« No need to live life fully. Just live. | Main | Be thankful you're not dead »

November 26, 2008

Comments

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

Watched the Andrew Cohen (AC) video. The girl in the audience, struck me as an AC follower, programmed to ask a question, with followup: Yes and Yes and more Yes.
All in the audience seemed like AC (brainwashed)followers. This video, imo, has no value.

We are surrounded from birth to death with objects of all sorts and kinds, and we assume that they are all independent, existing in space and time, things in themselves, unconnected with one another and with ourselves. So when the sages tell us that this can't be, we are amazed and are unable to understand what they mean. Don't we recognise them as objects and surely know that an object cannot be such without a subject? This is our quandry.

What, then, is the subject in question? No doubt the subject implied in ordinary language is the subject whose senses perceive the objects. This is makes sense, but we proceed to misinterpret this observation. We imagine that the subject whose senses perceive objects is a body, which itself is an object like the others, and like the others, apparently independent, existing in space and time, a thing in itself, unconnected with other objects.

When this false identification is removed we immediately understand that the subject in question is the subject of the body as well as of all other objects. This may be called Impersonal Subject, and it is our reality, all that we are, because objects, including the body and the divided mind which is an aspect of it, only exist as the objectivisation of that Subject. The object or mind-body to which we have attributed subjectivity, is impotent to directly affect other objects, while real Subject is omnipotent in relation to Its objects which are projections of Itself.

This error is the mechanism of our entrapment. The way of liberation is awareness of the Impersonal Subject of all objects, awareness that we ourselves are that only, and that all objects including the mind-body whose sensorial apparatus we operate, are projections that are impotent to 'do' anything whatsoever of their own volition, entirely interdependent, and operable only by Impersonal Subject Itself.

This impersonal subject is spoken of as 'whole mind', Void, God or whatever. It is immutable, never absent, never either active or quiescent. It is us whether we appear to be awake or asleep. It is the reality of every perception, the "suchness" of everything that appears to exist. It is also Consciousness or any of many words we may use in a futile attempt via divided mind to comprehend or describe our reality. Our reality, however, cannot be comprehended, cannot be known as an object, since it is pure subjectivity, but when we realize that nothing objective is real* we become aware that that which is real is Reality and that we must be that. This is the meaning of the term "REALisation".

* "nothing is real, strawberry fields forever". Lennon got ahold of some good acid!

Our reality, however, cannot be comprehended, cannot be known as an object, since it is pure subjectivity, but when we realize that nothing objective is real* we become aware that that which is real is Reality and that we must be that.

What I understand is I (me) should disappear from the picture, seems very difficult.Do we have to put some efforts for it or just live.

Thanks

I have known many fundamentalists who aren't in any religion as such and that can include atheists.

Well, it might be impossible if you try to do it as an identified entity, but it is present always without effort. Whenever you are functioning spontaneously without the "I" thought, then you are in Presence and that's IT. It is a non-doing or action without action and that is something we do every day. Like when you go to get a shirt from the closet. You just do it. You don't think, "I, Juan, am now walking to the closet. I will open the door and raise my hand to grasp the shirt. Then I, Juan, will take the shirt off the hanger and put it on my body first with my right arm and then my left." We don't go through all those steps. There is simply an impulse to go to the closet to get the shirt and it all happens of its own accord. Same with chopping carrots or sweeping the floor. Just be the chopping. Just be the sweeping.

I absolutely can't stand Cohen. He's about the phoniest of the fake gurus to ever crawl and worm his way across the stage of modern spirituality.

He has nauseated me ever since he plopped his snooty ass onto the spiritual scene like a pretentious little turd (shit) way back in the nineties. And his followers are among the most naive and retarded fools to ever waste their time and money on a absurd poseur like Cohen. I can hardly believe that phony asshole is still squirming around.

And moreover... WTF!!! (what the fuck) is ole Ken Wilber having anything to do with Cohen? Is Wilber like getting desperate, or senile, or what? I expected way better than that from ole Ken. Its probably got something or other to do with money (like Cohen's dirty money?). Otherise, Wilber must be really losing his friggin marbles.

Thats rather sad, because Wilber used to have a heck of lot more marbles than that fuck-face shit-brain fool Cohen ever dreamed of.


Tuscon, thankyou so much, I'll try to be in present for some days and then communicate you the results.

Thanks again

Juan

Juan,

There should be no results to report.

Tucson,

You stated,

"Our reality, however, cannot be comprehended, cannot be known as an object, since it is pure subjectivity, but when we realize that nothing objective is real* we become aware that that which is real is Reality and that we must be that. This is the meaning of the term "REALisation"."

---Could you give an example of, "that" which is real, and that we must be that?
---Is that "that" an indescribeable object?
---How does becoming a REALisationist, point in the direction of what that "that" is?
---No problem with that "that" being an unknown object.

As usual, enjoyed your comments.
Roger

---Could you give an example of, "that" which is real, and that we must be that?

A. This.

---Is that "that" an indescribeable object?

A. Just indescribable.

---How does becoming a REALisationist, point in the direction of what that "that" is?

A. No "one" has ever "become" a REALisationist.

---No problem with that "that" being an unknown object.

A. It is simply unknown as any sort of "thing".

Not that I'm any sort of authority on such matters. I just write what comes up.

"Our reality, however, cannot be comprehended, cannot be known as an object, since it is pure subjectivity, but when we realize that nothing objective is real* we become aware that that which is real is Reality and that we must be that. This is the meaning of the term "REALisation"."

---What is the "nothing objective" that is real?
---The this or that or nothing or something, if I understand the conversation, is unknownable and not understandable.
---The "real" that is Reality, is understood, through conversation, as Ones attempt to objectify a this or that or nothing or something?

Just trying to converse about nothing in an unknowable way. Does everyone understand my questions?
Thanks,
Roger

Roger inquired: "---What is the "nothing objective" that is real?"

...The problem is that we try to make 'something' of It. We ask, "What is real?"

What I am as Ultimate Subject is all objects. As relative subject I am the observer of a named object in consciousness..tucson..Roger. As subject limited by the concepts of space and time I become identified with a named object which then appears to be an independent entity..tucson..Roger.

When as limited subject..tucson..Roger, I realise that the named object in consciousness is such only (merely a named object), identification ceases, and I am no longer limited. The conceptual bondage is over, and I know myself as what I really am which is all apparent objects which appear in consciousness while I remain, as always, no 'thing' at all.

Thanks Tucson,

The REALisation occurs when, "One realises that the named object in consciousness is such only (merely a named object), identification ceases, and One is no longer limited." In addition, the conceptual bondage is then over, and One knows oneself as what One really is, which is all apparent objects which appear in consciousness while One remains, as always, no 'thing' at all.

---In conversation, One is the limited subject that is emersed within the Ultimate Subject. Am I conversing, or understanding the conversation? No harm should ever come from conversing about no thing or no body.

Thanks for the monday informations,
Roger


I was a leader and insider in EnlightenNext for a period of about 13 years. After leaving in 2001 and waiting out a 5 year gag order, I have written, along with other contributors, American Guru; A Story of Love, Betrayal and Healing - http://americanguru.net

Our book details abusive events over a period of many years in the EnlightenNext organization under the leadership of Andrew Cohen, along with offering insight into the nature of any authoritarian system.

lol, what a load of shit.

William, thanks for sharing news about your book. The Amazon reviews led me to order a copy. Actually, the negative reviews were as convincing as the positive ones, since I too have been accused of having an outsized ego, pettiness, excessively high expectations, and so on after I criticized a spiritual group I was a part of for over thirty years.

That's ridiculous, as you know. People who are in the grip of full-throated guru worship consider that any evidence putting a human face on a supposedly divine being is trickery and deception.

There is a STRONG rumour that tAo is none other than Brian Hines in shill form.

At first I could not believe that it was true, but reading and re-reading the posts, I am now more convinced than ever that it's you Brian!!

Wow, Dramatis Personae at its best...

Revelation, sorry to burst your theory bubble, but you're utterly, completely, astoundingly wrong. Try another comment. Maybe you'll make sense next time.

No, I'm not wrong. It's always been you Brian, and you are the best shill I've ever seen!

I'm disappointed that you choose to deny what is patently obvious to me and so many others.

No bubble to burst tAo/Brian, the game's up!!

Revelation,

You're wrong. I have had private email communications with both Blogger Brian and tAo. They are different people...quite different. Give it up

Sorry tucson...

...but if you study the arguments they both use, the chronology of their posts and their respective interplay, leaving out of course the obvious different choices of rhetoric used by both personalities, it becomes VERY obvious that they are both the same person.

It has long been a feature of blogs that the owner of the blog will use different avatars to give shape and function to the discussion.

It is not that obvious here, but with a little careful analysis, the cracks will start (and have started) to show.

I wonder though just how many avatars Brian Hines has created for this purpose Mr. tucson ;-)

Very entertaining though.

Revelation, you provide an interesting example of faith-based dogmatism that is immune to facts. I've never left a comment on my blogs under any name other than my own. You've been presented with evidence from a third party, tucson, that he's communicated with tAo and me by email, and we are decidedly different people.

It's clear that tAo and I have different perspectives, different views, and different styles of communicating. Yet with all this evidence, you still persist in an irrational belief. Do you also believe that Jesus rose from the dead and saved mankind from sinfulness? Or that God created the Earth 6,000 years ago?

What conspiracy theorists often do when presented with facts that contradict their theories is discount or ignore them and selectively accept only what supports their theories.

There is significant difference in nuance, tone, style and attitude between Blogger Brian and tAo. Having been active on this blog for a few years I know them well.

It is true that with effort a person can manufacture alter egos or avatars as you say, but subtleties of language usage, grammar and sentence structure are difficult to be consistent with when you are talking about literally hundreds of comments. I have not detected any such slip-ups.

tAo occasionally comments under other names on this blog which are easy for me (and no doubt for some others) to spot, but he has not in my observation ever pretended to be Blogger Brian, nor vice-versa.

I admit I could be fooled because my perceptions are as fallible as anyone else's. You might consider that it is possible your perceptions could be erroneous as well.

I'm telling you again that Blogger Brian is not tAo because I have spoken via email with both of them. They have different ISP's and are aware of certain things that were not expressed to the other.

Why do I care? Why is this "tucson" concerned with this? Because I feel like it and also I'm "killing" some time waiting for certain business information to come up on another website.

Take it or leave it, but Revelation, for the last time, you're wrong.

you know, its funny how foolish individuals occasionally pop in here, and then proceed as if they know all about other people... in spite of the obvious facts. this sort of ignorant dogmatism and stupidity is amazing.

fyi...

Brian lives in Oregon.
tAo lives in California.

Brian rides a scooter.
tAo rides a Harley and drives a 67 Pontiac GTO.

Brian has an iPhone.
tAo doesn't do cell phones.

Brian uses an Apple MacBook.
tAo uses an HP running GNU-Linux.

Brian drinks red wine.
tAo drinks Dos XX and Jack Daniels.

Brian does tai chi.
tAo does weightlifting.

Brian does meditation.
tAo has nine cats who do the meditation for him.

...and the beat goes on...and the beat goes on...and the beat goes on...


so tAo if you from california, you must have been right in the hearrt of the tim leary and richard alpert 'tuning-in' period.

Did you tune in? Those psychadelics sound like something else. Seems like they fried ram das' noodle a bit.

67 Pontiac GTO? I drove a 65 Pontiac GTO in college. I bought it from my cousin. With that said, I'm from Texas, thank god.

I'm FROM California. In 1964 a girlfriend's dad bought a GTO with a Hurst 4-speed. Very groovy. No, I take that back. I think I thought it was bitchin'. I started saying 'groovy' about a year later. What was really mind-blowing was he actually would let ME drive it. This remained my favorite car experience for many years until something came over me and I bought a Subaru WRX-STi. Perhaps it was an overreaction to driving cumbersome trucks for many years, but I got rid of it a few years ago when my son turned 16...I wanted him to turn 17.

What does this have to do with Churchlessness? Everything, because I said I liked these cars. I didn't worship them.

fyi...

Brian lives in Oregon.
tAo lives in California.
tucson visits California.

Brian rides a scooter.
tAo rides a Harley and drives a 67 Pontiac GTO.
tucson rides a $40 yardsale Mongoose bicycle.

Brian has an iPhone.
tAo doesn't do cell phones.
tucson has a cell phone but can't remember how it works.

Brian uses an Apple MacBook.
tAo uses an HP running GNU-Linux.
tucson doesn't know what GNU-Linux is.

Brian drinks red wine.
tAo drinks Dos XX and Jack Daniels.
tucson drinks water.

Brian does tai chi.
tAo does weightlifting.
tucson watches "So You Think You Can Dance."

Brian does meditation.
tAo has nine cats who do the meditation for him.
tucson used to meditate.

I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together. I am the walrus. Goo goo g' joob!

maybe Tucson and 1% are Brian also? (laugh)


anyway....is Brian Mr. Tao?

It would be one way to deliver heated sentiments and thoughts without the delightful Hine's Image (i.e., a reasonably stable, affordably intellectual, chatty-arm-chair-mystic and book reviewer*)having reader's wondering if he suffers from a Cyber form of Turret's Syndrome.

Find it, in any event, remarkable that mighty smart, Kangaroo-rage-Meister Tao has spent so much energy on a blog that is not his own. If I had THAT much to say I'd start my own blog or see a therapist.

GHN

*and non-weight lifter....

tucson, more proof: I drive a Prius (and a Hybrid Highlander), which in Oregon qualifies me to kick handicapped drivers out of their close-in parking spots. I also enjoy going to Starbucks and ordering a carbon-free latte, another unique benefit of living in oh-so-Green Oregon.

Rumor has it that soon all Oregonians will be fitted with a device that enables them to breathe out pure recycled oxygen rather than carbon dioxide.

I'm not sure what the carbon footprint of a '67 Pontiac GTO is, but it's probably about the same as a coal-fired power plant. So this shows that I can't be tAo, since the first time I drove the car down our driveway, our Prius and Highlander probably would choke to death on the exhaust.

george,

well yes, not only was i there, deep in the midst of the "turn on, tune-in, and drop out" scene in SF, LA, & NYC... but i also knew both tim leary and richard alpert personally. i knew tim leary from berkeley and i also knew him wheb he was at millbrook (new york). i have known ram dass since he and i first met in kathmandu nepal and then later in northern india, circa 1969-71. also, at that same time (in nepal) i was very close friends with bhagavan dass (michael riggs), who was the guy in india that introduced richard alpert to his guru, neem karoli baba. and yes, i most certainly did "tune in".


tAo,

oh right, sounds like a helluva time. would you recommend psychadelics? what were leary and alpert like? huxley would have been fascination too. they've been heralded as quite pioneering, but one wonders if it was pure experimentation and whether they knew what they were letting themselves in for? ram dass made alot of sense in his earlier stuff, but the poor bugger struggled a bit when all the chemicals caught up.

Have you had any more powerful first person expeiences than acid?

I'm going to butt in a bit here. I am of the same generation as tAo, but from the southern California surfer culture that sprouted in the late 50's and 60's. Acid was definitely on the menu in my crowd and I lost count after about 80 doses. I can say that acid is deleterious to your health and is risky to take. You can get into some weird places that are hard to extricate yourself from. On the other hand, due to acid's ability to take you out of your habitual thinking and perceptive patterns insights into the true nature of things are possible and in my opinion valid, potentially, for some people. Most just get their brains fried. I can say that certain positive repercussions of my use of this substance have stayed with me to this day, but I don't recommend its use due to the downside risk.

lol, Tucson, 80 doses, no wonder i could not understand the 'talking bubble' parrable.

actually you right, it might be amazingly revealing, but if you are the sort that holds tight to reality and a sense of self or ego, i think potential for some psycholigical harm, other than the physical chemical imbalance question. i believe leary and alpert wrote a book, based on the book of the dead, but meant to be used as a guideline thru the various phsycadelic states of experience.

but i do find this area fascinating, and one wonders why these drugs are not allowed for ppl that are suffering or have terminal diseases, etc. surely these drugs can make their last moments alot more bearable and perhaps even expand their mind like never before.

They often say tho you need an experienced person to guide one through these trips.

at this point, i don't have much to say about any of this. i really have little or no interest in discussing this issue.

i also more or less agree with tucson, that most people don't understand and do not handle it very well, and in some cases it can cause mental health issues.

decades ago, i had considerable and good experience with it having had the right circumstances and setting, and i was fortunate to have benefitted from it in some unique ways, but also to not become hung up in it. there is no shortcut.

so at this point i would not recommend it. i don't take any drugs, and i don't see much real value in them, and i don't advocate anyone else using them either.


with one exception that i do agree with george, that lsd may definitely be of good use and benefit for people who are very close to dying, as was done by Aldous Huxley and Dr Leary in their last few hours.


Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

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

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

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

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

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

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

Welcome


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