« Cogent critical analysis of Sant Mat | Main | What's good about God? »

May 08, 2009

Comments

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

Hi Roger,

tAo pretty much identified flaw in the convoluted "reasoning." Essentially, beyond knowing = unknowable and is ... not knowable.

Though I have concepts, I am not very qualified without a great deal more research to talk on these issues beyond the most elementary phenomena from classical electromagetics. The ideas get very flakey very fast without supporting evidence. Perhaps you may find reading about the "quanton" interesting.

(I've cut out the details.)

Anyway, please read tAo's comments, "the 'unknowable' is that which can never be known."

Respects,

Jayme,

Thanks again for your reply.

I was hoping to get a clarification of what you meant in your statement,

"Questioning implies un-knowing and certainty implies knowing. Perhaps when the RS Master says "don't question", one is best to look at it as a state "beyond knowing" rather than a state of being forbidden. Being responsible to those energies in which we find ourselves is being in a state beyond knowing - we just do."

---The above statement is your statement.
---I was hoping for a clarification of what you meant by states of "beyond" knowing and being forbidden, in relation to when the RS Master says, "don't question."
---Your clarification would bring me from an "unknown" understanding to a "known" understanding.
---This is a dualistic blog, so any knowns and unknowns shall fall with the realm of dualism. Thats OK. No big deal.
---Why create an unknowable out of what you stated?

Best wishes to you,
Roger

If the RS Master is a supposed GIHF, then being a human, I would hope to communicate with that particular RS Master. This would simply be from one human to another. As a human, I might need some clarification or advice on a particular subject or object. An example, the David person, with his fear of death. So, if the RS Master replies, "Don't question!!! or It's unknowable!!!!," then what am I to think? I simply need some simple help. How would the RS Master give me some guidance?

Likewise, as an initiate, I've been told, the RS Master(GIHF) shall guide me thru the different astral planes to the Sach Kand realm. However, out of hundreds of thousands of initiates, through the history of gurus and masters, very few if any have actually engaged in this journey. So the guru or master isn't much of an astral guide.

---So what's the big deal with this guru or master, if One can not communicate or transverse, or receive guidance?

---So what's the big deal with this guru or master, if One can not communicate or transverse, or receive guidance?

We do Roger, we do communicate, and we do receive guidance, inner guidance and direct communication. You see all we need to do is surrender our ego (no small task, takes a long, long time). Some people become so intoxicated with the mind and their own cleverness and it takes over so it’s a battle with this mind which is in control… this is why people give up and stop trying because its not easy… its much easier to say, oh I don’t have to do anything, I don’t have to try, there’s nowhere to go, I am one with everything, there is nothing more than this… this is the cop out. It’s so easy to be misled, misguided and taken off the track for a while but then something absolutely beautiful happens and we are drawn back, not into the organization, just a beautiful direct communication with spirit, with the Shabd Master. And even when we have sometimes been a little lost we actually learn so much more and move on stronger in self, always trying to be absolutely honest and true to oneself.

No need to question really, direct communication, cannot be explained, cannot be proven to anyone else, nothing better than this.

Jen,

Thanks for your reply. Again, you are a good person.

You stated,

"No need to question really, direct communication, cannot be explained, cannot be proven to anyone else, nothing better than this."

---Nothing wrong with this statement. However, does that statement align with a "Science" of the Soul? If there is a science of the soul, does the Scientific Method become the foundation of this "Science" of the Soul?

Within the Scientific Method,
---Questioning in a particular field of science is very important. Any data, I have generated, I would welcome inquiry.
---There is a need for direct communication, this is very important. Direct observations is a type of direct communication.
---Explanations are required, this is part of reproduciblity, falsifiablity, etc.
Throw in a word like, proveablity, too.

One thing, Jen, you could help me with, that is, is there such thing as a Science of the Soul? Does this Science use the Scientific Method as it's core foundation?

If it doesn't, that's OK. The Scientific Method doesn't have to be everywhere and anywhere.

Finally, I'm not finding fault with you.

Best wishes,
Roger

p.s. cann't.....should be can't

Roger, good points. Jen, I respect your subjective personal beliefs. But what you said is just how many, if not most, Christians speak. They feel a direct communication with Jesus or God. They get messages from Jesus/God. They talk to Jesus/God.

Ditto with many other sorts of divinities. So are all of these people, including you, to be believed? Are some deluding themselves and us? If so, which are telling the truth?

SInce these questions can't be answered, Roger is correct in asking whether a "science of the soul" exists. If all we have are competing metaphysical claims, this is religion, not science.

A possible way out of this would be if people who claim to talk with God, or another divinity, presented evidence that they learn things not accessible to normal human consciousness. Yet to my knowledge this doesn't happen. People are left outwardly unchanged, which is why I like to say that "god is good for nothing."

Nothing that makes any difference in the world. All that is evident are only subjective feelings about god.

"A possible way out of this would be if people who claim to talk with God, or another divinity, presented evidence that they learn things not accessible to normal human consciousness."

---Yes, not accessible to normal human consciousness.


"..........but then something absolutely beautiful happens and we are drawn back, not into the organization, just a beautiful direct communication with spirit, with the Shabd Master."

---So, this direct communication, with spirit, could possibly be a non-conceptual non-mental activity, where science is "not" needed.
---Hopefully, Jen can clarify.

Roger,

Within the Scientific Method,
---Questioning in a particular field of science is very important. Any data, I have generated, I would welcome inquiry.
---There is a need for direct communication, this is very important. Direct observations is a type of direct communication.
---Explanations are required, this is part of reproduciblity, falsifiablity, etc.
Throw in a word like, proveablity, too.

With regard to questioning, I find it very helpful to question my own beliefs, concepts, and opinions in that I ask myself “am I right?” In other words being aware of what my mind is thinking. I am also finding myself more in the mode of feeling that now I need to take more of a “leap of faith”, in other words if I am to do this experiment within myself, as well as following the precepts of Sant Mat to the best of my ability, I have to let go and plunge in wholeheartedly with no expectations and just experience whatever happens. Then to confirm those experiences there will have to be reproducibility and proof (for me).

When the Master said to someone “don’t question” this was a personal answer directed to that person and only that person will know or should know what he meant by this. The Masters speak very directly to whomsoever they are speaking to at the time. My personal belief is that it is very important to connect with the inner Shabd Master.

Then, maybe because the soul is the direct observer this is closer to what you say:
---So, this direct communication, with spirit, could possibly be a non-conceptual non-mental activity, where science is "not" needed.

Brian,

I understand what you mean when you say people believe they have direct communication with Jesus or God. The difference is how do they know it is really Jesus or God that they are communicating with? And yes, an astral form, which they might believe to be an angel or some other higher being, can visit people which they then personalize according to their own beliefs or perceptions. The mind can project all sorts of images and we have to be very discerning.

I have seen my Master when he was in a physical body and because of this I can recognize his inner form projected through the Shabd. This is the main difference between Sant Mat and organized religions.

Hi Roger,

In reference to your June 03, 2009 at 07:44 AM entry:

Please know that categorization of knowledge doesn't stop until the mind stops, imo. Knowledge can never be completed and the known and unknown are endless in the wheel of time. I expect that even "truth" within this definition of mental knowledge is ever changing.

I haven't gone back through to edit my initial response but here is the removed content:

begin
{
"Forbidden" is a term that is used in different ways. Consider two examples: semiconductor device physics, and societial taboos. In physics, for a given set of conditions, these forbidden states which describe gaps between electron energy levels simply do not exist and are unknowable. In social forms, taboos are broken all the time and so being forbidden is a delusional state of being - imo. For example, it is forbidden for a christian to marry a muslim; you must always drive on the left side of the road and stop at red lights; or you must have a living master on the path. So from the perspective of social law, the master forbids questioning by saying "don't question," but in fact, when one truely reaches a physical state of not questioning, the difference is one more of the physics based forbidden state rather than the social form - imo. The RS master(s) has indicated that the question should be asked of the lord (an alternate form of "don't question") and in fact what happens, in my experience, is that the question simply goes away (becomes unimportant) when sitting very quietly in body and mind. However, one never reaches "beyond knowing" or the forbidden state of the unknowable since it is only an ideal which is a fictitious goal spun out of a belief dynamic.

The so called "state beyond knowing" is not a real energy state in the sense of being knowable. The notion of a creative potential field is still a concept within the fishbowl and one cannot actually approach an unknowable state ... it is simply a non sequitur.

Speaking from inside the fishbowl. I have too many ideas about fields, virtual particles, and quantons. In electromagnetics, there are potential and dynamic fields. Potential fields don't propagate or have an independent existence beyond the source from which they emanate and dynamic fields do (at least within some subset of the universe). I was envisioning the "unknowable" state as being something like an emptiness out of which the creative potential coalesces into ordered dynamical energies. I think virtual particles don't exist in present conceptual understanding and are inferred through measurements of momentum, and energy preservation by employing these concrete particles in particle physics. Anyway, these concepts distort the particles' reality through projection into object space.

I was thinking in terms of highest "state" of the unknown as being like an infinite static potential whose source is the unknowable as it has no condition under which energy exchange can occur to give it definition. As one moves "down" through the static condition, there are evanescent fields which fluctuate but do not propagate and from this quanton field there is concretization and physical universe formation. So the energies (states) I was thinking of are these fields of potential whose source is asymptotically the unknowable - which as I pointed out is not logical.

I think that M theory proposes vibrating "strings" and that the initial formation of the universe may be explainable as a collision between the bulk media of two branes (multidimentional forms of strings). The point of collision creates a universe and all the consequent macroscopic and quantum field dynamics begin differentiating shortly after this event until we reach our present energy states within this complex of mind, body, being. I haven't been convinced yet that there is an Omega point as mentioned by Teilhard de Chardin in "The Phenomenon of Man" to which we are moving, as this would imply teleology (a dirty word in science). The idea of teleology implies and ultimate cause (God) and purpose.

As for quanton energy (and proto-matter). Below the Planck scale energy is very much only describable in a probablistic emergence out of the quantum background fluctuations. Matter and energy are "quantum foam" formed of quanton order that exist on a deep sea of zero point energy which I think can somehow be defined by the initial creation parameters of this universe. (There may be infinite many universes - each with their own parameters.) Simply put energy = "a force." But energy is not simple. For example, what is the energy of an idea? Without exaggeration - a few neurotransmitters 10s of nanometers across and a few trillionths of a watt of acoustic power applied in just the right circumstance can catalize the transformation of the entire world! A kind of "butterfly effect" in complex dynamic systems. The physical energy has much simpler laws by which thermodynamics, electrodynamics, and field theory are pretty good at describing.
}
end

I hope this didn't just muddy it all up again.

Respects,

Wow, Jayme dear... clear as mud, lol... think I'll stick with Duhism :)

Jen, only you knows the reality of your contact with the guru's "radiant form." A few thoughts come to mind, though.

Why would a vision be more reliable if you have seen the person physically who now appears metaphysically? Seems like the mind would be even more prone to imagining or projecting a person's form if he or she had seen them in person. I have dreams of people I've known. The dreams look like the person, not surprisingly.

As noted before, one confirmation that you are communicating with someone other than yourself would be if that entity told you, or other people, things that you couldn't know on your own. Or even better, that no human being could know.

So could you share some of that knowledge with us, in the spirit of a "science of the soul"? If you aren't willing to share specifics, I'd be interested in generalities with some amount of detail.

What are you told by the radiant form? What do you say to the radiant form? Is there anything you've learned that wasn't part of your knowledge base, or that of other people? (Like a specific prediction of a future event.)

Brian, I totally agree that I might have created something that I dearly would love to see, but hey, every little bit helps. Sorry I’m not that advanced to actually be chatting away to him somewhere up in Trikuti, but I’ll let you know if I do manage to find out any exciting predictions… sorry I’m being flippant again… not much help I’m afraid with any details.

Cheers

Jen,

You stated:

"When the Master said to someone “don’t question” this was a personal answer directed to that person and only that person will know or should know what he meant by this."

-- How could you know this to be so?? Were you there at the time? How do you know this was "a personal answer directed to that person and only that person"??

You also stated: "The Masters speak very directly to whomsoever they are speaking to at the time."

-- That may or may not be true depending on the circumstance. The admonition of "don't question" could be to one individual or as a general statement to many. The real issue surrounding such an admonition is, why would someone (especially a spiritual teacher) tell anyone not to question? To attempt to suppress and inhibit an individual's natural inclination to question 9especially in matters of spirituality), is both controlling and evasive. Are you perhaps defending that?

"My personal belief is that it is very important to connect with the inner Shabd Master.

-- That is your belief. But... what is this "inner Shabd Master"? Where is the evidence that any such thing or entity exists? From seeing visions in meditation? From hearing voices in meditation? How do
you actually know there is any such thing as an "inner Shabd Master"? From thoughts in your mind? From RS literature or lectures? How do you know this to be true?

"the soul is the direct observer"

-- What is this "the soul"?? How do you know there is such a thing?? Is "soul" just merely another fancy name for a living individual? And how do you know that this "soul" is "the direct observer"??

"people believe they have direct communication with Jesus or God. The difference is how do they know it is really Jesus or God that they are communicating with?"

-- They don't know.

"an astral form, which they might believe to be an angel or some other higher being, can visit people which they then personalize according to their own beliefs or perceptions. The mind can project all sorts of images and we have to be very discerning."

-- The same applies to visions and supposed communications etc with "inner shabd masters", "radiant forms", and the like.

"I have seen my Master when he was in a physical body and because of this I can recognize his inner form projected through the Shabd."

-- That is merely what RS teachings and dogma preach. But how do YOU know that is the case? You seem to be making alot of abstract assumptions... but based upon what? Upon your own experience? How do you know if any of that is true, or just a projection of your mind?

"This is the main difference between Sant Mat and organized religions."

-- I beg to differ. There is NO difference at all. Organized religion believes in similar things. Why is Santmat any different? Your example (above) shows no such difference. It is just another belief in the supernatural. Just because you saw some guru in person (or via photo), does not prevent you from projecting an illusory vision of the same in meditation. So Santmat is not exempt from this happening either. Jen, your reasoning here is totally faulty. Just because you know what someone looks like in real life, does not prevent you from imagining the same image in your meditation.

So your position boils down to a matter mere faith and belief alone. frankly, that's all you have presented here.


tAo,

You are welcome to your opinion just as I am to mine and there is no point in arguing or debating the point because I am entitled to voice my point of view just as much as you are entitled to voice your entirely opposing point of view and btw I addressed my comments to Roger and Brian and not to you.

The astral reality is another reality just like dreams is another reality. No less no higher just different. Laws that exist in this dimension do not apply to laws applied in the astral dimension. That does not mean that there is a discontinuity between them as each dimensions exists within and around the other. Like dreams whereby you use your dream body, the physical world whereaby you use your physical body, and even imagination/thought whereaby you use your thought, for the sake of better word, body.
If you see the astral body of the master, you must also have an astral body. To see his causal, you must have causal body. Remember these are just words that describe relationships more than states.
In Sant Mat, it said that, no in absolute way, that at this level, in order to understand and connect some lines and dots, that we are our focus of attention. We are always soul etc. but within this context we are our focus of attention. If all day long we question,,,we are the questioning. Knowing is not question.
The gure sayin not to question, I take it to imply two things: One, stop questioning, so your mind mantra can shift focus and undeerstand/listen to the answer. And that the state achieved is that by you 'do not question' anymore.

The evolution of science has been dramatic the last forty/40 years. If knowing the truth ONLY via science, it excludes probably a trillion of humans that lived before the scientific revolution. I am of the opinnion, that science can help this understanding and is not the only and central conduit to it. You can still understand thus the ultimate truth and still somehow hold that the earth is flat. You may realise is not flat anymore, after you realise the truth. But a-priori knowledge that the earth is flat and that universe does not run on epicycle, is not so important. This is because the search is inwards...or at least begins as such. And inward search is something that all people in all ages have the capacity for...from the caveman to the astronaut.
Parallel this arguement with the fact that science itself does not know the answers...that it deals itself mostly with exoteric physical laws...(that have come full circle back to subjectivity via strings and quantum physics). The branch of science that deals with inner phenomenan is psychatry and psychology...and thanks but not thanks...I prefer and I am inclined in reading schools of thought who have dealt with this issues for thousands of years,,not a modernity branch of science not older than 100 years old. That does not mean i reject psychiatry,,,we can learn much from it,

But the truth,,,or the search for the truth should be available to all peeple...in all ages,,,that have any time of knowledge,,,any type of cultures (bones in their lips,,,,nike on their feet....etc). From caveman to astronat,,,you cannot reduce truth to a western scientific discource that has been refomulating itself since thet day of aristotle.

Jayme,

Thanks again for your reply.

Again, I was hoping to get a clarification of what you meant in your statement,

"Questioning implies un-knowing and certainty implies knowing. Perhaps when the RS Master says "don't question", one is best to look at it as a state "beyond knowing" rather than a state of being forbidden. Being responsible to those energies in which we find ourselves is being in a state beyond knowing - we just do."

---Again, the above statement is your statement. Nothing wrong with a gift of electromagnetic gab. Are you afraid to say you "don't know" what you were stating? Again, barking out a technical abstraction is ok. However, when asked to be specific, you seem trapped into replying with more electromagnetic abstractions.
---My concern, if someone(an inititate), who honestly needs help, and the RS master says, "don't question," they might seek you out for advise and guidance. With your "gift of electromagnetic gab" the initiate could be mislead into thinking there is a "Science" in SantMat. When in actuality, you really know very little, regarding the spiritual needs of such.
---Again, nothing wrong with you, however, be careful in any communications with other initiates, in need of some honest help and guidance. You might unknowingly be doing some indirect damage.

Best wishes,
Roger

Jen,

Thanks for your reply too.

You stated,

"I am also finding myself more in the mode of feeling that now I need to take more of a “leap of faith”, in other words if I am to do this experiment within myself, as well as following the precepts of Sant Mat to the best of my ability, I have to let go and plunge in wholeheartedly with no expectations and just experience whatever happens. Then to confirm those experiences there will have to be reproducibility and proof (for me)."

---This is OK. I liked the, "let go and plunge in wholeheartedly with no expectations and just experience whatever happens" part.

In addition,

I liked, your statement, "the soul is the direct observer" this is closer to what you say: could possibly be a non-conceptual non-mental activity, where science is "not" needed.

---So within SantMat, the Soul is the direct observer, and engages in no conceptual-mental activity. In a way, the Soul is the Scientist, and there is no brain activity, for the Soul to engage in dualist concepts and mental activity. Is this your understanding? If so, thats OK.
If not, please write more on the role of the Soul in such astral travels and radiant form observations.

Best wishes to you,
Roger

Jen, a process note...

If you go on a blog and post a comment, expressing your view about something or other, you are inviting further comments -- including criticism, questioning, debate, skepticism, affirmation, whatever.

I'm sure you realize this. I just found it interesting that you said there is no point in arguing or debating some points you brought up.

Well, if you brought them up, you have to expect that someone might challenge them. If you don't want to be challenged, you shouldn't post public comments on the Internet.

There also isn't any such thing as directing comments to certain people. Comments are visible to everybody who visits this blog, and anyone is welcome to respond to a comment.

Jen,

You wrote: "...there is no point in arguing or debating the point because I am entitled to voice my point of view just as much as you are entitled to voice your entirely opposing point of view..."

--I don't think the issue is whether you and tAo are entitled to your opinions. I think this goes without saying. Also, you don't need to argue if you don't want to, but if you make statements here others may question them. Your response to tAo appears evasive. Do you have any response to the issues he raised?

Jen says:

"tAo, You are welcome to your opinion just as I am to mine and there is no point in arguing or debating the point because I am entitled to voice my point of view just as much as you are entitled to voice your entirely opposing point of view and btw I addressed my comments to Roger and Brian and not to you."

Jen,

Brian has already expressed virtually the same thing that I would have said in my reply to your comment to me:

Brian said: "If you go on a blog and post a comment, expressing your view about something or other, you are inviting further comments -- including criticism, questioning, debate, skepticism, affirmation, whatever." ...and... "you said there is no point in arguing or debating some points you brought up. Well, if you brought them up, you have to expect that someone might challenge them. If you don't want to be challenged, you shouldn't post public comments on the Internet. There also isn't any such thing as directing comments to certain people. Comments are visible to everybody who visits this blog, and anyone is welcome to respond to a comment."

I also would like to reiterate what Tuson asked of you:

"Your response to tAo appears evasive. Do you have any response to the issues he raised?"


A,

I really enjoyed your comment, thank you, and I agree with what you say:

“The astral reality is another reality just like dreams is another reality. No less no higher just different. Laws that exist in this dimension do not apply to laws applied in the astral dimension.”

Also, when you say:

“In Sant Mat, it said that, no in absolute way, that at this level, in order to understand and connect some lines and dots, that we are our focus of attention. We are always soul etc. but within this context we are our focus of attention. If all day long we question,,,we are the questioning. Knowing is not question. _The gure sayin not to question, I take it to imply two things: One, stop questioning, so your mind mantra can shift focus and undeerstand/listen to the answer. And that the state achieved is that by you 'do not question' anymore.”

I am starting to realize this more and more now because I probably do question too much and there is a fine balance between being discerning and at the same time having faith in one’s own ability and knowingness, especially when it comes to the inner spirit or soul being.

Roger,

You ask: “the Soul is the Scientist, and there is no brain activity, for the Soul to engage in dualist concepts and mental activity. Is this your understanding?”

I agree yes, the soul is the direct observer and it really is not involved with the dualist concepts of the mind - thanks Rog.


Brian,

You must realize that on this blog there are people with very definite views and unfortunately some are totally against Sant Mat and they will attack anyone who does not agree with their views. So, because I basically do not like to argue but at the same time like the freedom to be able to express my own views and do enjoy an objective debate, perhaps I feel quite threatened by others here who I have observed to be very cutting, harsh, aggressive, downright rude and nasty and so I avoid talking directly to such people if I can.

That’s why I have changed back and forth because at times I really feel I shouldn’t be here on this blog and then at other times I think it is good for me because I need to become stronger and have more faith in myself and my own particular perceptions which I have built up over many, many years of being on a path of self discovery. At times it is a bit overwhelming and I don’t particularly like feeling that I am under attack from certain quarters.

I tend to see things differently from others and I feel it might actually be important for others to see things from another perspective, but then it is necessary for all parties to be coming from a more open minded perspective, that is what a debate is all about. The very skeptical, atheistic, scientific kind of mind can be extremely arrogant in its opinions and not open at all to any kind of metaphysical phenomena, so I feel I am doing battle here entirely on my own, except for a few people who are usually neither satsangis nor ex-satsangis, so have a more objective and open understanding.

tucson,

You ask: “Your response to tAo appears evasive. Do you have any response to the issues he raised?”

Its just too difficult when it becomes an argument with someone with a totally opposing attitude to mine especially when I know it will never resolve and it just seems pointless. I’m not here to argue, I do listen and learn in a debate but don’t want to go round and round in circles with no objective end in view.

tAo,

You will see my comments to Brian and tucson above.

Cheers

"The astral reality is another reality just like dreams is another reality. No less no higher just different. Laws that exist in this dimension do not apply to laws applied in the astral dimension."

"In Sant Mat, it said that, no in absolute way, that at this level, in order to understand and connect some lines and dots, that we are our focus of attention. We are always soul etc. but within this context we are our focus of attention. If all day long we question,,,we are the questioning. Knowing is not question."

"The guru saying not to question, I take it to imply two things: One, stop questioning, so your mind mantra can shift focus and understand/listen to the answer. And that state is achieved if you 'do not question' anymore."

-- The above three quotations by "A" amount to nothing more than more preaching of Santmat dogma. But this is not the place for more preaching of Santmat. Preach that stuff to the satsangi believers, not to the Churchless. You satsangis seem to be constantly trying to hi-jack this blog's commentary in order to preach more of your Santmat rhetoric and dogma.

I myself am not "against" Santmat, but I am very much against and rather tried of having Santmat dogma repeatedly posted and preached on this site by satsangi believers who are only interested in posting Santmat dogma to the exclusion of all else.


Next, Jen says:

"I probably do question too much"

-- On the contrary.

"having faith in one’s own ability and knowingness"

-- A "knowingness" of what??

"the soul is the direct observer and it really is not involved with the dualist concepts of the mind"

-- And what is this supposed "soul" the "direct observer" of??

"on this blog there are people with very definite views and unfortunately some are totally against Sant Mat"

-- Who exactly are these people who are "totally against Sant Mat"?? And what exactly are their "views"??

"the soul is the direct observer and it really is not involved with the dualist concepts of the mind"

-- And what is this "soul" observing, if not the "the mind??


"I basically do not like to argue"
"I feel quite threatened by others here"
"so I avoid talking directly to such people if I can."
"at times I really feel I shouldn’t be here on this blog"
"I need to become stronger and have more faith in myself and my own particular perceptions which I have built up over many, many years of being on a path of..."

-- A path of Santmat.

"I don’t particularly like feeling that I am under attack"

-- Then don't feel that way.

"I feel it might actually be important for others to see things from another perspective"

-- Perhaps they do, and you just don't see that.

"it is necessary for all parties to be coming from a more open minded perspective"

-- Practice what you preach.

"skeptical, atheistic, scientific kind of mind can be extremely arrogant in its opinions and not open at all to any kind of metaphysical phenomena"

-- "metaphysical phenomena" means: supernaturalism.

"a few people who are usually neither satsangis nor ex-satsangis, so have a more objective and open understanding"

-- You are basically looking for people who are or tend to be sympathetic (like you are) to Santmat. But the Churchless is not the best place to find those kind of people.

"Its just too difficult when it becomes an argument with someone with a totally opposing attitude to mine especially when I know it will never resolve and it just seems pointless."

-- Thats mostly because you do not wish to look at your own unexamined assumptions and beliefs. It is your own recoil to anyone (like myself) who challenges your cherished assumptions and beliefs. But its not others (like myself) who are your enemies. Its your own attachment to your opinions, assumptions, beliefs, "knowingness", and so on that is causing you to feel distress.


tAo,

Okay, watch when all the satsangis stop visiting this blog, it will just totally dry up, fizzle out… there will be no stimulus for discussion… it will become very boring and then Brian will post some contentious issue and give it a challenging title as in
“April 27, 2006
God-man or Asshole? The guru conundrum.”
to provoke a response because everyone knows which path he has followed and probably which “guru” he is referring to and then you complain because you don’t want Sant Mat discussed on this forum?!

Jen says:

"watch when all the satsangis stop visiting this blog, it will just totally dry up, fizzle out… there will be no stimulus for discussion… it will become very boring"

-- Thats an awfully lame conjecture if you ask me. I seriously doubt that a bunch of satsangi nincompoops are the life and soul of this blog, or that it will somehow just "dry up" and "fizzle out" without an annoying bunch of dogmatic believers (who resent the fact that some Churchless folks don't find RS dogma so sacred or convincing) hanging around. And as a matter of fact, it would become quite open and refreshing if they would all just go away like you say they will.

"everyone knows which path he [Brian] has followed and probably which “guru” he is referring to and then you complain because you don’t want Sant Mat discussed on this forum?"

-- There is a very big difference between the Churchless issues and points that Brian raises relative to the RSSB... and the excessive and repeated preachings of Santmat dogma by RS cult believers whose only agenda is to post excessive and repeated preachings of Santmat dogma. And I am not the only one here that does not care to see more of that.

So... I think I am now going to refrain from making any further comments or responses to people (like yourself and others) whose intent is to try to keep the Santmat/RS dogma going around here as long as possible. I am simply not going to give it any more energy. Ignoring it will be my vote against it.

I am tired of all this Santmat occupying the focus, and I know that some others are too. So I will just let Brian delete the Santmat preaching comments, if and as he chooses. And I really think he would rather discuss a lot of other things (besides Santmat) as well.

My question to you Jen is... if you are so much into Santmat, then what are you doing here? But then I guess I already answered that above. If you really want or need sympathy and support for your Santmat trip, then just go attend a satsang.

tAo,

I'm not looking for support or sympathy. I'm pretty much churchless myself, never liked organized religion, just doing my own thing in my own way and sometimes defending when I see an injustice or unfairness.

So, if this is truly a churchless blog why do ex-satsangis post their anti Sant Mat dogma here? Why don't they go to the ex-satsangi websites?

Jen, a better question is, "If this is a churchless blog (which it is), why do churched people preach their belief system here?" As I've noted before, this is like a vegetarian going on the Cattlemen's Association web site and urging meatlessness.

I hope you'll read, and consider, the post I'm writing now -- and will publish tonight. You have a wrong view of "dogma," a word you used in your comment above.

Dogma is a positive belief. Questioning dogma isn't dogmatic. It is an exercise in reason, the scientific method, open-mindedness.

To say, "There is no evidence for X" isn't dogmatic. It's truthful, if there really is no evidence for X.

You seem frustrated because you've been challenged after making statements about your mystical experiences and spiritual beliefs. Well, provide evidence to support those statements, or expect to continue to be challenged.

Hi Jen,

lol. :)

=====

Roger,

Evidently the post was more confusing that I intended. I think that's why I cut it out originally.

Perhaps this is a clearer answer to your repeated question about my statement below Posted by: Roger | June 05, 2009 at 07:59 AM:

[J] - attributed to Jayme
[R] - attributed to Roger

[J]"Questioning implies un-knowing and certainty implies knowing. Perhaps when the RS Master says "don't question", one is best to look at it as a state "beyond knowing" rather than a state of being forbidden. Being responsible to those energies in which we find ourselves is being in a state beyond knowing - we just do."

[R] Again, the above statement is your statement. Nothing wrong with a gift of electromagnetic gab. Are you afraid to say you "don't know" what you were stating? Again, barking out a technical abstraction is ok. However, when asked to be specific, you seem trapped into replying with more electromagnetic abstractions.

[J] No, not afraid of stating I don't know. I am having a difficult time understanding what you don't understand about this statement. All words are abstractions. It is important to establish a common consensus on vocabulary for communications to occur. It is clear, I don't do a very good job at defining my terms.

[J] I'll try to answer your question more carefully as follows:

[J] Questioning (inquiry) comes from a curiosity for knowing something. This means one doesn't know it and so the beginning of the first statement "Questioning implies un-knowing."

[J] Certainty means faith or belief (a conviction). The knowledge that a person has and is certain is true, may be false, but it is still a form of knowing. Hence the portion of the statement "certainty implies knowing."

[J] As for knowing what the RS master means - I don't know and so I started the second sentence off with "perhaps" and so the sentence is my interpretation (or imo). I use this interpretation because it so closely fits what the RS masters have said numerous times about it being essential to sit down and quiet the body and mind (i.e. "don't question") which has also been stated in answer to numerous questions by satsangis about why God put us here - to which the RS master replies that "only He knows" and that the disciple should "ask the Lord Himself"(i.e., sit down, shut up and meditate - as I interpret this). To look at the "don't question" issue, I am claiming that in the most peaceful "state" or condition that one achieves in the RS practice ("beyond" the Sat Lok or imperishable region) is this "beyond knowing." The sixth region in the RS practice is the invisible region (Alakh Lok) and the seventh is the inaccessible region (Agam Lok) and the eight region is the Nameless region (Anami Lok). It is claimed that the RS masters only take their disciples to the fifth region of imperishability (read the books). However, these distinctions are almost arbitrary in that there are subtleties that may or may not be noteworthy, depending on the teaching. RS masters break the regions up according to their own method. It doesn't necessarily appeal to everyone. However, I tried to use a physical analog (the potential field analogy) to "describe" this "level" beyond knowing which I mean to imply is the eighth region (Anami Lok) which cannot be explained with any abstraction of knowing and unknowing - hence, I adopted the term "beyond knowing" without concern. This then is what I mean by the middle of the sentence "one is best to look at it as a state "beyond knowing"." The dogmatic condition is to interpret the expression "don't question" as a statement forbidding (or preventing) the inquiry as a dictum (or command) that has the force of manmade laws (i.e. contrived). So, I am proposing that we look upon this as an unquestioning condition "beyond knowing" (or unknowable) and which is not forbidden in the sense of the artificially abstracted knowledge identified in the literal words "don't question".
In this "condition" of "beyond knowing," nothing has changed. The world is as it is but we are no longer looking from "inside the fishbowl," so to speak, scattered in time and space, reacting to the world as if it is somewhere and some-when else (disconnecting us from here and now). In this condition of being through which we become transparent to the Nameless One, we are fully sympathetic and responsible for our physical and mental actions. I see this as being mindful according to the teachings of Thich Nhat Hanh. I'm sure he didn't invent the term. I think he uses an invented term we "inter-are" but again, I do not know that this is exactly what he means. In any case, this is what I mean by the last sentence of the statement. A fully responsible person does what is mindful, regardless of the act. By saying "we just do," I mean that every action we do, we are and are fully self aware of the action that is done within the capability of the being that is acting.

[J] I wish I could explain it more simply but I would have a difficult time doing this.

[J] I do not agree with your other comments but I'll leave them unaddressed.


[J] Regards,

Dear Jen,
You are doing great.We all love you.
Are you an All Black fan?.
All the best
Obed

I'm not frustrated Brian, feeling like I have said all I have wished to say now, so no probs at all.

Cheers

Jen, I wish you'd be more honest. You say "I'm not frustrated." Yet this is what you said in another comment recently:
---------------------

"Brian,

You must realize that on this blog there are people with very definite views and unfortunately some are totally against Sant Mat and they will attack anyone who does not agree with their views. So, because I basically do not like to argue but at the same time like the freedom to be able to express my own views and do enjoy an objective debate, perhaps I feel quite threatened by others here who I have observed to be very cutting, harsh, aggressive, downright rude and nasty and so I avoid talking directly to such people if I can.

That’s why I have changed back and forth because at times I really feel I shouldn’t be here on this blog and then at other times I think it is good for me because I need to become stronger and have more faith in myself and my own particular perceptions which I have built up over many, many years of being on a path of self discovery. At times it is a bit overwhelming and I don’t particularly like feeling that I am under attack from certain quarters.

I tend to see things differently from others and I feel it might actually be important for others to see things from another perspective, but then it is necessary for all parties to be coming from a more open minded perspective, that is what a debate is all about. The very skeptical, atheistic, scientific kind of mind can be extremely arrogant in its opinions and not open at all to any kind of metaphysical phenomena, so I feel I am doing battle here entirely on my own, except for a few people who are usually neither satsangis nor ex-satsangis, so have a more objective and open understanding."
-----------------------

Your feeling that you are "doing battle" perhaps explains your dissatisfaction with this blog. If you are defending a belief system, naturally you are going to feel like you're being attacked when others question your beliefs.

Like I've been saying, I think your expectations of a "churchless" blog are a bit unreasonable. Also, my sense is that you are trying to come across in a certain way that doesn't match with what you are genuinely feeling or experiencing.

If you're frustrated, that's fine. It's just confusing when you say you're doing battle with the faithless science-loving infidels one day, then the next, you've got no problems at all. Honesty is better than appearing "spiritual," Jen. That's my main piece of advice for you, which I understand may not be welcome.

Brian, I don't mind your advice at all. I just don't think I have ever mentioned feeling frustrated so thats what I am saying, not "frustrated". Having a bit of a battle sometimes, in other words feeling like coming up against a brick wall, wondering why I am bothering, but hey its no big deal, this is my first ever attempt at blogging so I'm new to this game. I also get annoyed at times but I realize I am probably just as annoying!

Hi Obed,

No not really into footy, but hey thanks for the support :)

Cheers Mate

Jayme,

Thanks again for your reply,

You stated,

"Evidently the post was more confusing that I intended."

---Your statement wasn't confusing, and I don't think you intended any type of confusion.
---However, you have some unintended need to gab and gab. It's a gift for some people. You are not a bad person, you are OK.
---A simple, "I don't know" was the answer. Instead, you in an unconfusing manner, respond with the gift of endless gabbing.
---Any supposed spiritual issue; you have a natural (within yourself) need to attach your self contained gab. Someone, a supposed beginning initiate, could be misguided into thinking there is a Scientific Method attached to SantMat or the Soul.


" I do not agree with your other comments but I'll leave them unaddressed.”

---Most “gabbers” don’t want to address the “gabbing” issue. Their role in any group is probably founded on this gift of gabbing. This gabbing foundation is their reason for being. Really, one that is such is not bad. Hopefully, you can understand the potential harm to others, not to yourself. Think, a little, about the other supposedly gullible satsangi, that you come in contact with.

Best wishes to you,
Roger

Jen,

You are OK. Don't think you are confused or frustrated. Keep writing comments as you choose. I would like another comment from you, regarding the "science" of the soul. We might agree that this "science" doesn't encorporate the Scientific Method.
This is ok. However, could you, based on your understanding, discuss any type of prosess or method, this "science" follows?
If there is no method or process, then ok again. Hopefully, you have some explanation of how this "science" works or functions.

Thanks again,
Roger

Roger,

I disagree.

I have gone through the major part of the blog I think my mind is too small and weak to imagine something some power which can't be imagined. There is no Proof of God, but my friends if imperfection exists so exists the perfection...and that is the sea of LOVE. We are droplets of that sea who are imperfect. I am not anxious about questions neither I am interested in secrets but my interest is Love whose absence every one feels in his or her life....when you fall in Love then questions fade away....GOD is Love and thats what Baba Ji wanted to say...He said to use your intellect your intellect should be strong enough to know the absence of Divine Love your unsatisfaction and imperfection ...once you fall in Love questions become less important to you ...and you rather flow in Love of God...and Love's starting step is faith if you donot have faith in God then its not Love,,,as one of my friends asked what is the surety God exists that perfect world exists....if you are asking surety then my dear friend leave the hopes of surety because Love is not a deal...first be an intellect and try to reach that level that you feel absence of God...you will see all the truths....

Prtateek,

It doesn't really matter to me what your "Baba Ji wanted to say'.

Also, you may feel an "absence of Divine Love" and a sense of "unsatisfaction" and thatr you are "imperfect", but I do not. So you shouldn't assume that others feel the same way, or lack that you do.

You said: "starting step is faith if you do not have faith in God then its not Love"

-- I don't agree with you. I need no such "faith", nor do I need to love some God. And if God does exist and God is love, then that love is within everyone, and faith is irrelevant.

"Love is not a deal"

-- No one said that it is.


Brother Chin!

I hear you and I believe that you are on the right path to question. Maharaj Ji used to quote Lord Buddha and say "Do no believe even my words, but see for yourself because seeing is believing".

I believe that you are on the right path - you ask questions because you CARE. because you want to KNOW, and understand the true meaning. These are all very noble aspirations. There is nothing wrong in what you say. Truth and right understanding will come when you think and ponder on these questions only.

I believe that you need to develop your own tests to provide you faith. Meditate. Sit quietly and pray that your questions get answered.

If your faith is shaken and you cannot pray to a God, then don't! But don't give up being honest!

Meditate in solitude, and the answer will emerge from within.

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.