Don't get drunk on someone else's religious intoxication

I've always wanted to talk about deconstruction in a blog post. (The philosophical variety, not the demolition kind.) My only minor problem -- which shouldn't ever stop a blogger -- is that I knew next to nothing about the subject.

But now I've read all 168 pages of "Deconstruction for Beginners," a terrific book. One of it's appealing points is that it takes a comic book style to deciphering Jacques Derrida, the father of deconstruction.

And has quite a bit of talk about sex. Including drawings of naked women.

This stuff isn't gratutious, as it contributes to understanding how deconstruction works (deciding whether to kiss a breast or another female body part is a deep philosophical act, but I'm not going to touch that or go there -- so to speak -- in this post.

For now I simply want to share an excerpt that hit home with me.

The book's author, Jim Powell, writes in the form of a dialogue between various people, including Mark Twain, a coyote, and The Glorious Glorious Bliss of God's Phallus.

Here's some of what Twain has to say:

This all reminds me of my trips to Niagara Falls. Actually, I had to visit Niagara Falls fifteen times before I succeeded in getting my imaginary Falls gauged to the actuality and could begin to sanely and wholesomely wonder at them for what they were, not what I expected them to be.

When I first approached them it was with my face lifted toward the sky, for I thought I was going to see an Atlantic ocean pouring down thence over cloud-vexed Himalayan heights, a sea-green wall of water sixty miles wide and six miles high, and so, when the toy reality came into view -- that beruffled little wet apron hanging out to dry -- the shock was too much for me, and I fell with a dull thud.

It is a mistake for a person with an unregulated imagination to go and look at an illustrious world's wonder. For when a thing is a world wonder to us it is not because of what we see in it, but because of what others have seen in it. We get almost all of our world wonders second hand.

It may be the Taj Mahal, and when you see it you cannot keep your enthusiasms down, you cannot keep your emotions within bounds when that soaring bubble of marble breaks upon your view.

But these are not your enthusiasms and emotions -- they are the accumulated emotions and enthusiasms of a thousand fervid writers, who have been slowly and steadily storing them up in your heart day by day and year by year all your life; and now they burst out in a flood and overwhelm you. And you could not be a whit happier if they were your very own.

But by and by you sober up, and then you perceive that you have been drunk on the smell of somebody else's work. You realize that "your" view of the Taj -- acquired thus at second-hand from people to whom, in the majority of cases also, acquired "their" view at second-hand -- has no origin at all!

This points at what I was getting at in "Follow your passion wherever it leads." It's easy to lose touch of what we ourselves -- that glorious conscious sense of  me, me, me which really is our sole possession -- experience.

We fall into habits of borrowing other people's ways of looking at the world. We go to a holy place, or see a holy person, or read a holy book, or meditate in a holy fashion, and believe that we should feel what others have felt.

Going against the flow of an Expectation River can be difficult. Standing at the rail overlooking Niagara Falls, listening to all the oohs and ahs, it takes a lot of deconstructive honesty to say, "Just looks like a bunch of water going over a cliff to me. Is this all there is?"

I grew up in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada mountains near California's Sequoia National Park, home of the largest tree in the world.

Driving up to see it for the first time, after my mother had told me where we were going, my seven year old mind envisioned something much grander than the reality turned out to be. I remember thinking, "This is just a big tree," when I saw the General Sherman.

That bore a lot of resemblance to my reaction when I first saw in person the guru that I followed for many years. He wasn't larger than life. Just a person.

I'd heard so many stories of how one look from the guru was soul-transforming. I didn't feel that, though I enjoyed being in his presence a lot.

It's best to live life as ourselves, not as someone else. If you're going to get drunk, let it be on what you truly find intoxicating, not another's passion.

Comments

[Smack]

When I socialise with others who are drinking while I stay sober, I can sometimes get into a sympathy-drunk state where I experience mild levels of inhibition that I would ordinarily need alcohol to experience.

The upside is I don't get a hangover the next day. Although I do get a 'mental hangover' in the sense of lots of images relating to the night float around in my mind the day after (especially during meditation in the morning. I always find it difficult to concentrate after a night out).

The more people around you that are intoxicated, the more likely you get this second-hand intoxication.

That's probably why religious groups suggest you surround yourself with others on the same path.

I hear Gurdiner Singh has requested that seekers stay clear of the Dera at Beas until they are initiated because otherwise they get a little carried away in the spectacle of the thing instead of making up their own mind.

How does one separate one's own genuine intoxication from second-hand intoxication?

Separating oneself from the intoxicated can help.

But how do you know when you are genuinely intoxicated as opposed to being intoxicated second hand?

[Roger]

flakey,

You stated,

"I can’t really comment on this... though I have read that when during meditation the mind catches sight of the inner Master it becomes intoxicated and no longer has any desire for worldly things."

".......we need to have met the physical form of the Master to enable us to recognize the inner form which is projected through the Shabd. Only what I have learned not yet experienced..."

---I understand, you could not comment, however, you made some interesting statements, from your readings.
---Didn't know that the "mind" was involved in the meditation process. How the mind becomes intoxicated, in this process is fascinating. Is it correct to assume that the "mind" is Ones brain activity?
---Likewise, meeting of the physical form of the Master to enable us to recognize the inner form, is new information for me. Do you know someone that has recognized the "inner" form of the Master?
---So, the inner form, recognized through the Shabd, is dependent on meeting the Master in his physical form. So, someone who couldn't meet the Master, in person, would be incapable of the "inner" recognition?

Thanks to you, for your replies.

Roger

[flakey kook]

Dear Roger,

I shouldn’t really be discussing Sant Mat here on this forum so I’ll have to make this the last comment on the subject.

---Didn't know that the "mind" was involved in the meditation process. How the mind becomes intoxicated, in this process is fascinating. Is it correct to assume that the "mind" is Ones brain activity?

My understanding is that consciousness is filtered through the physical brain (this mind is sometimes called the lower mind). During meditation we still the chatter of this lower mind and then become in touch with a higher consciousness. Mind becomes intoxicated very easily with worldly beauty so I guess when it sees the radiant form of the Master within it realizes there is nothing on this earth that compares.

---Likewise, meeting of the physical form of the Master to enable us to recognize the inner form, is new information for me. Do you know someone that has recognized the "inner" form of the Master?

It’s a long and arduous path and takes a long time for some, maybe not for others to make this journey within and I would think those who have are probably rare and definitely don’t speak about their experiences. Why would they? They are not out to convince anyone about anything.

---So, the inner form, recognized through the Shabd, is dependent on meeting the Master in his physical form. So, someone who couldn't meet the Master, in person, would be incapable of the "inner" recognition?

First we have to meet a Master while we are both in human form. The Master who initiates a person is very important because he is the link to the Shabd so when we evolve more into our higher consciousness we then meet the inner Shabd Master who remains our inner guide through the spiritual planes.

We traverse many inner regions and as, for example, when we die we leave this human form behind, then as we pass through the astral plane we will then leave our astral body behind and when we eventually leave the causal plane (universal mind) we progress onward as pure soul. The soul has the faculty to see and to hear and being attached to the Shabd the soul makes its journey to the highest spiritual regions.

I don’t know whether Brian will let this comment through, I apologize for annoying others who are more non believers than me and also Roger, this is purely book knowledge from all my readings on the subject so hope I have explained correctly.

[tAo]

Flakey,

Well you know you are getting awfully close to posting some real kookiness here.

But as long as your kookiness doesn't get too flakey, then the flakes of your kookiness won't flake off on other kooks.

But be careful, because kookiness has a way of getting very flakey, especially when too many other kooks are all flaked out in the same kooky place... if you know what I mean.

[flakey kook]

tAo,

Yep, keeping my kookiness in check, not easy, such fun being a flake especially when others are kooky too :)

[Catherine]

Every now and then I used to like to go to really large charismatic Christian churches at the top of a building, or in an old theatre or warehouse etc.

It was intoxicating to lifting my hands in the air and say Praise the Lord or such like. Then I would sing as best and as loudly as I could, then shake my brothers and sisters' hands, and intercept the sermon with Amen and even Jesus. Although for me the expression was all tongue in cheek and although I was an unbeliever, I used to thoroughly enjoy the experience and buzzed along for some time afterwards; my body definitely had a tingle to it and my mind was buoyant.

It was a similar experience, but a mainstream one, to the classical Rajneesh three stage group meditation.

So, a valid question Smack.

[Roger]

flakey,

Thanks for your reply.

I understand, your need for a last comment. However, don't you feel uncomfortable, in limiting your comments on any topic?

I have a few retorical questions, from your statements.

"Mind becomes intoxicated very easily with worldly beauty so I guess when it sees the radiant form of the Master within it realizes there is nothing on this earth that compares."

---Does everyone's Mind become intoxicated, so easily with worldly beauty? Is it possible that there is a person, whos Mind, doesn't become easily intoxicated with anything, including a radiant form? There would, therefore, not be anything to compare with. Since nothing, within this particular Mind, is experienced as intoxicating.

"It’s a long and arduous path and takes a long time for some, maybe not for others to make this journey within and I would think those who have are probably rare and definitely don’t speak about their experiences. Why would they? They are not out to convince anyone about anything."

---I can see no need to convince anyone, however, that person should be interested in showing others, how to transverse the same astral planes. That is, to reproduce such a journey together. To experience together, the visuals and sounds.

"The soul has the faculty to see and to hear and being attached to the Shabd the soul makes its journey to the highest spiritual regions."

---Still, why the smells and feelings are not mentioned is a mystery. Feelings in a sense of warmth, cold or hot, temperature wise. So, no ability for the Soul to detect smells and changes in temperature?

"........ this is purely book knowledge from all my readings on the subject so hope I have explained correctly.

---Nothing wrong with reading from books. However, is your belief system based solely on your readings, or possibly on something else?

Roger

[flakey kook]

Roger,

“I understand, your need for a last comment. However, don't you feel uncomfortable, in limiting your comments on any topic?”

Yep, very uncomfortable.

---Does everyone's Mind become intoxicated, so easily with worldly beauty? Is it possible that there is a person, whos Mind, doesn't become easily intoxicated with anything, including a radiant form? There would, therefore, not be anything to compare with. Since nothing, within this particular Mind, is experienced as intoxicating.

Maybe a scientist can find someone who has that particular kind of mind and do some experiments.

---I can see no need to convince anyone, however, that person should be interested in showing others, how to transverse the same astral planes. That is, to reproduce such a journey together. To experience together, the visuals and sounds.

Ask a scientist to reproduce the journey so you can have proof.

---Still, why the smells and feelings are not mentioned is a mystery. Feelings in a sense of warmth, cold or hot, temperature wise. So, no ability for the Soul to detect smells and changes in temperature?

Maybe a scientist will know why a soul doesn’t have smell or taste.

---Nothing wrong with reading from books. However, is your belief system based solely on your readings, or possibly on something else?

My belief system comes from my own experiences.

Don’t bother with any more questions, stick with FAITH and BELIEF in science.

[Roger]

flakey,

Not looking for scientific proof, regarding the astral planes that you mentioned. I was hoping to receive some information from you regarding the statements, you made.

So what value is there in having faith and belief in Science? Never thought to do that. Is a belief system attached to Science helpful?

One additional retorical question. Of the hundreds of thousands of Sant Mat initiates, why only a very few have transversed these astral planes? The guru or Master, as a guide, doesn't seem to mean much.

Roger

[Jen]

Roger,

"Of the hundreds of thousands of Sant Mat initiates, why only a very few have transversed these astral planes? The guru or Master, as a guide, doesn't seem to mean much."

You are thinking in terms of one life. What if we have been around since before Time began? How many eons would that be? So, in my way of thinking it’s going to take much longer than one life for an individual soul to merge back into the ocean of creativity from whence it came.

Have you ever done any research on reincarnation, the law of karma, transmigration of the soul? You might find this an interesting subject.

Moved on from 'flakey' now... LOL

Cheers

[tAo]

Jen,

You said: "What if we have been around since before Time began?"

-- What if? Well then, if you are going to say "what if" then anything is possible. But you seem to say this as if this is a fact, as if its a forgone conclusion, as if this is the way that it really is. You're saying that "we have been around since before Time began". But what if its NOT so, not that way? You can propose all sorts of things, BUT... where is the evidence for it?

You said: "So in my way of thinking it’s going to take much longer than one life for an individual soul to merge back into the ocean of creativity from whence it came."

-- But what says that there is any such "soul", or moreover, that there is any need to "merge back into the ocean of creativity"? Also, what says that there is any "from whence it came"? Agian, you can suppose just about anything. These may be your beliefs, but thats all they are.

You said: "reincarnation, the law of karma, transmigration of the soul"

-- These are all similar suppositions as well. But, where is the evidence? Well its not in books, if thats what you think, so don't bother using that excuse.

Do you see what I am getting at?

[Jen]

tAo

Maybe we have NOT been around since before time began… but we don’t know either way do we… oh well, here we go, now we have to go through the whole proving thing again… I’m so over it.

Also, there may NOT be any such thing as a soul, no energy life force, no such thing as reincarnation, karma, etc… but where is the evidence to negate these things? So what you are saying is that as I have learned these things, they are part of my belief system, but they are also part of millions of people’s belief systems and we can’t really prove or disprove these theories either. So round and round in a circle we go.

From what I have read from your previous comments you have said that we are just a wave of consciousness that will merge back into consciousness when we die. Now, why should I believe you and discard my other beliefs?

Ok, ok, I know, we are all nothing… maybe we are all holograms for all I know… no big deal, I will just follow my own way…

Cheers

[Brian]

Jen, you're making a fundamental thinking error, which gets discussed fairly frequently on this blog. Proving something doesn't exist isn't the way that either science works (nor mysticism, for that matter), or how we act in everyday life.

I don't wake up and start thinking, "Oh, my God! I can't prove that there isn't a herd of elephants about to trample our yard! What am we going to do?!"

No, if I see elephants, I'll believe that they exist in my yard. If I don't see them, I assume they don't exist here in western Oregon. Not in the wild, at least.

So your dismissive mention of "the whole proving thing," which you say "I'm so over it" -- I have to ask if this is how you live your life.

Leaving aside your religious or spiritual beliefs, do you really go through life on the fence about whether fairies exist, whether terrorists are waiting for you outside your door, whether your house is about to fall down, and all the other "could be's" it's possible to think about?

I doubt it. Like everybody else, I bet you see things as real when there is evidence for them. If there isn't evidence for something, you don't treat "evidence" and "no evidence" equally. Coming to a green light, I'm sure you don't stop anyway, figuring that while there is no evidence the light is red, it's possible that it could be.

[Jen]

Brian,

I liked your comment and promise I won't be expecting any elephants in my back yard, not even pink ones ... I'm not expecting the sky to fall down ... but about those fairies living at the bottom of my garden, well... :)

[tAo]

Jen,
You said:

"Maybe we have NOT been around since before time began… but we don’t know either way do we"[?]

-- Well... I do know that I don't know about existing before I was born. And no one else does either. So then, why even pretend as if you do?

"oh well, here we go, now we have to go through the whole proving thing again… I’m so over it."

-- Well yes, if you are going to assert sopmething, such as you di, then it won't be regarded as fact unless you can prove it. Thats just common sense... but which it seems something that you'd rather ignore. YOU may be "over it" as you say, but that does not alleviate the necessity for evidence and proof. Anyone can make all sorts of outrageous claims such as the one you have... and so yes, where is the proof? You say that you are "over" needing proof. Well thats fine if ytou are going to live in your own little world. But in a fourum such as this, when other people are involved, you just can't assume that others will accept things just because you believe those things, or merely because you say so.

"Also, there may NOT be any such thing as a soul, no energy life force, no such thing as reincarnation, karma, etc… but where is the evidence to negate these things?"

-- You can't be serious. Yours is total faulty resoning. You are essentially saying that everything and anything exists (such as pink elephants in my front yard), unless someone can prove they are not there (even if they are invisible to everyone else except for you). This is absurd Jen. You really need to get a grip on rationaliy and reason, not to mention correct logic. This is what amazes me about people like you, and religious and mystical believers. You seem to have it all backwards. Where do you get this incredibly absurd idea that things that CLEARLY do not exist (such as pink elephants in my front yard) should have to be proven to not exist. It is blatantly obvious to the other 99.99999999999999 percent of humans, that there are no pink elepants actually existing in my front yard. That far exceeds that one out of six billion people who might imagine pink elephants in my front yard. So in essence, that is more or less what you are saying.... that there are pink elepahnts, and that I must prove that they don't exist.

NO Jen, YOU are the one out of 6 billion people that must somehow PROVE to the rest of us 5.999999999 billion or so, that those supposed pink elephants actually DO exist. This is something that you really need to get straight before you proceed. Otherwise, you are stuck in pink-elephant-land.

"So what you are saying is that as I have learned these things, they are part of my belief system, but they are also part of millions of people’s belief systems and we can’t really prove or disprove these theories either."

-- That is correct. If you can prove those things, then please do so. I don't have to disprove. If YOU are the one who makes the assertion, then YOU are the one who must prove it. And it doesn't matter that millions of other people believe as you do. Belief is not proof, no matter how many people believe. This is basic.

"So round and round in a circle we go."

-- No. You are the one who is going in circles. I am not going anywhere. If you can prove pat lives, re-incarnation, karma, and all rest of the things you mentioned, then please do so. Otherwise, they will remain where they are, in the domain of belief only, and not as proven facts and reality.

"From what I have read from your previous comments you have said that we are just a wave of consciousness that will merge back into consciousness when we die."

-- No, I don't remember ever saying anything like that. And I also do not say anything like that now. I do not know what will happen after death. No one does. And whatever that may be, it seems to be inevitable. I only know that, at the present, there appears to be this existance, and we are aware of this.

"Now, why should I believe you and discard my other beliefs?"

-- But I did not ask you to believe me. I did not ask you to believe in anything, or to have any beliefs about anything.

"Ok, ok, I know, we are all nothing…"

-- I did not say that either. You are trying to put words/ideas in my mouth.

maybe we are all holograms for all I know… no big deal, I will just follow my own way"

-- Yes "maybe". But I never said that you should not follow your own way. However, my quaetion is this: Is it really YOUR OWN way? Or is it just something, some "way", some belief that you bought into.

[Jen]

tAo,

sooooo over it ... preach away ... who cares

[tAo]

Jen,

Unfortunately for you, your evasive brush-off just proved how very out of touch with reality you really are.

Here's some points you should consider:

A.) My comments were only direct responses to your (misguided) notions. My comments were not "preaching" in any sense whatsoever.

B.) Also, you may not "care" about being logical, rational, reasonable, or accurate... but as Brian and I both feel, we and others here do care about reason, logic, rational proofs, and accurate facts.

[Jen]

tAo,

I think you take my facetious remarks seriously, especially when talking about silly things like pink elephants, fairies at the bottom of the garden, being a hologram etc… I’m joking. I am in fact quite a serious person, can be very logical, sensible and reasonable... but at the same time I can also say silly things and laugh at myself… have a joke at my own expense as well.

I also love the mystical side of life, which is obviously not very correct here on this forum so, it really is no big deal and I'm outa here.

[Catherine]

Considering life and it's meaning has to be logical and logic is difficult and precise. Jen is saying I love to believe in the possibility of something not revealed or not provable. Tao is saying, why believe?- it's restricting.