« Dobson’s illogical attack on Obama | Main | “From Taoist to Infidel” – sounds like me »

June 26, 2008

Comments

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

"These graduated exercises facilitate the change in consciousness required for recognising or remembering the presence of God in all things and lives and minds, including the soul of our true selves"

---Has someone graduated through all the exercises? Hopefully, this person has a Diploma, as proof. Could this person, with his/her degree, describe the, "presence of God?" In addition, please supply a description of a 'soul' of our true selves.

I'm comforted to know that this isn't another gimick. Get 3 free exercises, buy the book, then get the remaining two.

The exercises are written on paper, like “recipes” for God-realisation. The proof of the recipes isn’t in another piece of paper, like a Diploma for example. If there’s a proof, then it’s in the pudding. And the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Yes, people have graduated through the exercises. The proof they have is the experience they gained by going on the journey.

I’m sure these people can describe their experience of the presence of God, just like they can describe their experience of the taste of an orange.

Would you be satisfied with someone else’s description of the soul, or of an orange for that matter? In my opinion, the taste of it is better than any talk about it.

Three exercises for free sounds like a pretty generous gift to me. But it’s up to you to decide.

Nick, a description of the experience of God also has to include a description of how someone else can have that experience.

If someone eats an orange, and describes the taste, he needs to be able to point to another orange and tell what you do to taste it: "take the peel off, put a section into your mouth."

With God, where's the "orange"? And where's the method to experience God? This is why descriptions of such experiences are akin to someone saying "I saw a pink elephant!"

Sure, that's possible. But only in their subjective (and alcohol soaked) mind.

I don't think God is so elusive--only if we are looking for a certain particular (probably peak) experience we imagine and then demand.
problem is, being embodied is not always comfortable, and there's not a whole lot to hold on to.

Without squirrels in my country, I was excited to visit an English forest full of them. At first I saw nothing. Then from the corner of my eye/I glimpsed fleeting movements round the edges of trees. Each movement occurred a spontaneous moment before my intentional effort to see what caused it. The squirrels were always one step ahead of my deliberate thinking.

Finally I stopped being distracted by my own thought processes and noticed with my peripheral vision instead. Thereafter, the elusive little creatures emerged from behind tress all over the forest right in front of my eyes.

Searching for wild squirrels in the forest is a great symbol for seeking the spiritual presence of God in the world. What we’re looking for (soul, spirit, God) is always everywhere all the time. It’s evident in the spontaneous activity of our mind, yet obscured by our efforts to think thoughts deliberately.

Probably out of my depth here but here goes.

Brian, you ask “With God, where’s the orange?” Isn’t it the mind? To achieve a god experience requires a particular state of mind, and Nick’s exercises offer some ways of achieving that, to at least give us a glimpse of something transcendental, ways of seeing things in a different light which may encourage us to further explorations in our own way.

Given the intangibility of God, it is going to be the subjective mind that has the greater scope to achieve God realization. Objective considerations can show us the way but once achieved, are inadequate to fully describe the actual experience or provide a guaranteed way of being able to repeat it.

Methods can help in achieving that state of mind and one can take his pick of them. That state can also be achieved by having an unexpected insightful revelation. It has been said there are many paths to God, and Nick has described some exercises which may work for some people and not for others.

If God is “one”, then to finally achieve that oneness must mean that objectivity whilst in that state is redundant. After the event we can analyse it as best we can. But even with precise instructions from an experienced person, it can be most difficult to attain that state. I guess it depends on our preconceptions and if we are on the same wavelength as the instructor.

No doubt a subjective mind should be reasonably well grounded with some understanding of such matters, otherwise a subjective mind may be delusional, but then again who is to say a psychotic can’t have a meaningful spiritual experience that can do him some good.

Brian, I hereby reserve the right to retract anything nonsensical I have said above. I’m tired and aching from a viral infection. I know, excuses, excuses.

Peter K

Peter K,
Your comment sounds good. May I get some clarification on a couple of things in it?

You say: "Given the intangibility of God, it is going to be the subjective mind that has the greater scope to achieve God-realisation.” I agree that God is intangible, if what you mean is that God cannot be detected by the physical senses.

Some people believe that reality is tangible and that what can’t be physically detected isn’t real. I gather you’re not such a person. So: if physical senses detect tangible things, do you think our mind has some additional non-physical sense that can detect intangible things like God?

You say: “Objective considerations can show us the way but once achieved, are inadequate to fully describe the actual experience". Are objective considerations finally inadequate because they deal only with physical objects, while the actual experience extends into an intangible domain that can only be accessed by the non-physical senses of the subjective mind?

You say: “If God is “one”, then to finally achieve that oneness must mean that objectivity whilst in that state is redundant.” If objectivity in that state is redundant, then wouldn’t subjectivity also be redundant? Are you suggesting that the state of oneness with God transcends the duality of subjectivity and objectivity?

Nick,
Yes I do mean that God cannot be detected by our physical senses. I would say that our minds are just as intangible as God is. I guess that’s what it takes, an intangible to consider another intangible. It will be only an aware and thoughtful mind can concieve a concept such as God.

I would think that objective considerations can deal with both physical and non-physical things, but only to a certain extent. While experience can be tangible to the extent that it may be able to be measured and defined in some way, there is no way which can adequately describe an experience or feeling. Words go only so far.

To achieve that state of oneness with everthing if I can put it that way, requires a subjective mind, by which I mean there are no other considerations whilst in that state. Otherwise you are not there, you would be considering ifs, buts, comparisons, objectives etc. Duality would arise. Objectivity would have to come later. That ultimate state of oneness with everything would be without thought and awareness, no need for them is there? You’re it and that’s all there is, whilst in that state.

Never having read anything about subjectivity and objectivity, I googled “Plotinus subjectivity” and found references to Plotinus, Hindu mystics and others, who at brief glance seem also to see it my way. Would that be correct, Nick? If you think differently, please let me know how so.

Needless to say, I am not talking of a creative God in the Christian sense, but of a state of being within ourselves, enlightened, with what some would call god-like qualities.

Ah well, maybe it is all just conjecture, but it’s what our minds do isn’t it. That’s not to say we should’nt try to better ourselves, to see things in a new and better light with hopefully an open mind, so that we may better understand ourselves and the things around us, tangible and intangible.

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 saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. 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

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

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.