ever met a guy who is as full of pseudo-spiritual mumbo-jumbo as you obviously are.
As for the supposed effects of your comments, you can rest assured that such drivel doesn't phase me in the least.
PS: The "Dr Hora" that you incessently promote (including the rest of your psychic mediums) is a real lite-weight... spiritually and scientifically speaking. Enough already.
Posted by: tAo | November 28, 2007 at 01:06 PM
Unlike the ridiculous pseudo-spiritual, paranormal, & psychic-medium garbage that you frequently post... here is an example of real spirituality and true compassion in action:
Posted by: tAo | November 28, 2007 at 01:54 PM
Posted by: tAo | November 28, 2007 at 02:37 PM
Most Likely You Will Go Your Way (& I'll Go Mine):
Things Have Changed:
Posted by: tAo | November 28, 2007 at 07:52 PM
I suapect that underlying all quests for liberation, compassion or whatever, are fundamentally selfish motives....the configuring of the self into a state that will attract the "grace" to secure the desired outcome....less suffering, recognition, release from the inevitability of experience whilst we occupy this time/space enigma...something that I would term personal profit. Try acting in a mannner that is not motivated by any self gain. I suspect that none of us are capable of it. We are hemmed in and limited by our very natural self validating impulses, whether it is as I said to profit the self in one form or another or whether it is to measure the self against some normative standard that then acts as a loop back to the self, reinventing it in a new state, but nonetheless as self mutated.
It is my view that the moment simply is what it is, complete with contradictions. The good and the bad. Impulses to one or the other outcomes. And "we" act in perfect compliance with that compulsion. If it's possible to intellectually pierce that veil of process, I suspect that the resultant awareness simply adds an enigmatic quality to that which follows, the fundemantals of the process of materialising the void and engaging therein persist as does the self. Death simply, in my view, acts as a switching mechanism.
And before I have all sorts of attempts at convincing me otherwise thrown at me, I would suggest that the very characteristic of an infinite singularity is infinite contradiction. Full comprehensiveness to the degree that each moment comes fully authentic.
Posted by: Karl Marx | December 20, 2007 at 05:51 PM