« What's good about God? | Main | Where the skeptical meets the mystical »

May 11, 2009


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

I'm still contemplating about this theory of yours that no one has ever actually been "touched" by God. Because I am not sure that is really the case.

The problem in determining this, as I see it, is not that no one has ever been 'touched' or affected by 'God', but rather that there is no way that anyone can actually tell if that has really happened to another person (because if it really did happen, it only happened to that person, and no one else was there to know it or witness it).

The other reason is that if it really did happen to me (for instance), I simply have no way of ever proving that it did happen to anyone else... even if God or the event changed my behavior and life in profound ways.

In other words, lets just say that almighty God did somehow come into my life and 'touch' me (or communicate with me, or reveal knowledge or visons to me, or even radically change or transform me)... even if that actually happened, how could I ever prove that it happened to anyone else? And how could anyone else ever know that that actually happened to me?

I can't, and they can't.

So this means that it is not necessarily the case that God does not exist, or that God does not or can not affect people, but that there is simply no way for anyone to ever know that has happened to someone else. And there is also no way that the person whom God has 'touched' or 'affected' or 'changed', can show or prove that to anyone else.

So all we really know is that we can't really know about anyone else, and we can only know for ourselves alone. And even then, how do we know for sure that it was really "God"? Maybe it was just our mind, our imagination, etc etc etc.

Here's an example: On very rare occasions (three times), something actually happened in my life that sure as hell seemed like it was God (or an entity of overwhelming power and presence and infinite energy and consiousness) that entered into both my physical space, my awareness or mental space, and my feeling space... and communicated with me and revealed things to me. This rare event did affect me very profoundly, and it even changed and transformed me in radical ways. (this really happened)

BUT.... Could anyone else tell, or know about it? No. The only thing that was visible to others was some subtle changes in my personality and outlook, and there was an unusual power and light emanating from my presence.

Was it God who came and touched me? Maybe. At the time, I felt that it was God.

But could I prove it? Of course not.

Was it noticeable to others? Not really.

And now... that unique event is just a memory of something strange that happened to me long ago... and now, more than ever...

"This is it. Right here and now. All there is. All we need. All we'll ever have. Grab it. Reality isn't ever going to be any closer than it is at this moment. What you want to do, do it now. What you want to know, know it now. What you want to be, be it now. What you want to have, have it now."








goodness of God: one of my friends was suffering from cancer and he was in his last stage. Somebody told the fimly members that there is one who has the power of healing touch. The suffering of the man will be over once he touches him.

It was hard to be believed. Yet the family members agreed to call upon the one who has the power of healing touch.

It was quite surprising by the touch of that person that my friend immediately expired.


tAo, you've captured the meaning of what I was trying to say. By saying "God is nothing," I mean that there is no trace of God that can be shown to others, or even to ourselves. No evidence. No demonstrable effect that couldn't have been produced by something else.

So, like you said, how does anyone know that it was God that produced the effect? There isn't any sign that goes with a godly experience that says, "God was here." It's all a mystery, really. Maybe God exists. Maybe God doesn't exist. All we can say is that nobody has ever brought back any evidence of God.


"The only thing that was visible to others was some subtle changes in my personality and outlook, and there was an unusual power and light emanating from my presence."

-- sounds like the power of bullshit to me.

Tell you what when your nearest and dearest is wasting away from a terminal disease and she believes in the goodness of god, asking yourself if its absolutely nothing.

why dont you combine your 190 IQ points with tAo 170 and get to something approaching common sense?

George, if you had read what I wrote more closely, you would have realized that I never said that a belief in God doesn't have effects on people. I challenged the assumption that God has an effect on people, since there is no evidence of this. Belief isn't the same as actually existent objective reality.

Shamsita/Ashy, as above -- your comment doesn't make much (if any) sense, but I gather you are questioning the question, "Does God have an effect on the world?" If you have evidence in the affirmative, please supply it. This will be astounding news, the first of its kind in the history of the world.

Dear Brian,

May I suggest that you let the record stand - as a demonstration of the (so-called) "character" of both of these fellows.

Robert Paul Howard

Dear George,

You too are right as well, and please let us not have any disagreement or bad feelings between us. You are searching in your own way the truth. I do not wish to find fault with you. I am sure that you are a very fine fellow. And this is, just a blog, and I feel that it is foolish and needless and unfortunate to criticise or make enmity towards each other. So I apologise for anything that I may have said against you, or that hurt your feelings. I sincerely mean to wish you well. Please excuse me for being rude harsh or unfriendly etc. I believe that your intentions are well and good. I am truly sorry if I offended you in any way. Please forget whatever I may have said against you in the past. I am sorry for any fault of mine. Please forgive me. This all may sound odd, but I am serious. I am sorry if I offended you, and for any mistakes on my part. I hope we can resolve any differences.

And also like I told Manish, please feel free to carry on here with whatever interests you. I will have to be staying away from here for awhile to attend to some other work. Hopefully I will see you again when I return. Again, please forgive any fault on my part.

Best wishes, tAo

Dear tAo,

That is a total and utter surprise.

Apology accepted and I humbly offer my own apology to you in return. For anyone to do what you have just done shows tremendous character and I actually feel quite ashamed having insulted you as I have done.

I suppose the internet is a strange medium and we only pick up glimpses of posts that dont reflect the person's proper nature.

Anyway, for what its worth, I had no plans on staying long and will read mostly. You are one of the pillars of this site. I always felt you were very knowledgeable, just perhaps a bit trigger happy on the RS-folk, but perhaps i am wrong on this and I certainly have no intention of insulting anyone that can offer the kind of apology you did.

Go well and apologies

Dear Brian,


Brian's goodness is absolutely nothing
For the past few days I've been enamored with my "What's good about Brian?" question. It keeps running through my mind, particularly the answer:
In the comments to that post I clarified a point that might have confused some people. I didn't mean that people aren't affected -- both positively and negatively -- by a belief in Brian.
But this is much different from being influenced by Brian directly. For that to happen, (1) Brian would have to be real, and (2) Brian would have to act upon human beings in some demonstrable fashion.
I responded to a comment with...
My question is: what good is Brian, if Brian doesn't make any difference in people's lives? Yes, people have beliefs about Brian that make them act in different ways.
Some of these ways are positive -- an alcoholic stops drinking after surrendering to Brian -- while others are negative, a terrorist kills in the name of Brian.
But in neither case can it be proved that an actual reality called "Brian" is at work. It is the person's brain/mind at work, creating thoughts that become beliefs. Do you see the difference?
There's no evidence that Brian makes any difference in people's lives. Believing in Brian does. In the same way, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy have effects in the world (kids make money from their teeth, for example), but these entities exist only as concepts, as thoughts.
I find this tremendously liberating. For some reason, in all of my sixty years I'd never thought about Brian in this fashion until the thought "What good is Brian?" popped up unbidden while I was meditating.
Think about it.
In all of human history, which encompasses so much striving to understand the cosmos and what role a Brian or Brians might play in it, there is exactly zero demonstrable evidence that any person has known Brian or been touched by Him, Her, or It.
Zero. None. Nada.
Yet reality is real. We experience it each and every moment while we're alive. There just is no sign of Brian anywhere. As I noted in my previous post, there's no way to tell the difference between a Brianded person and a non-Brianded person.
Which means...we're free! We can live life without the anxiety that so many people carry around (I know, because I used to be such a person): "I should be working harder at coming closer to Brian."
That's impossible. Nobody has ever done it.
At least, there's no proof that anyone, alive or dead, has embraced divinity and been changed by the contact in a fashion that isn't part of normal human experience. So as I said in another comment to my post:
Actually, it's liberating to see things more clearly in this fashion. What it means is that if Brian exists, a relationship with Him/Her/It is going to be super-duper intimate. No one will ever know about it -- not directly. There never will be any proof of it -- not directly.
This is pretty much what "deep" mystics always have said: Brian is the ultimate mystery (that's why they're called mystics). When we try to make Brian into something that can be shown to our friends, like a magic trick, that isn't Brian.
This is it. Right here and now. All there is. All we need. All we'll ever have.
Grab it. Reality isn't ever going to be any closer than it is at this moment.
What you want to do, do it now. What you want to know, know it now. What you want to be, be it now. What you want to have, have it now.
I'm speaking philosophically, of course. Or "spiritually," if you like (though that word has come to mean less and less to me).
LIfe's meaning, the grand purpose of it all, is never going to be revealed in a great gush of Brianly grace. Don't expect that you're ever going to become anything other than the ordinary human being you are now.
Because there's no solid evidence that this has happened to anyone in all of human history. And none of us really believes that we're so special, we'll be the first Brian-being to ever exist.
Life will keep on unfolding until we die. New things will keep happening to us. We will keep changing until change comes to an end.
That's all good. And inevitable. Which is why I call it "good."
Yet Brian is nowhere in all of this. So stop believing that He/She/It is. There's nothing good, nor anything bad, that Brian can do for you or to you. Wake up and smell the reality coffee.
Brian either is nothing, non-existent, or nothing that affects humans in any sort of extraordinary way. In either case, Brian is nothing.
If you disagree, take up the challenge in my previous post.
Let's imagine a game show: "Who Has Been Made Better by Brian?"
A dozen people sit in chairs on stage. The contestant -- let's say it's you -- has to figure out which of the individuals, if any, has an intimate relationship with Brian, and which are Brianless.
How would you tell? What questions would you ask?
Given the opportunity to conduct background research on these people, what evidence could you gather that would allow you to say, "Person X is better because of Brian"?
None. If gathering such evidence were possible, it would have been done by now.

rakesh, I don't understand what you're getting at. I am visible. There is plenty of evidence of me. I can be touched, seen, and all that. So can you.

God is completely different. There is no evidence that God exists. There is lots of evidence that you and I exist.

I don't get your point. Simply substituting one word for another doesn't make them equal.

Now we have returned to some civility, nice to see this here and on the other post with Manish......TAO you are a true gentleman......

Sorry, while writing this i noticed Rakesh's attempt at incivility...Come on Rakesh be civil & join in if you have something tangible to say!

Let's return to the question.
My only experience of this is when people have an urge to change and they do this by coming onto a new path. I have witnessed individuals change a great deal but to me it has nothing to do with coming onto a path BUT a realisation they need to change their ways in the eyes of society.
I have spoken to people who claim they were 'terra ways' or of causing nuisance to others and themselves, prior to coming on a path and they were looking to straighten themselves out.
Hence you see this amongst all faiths and religions. People who want to change and be accepted within a new community. ACCEPTED being the appropriate terminology. They feel they now belong and shake off their previous existence.....and to most who follow these faiths...it was GOD who changed them! No proof whatsoever of this but FAITH never the less.

On another point...loosely connected;
It is said amongst RS folk that the Master {GIHF} meets you at your death!?!
Now this has sometimes happened according to some but not to others. On a personal point my Grand Mother passed away some years ago and I was at the hospital with both my Grand Father And Father. They both claimed the Great Master appeared besides my GM. Soon after she passed away. I could not confirm this either way....but I definitely did not see anything. Again I feel this was a case of Faith and the need to justify their belief. On another occasion my partners Nan passed away in a great deal of pain and sorrow, who was also an initiate.
I am not claiming anything here but to follow on from Brian’s question.

Brian, exactly, God does not exist for you. God is nothing but energy. That is what I believe. Everything that we can see, touch etc., etc., is becouse of its internal energy. What evidence you require of energy. What will happen if there is no light energy Whatever be the source. what will happen if there is no gravitational, centripetal or cetrifugal force.

Let us not get carried away by idea of God of a common man who looks for a shelter in Him for so many resons.

Goodness of so called God is very much there, He can not be like you and me.

with kind regards

Dear Brian,

I regret that you did not choose to "let the record stand." By your deletion of the five abusive notes you excised (some time after your local 6:13 AM), you have thus sought to make "invisible" a part of the facts of history (and of two seemingly real personalities in their vicious conflict). It may be nice that they have (at least outwardly) apologized to each other - but the facts of the past still stand. I'm glad I copied what they said before you decided to hide those facts of what they said. Wu was not exercised here.

Robert Paul Howard

Robert, I was asked by one of the parties to delete his comments. Whenever someone asks that this be done, I do it.

Also, as noted before, I'm getting closer to a zero tolerance policy on non-sensical ranting. As you observe, it's yawn-producing. And disturbing to blog visitors who want to see courteous meaningful discussions, not profane insults.

I don't want to encourage ranters by giving them a soapbox. Let them start their own blog -- it's free and easy to do -- if they have something to say that they believe the world wants to hear.

In the end... it's my blog, and I have to do what feels right with it. Just like with my philosophy and life in general.

Dear Brian,

That's obvious.

Robert Paul Howard

shams-i-ta (aka ashy perhaps?) has stated:

"the resident 'churchless' advanced mouthpiece over here"

-- Wrong. I am simply one commenter with his own personal opinions and conclusions, and not any such "mouthpiece" for anyone or anything.

"Could be one of 4 things that might have 'happened'
1. He had a genuine Damascus moment - just as Saul of Tarsus might have had [...]perhaps tAo discovered after all that he is closer both spiritually and ideologically to the very satsangis he so intently tries to admonish and eventually realizes not only is he one and the same, but also that it is better to join them when you cannot beat them."

-- This is an incorrect and faulty supposition. I am NOT "closer" to satsangis at all. I share nothing in common with RS satsangi believers, other than simply having received the so-called 'initiation' some 30 plus years ago. I hold nothing in common with RS satsangis, not spiritually, nor ideologically, and I have never done so. I have not previously, and do not now subscribe to any of the Santmat/RS theology, beliefs, or practices. And I have now neither "joined" them, nor have they "beat" me. I do not entertain, accept, or follow any aspect of Santmat/RS path, belief system, or guru-cult.

"Could be one of 4 things that might have 'happened'
2. His mentor and GIHF churchless puppeteer, the conductor and orchestrator of this here little circus act perhaps started seeing the fallibility and exposed irreverence screaming through all the topics and called him to book, and suggested he try the opposite tack and become civil and humble instead of antagonist and despicable, and in so doing 'turn the other cheek' and win friends and influence uncles. If such be the case..."

-- This too is a very incorrect and faulty suppostion. Such is definitely NOT "the case". Brian is not my mentor in any sense whatsoever. Brian is also not a "conductor and orchestrator" and this blog is not a "little circus act". Brian has said nothing to me to censor me, nor "called" me out on anything. My posts have not been as an "antagonist" nor have they been "despicable". That is a complete distortion of both the facts and my intentions. Brian has neither asked, nor made me be "civil and humble". I am my own person, and do not take orders from anyone. What I said to Manish and George was solely from my own will and choosing. And I meant exactly what I said to them... and its really none of your business to attempt to put any questionable or derogatory spin upon it. It was an honest personal communication to those individuals.

"Could be one of 4 things that might have 'happened'...
3. That all the chafing ego bashing, all the to and fro consternation by those who will simply not be chided into submission has had its eventual desired effect, the raging rabid bulldog became the love lost puppy he always was and looked within and discovered far better to be a love lost puppy than a raging rabid bulldog [...] from all the raging rabid intellectual debauchery that is this frenzied antagonism against others"

-- This is an even more incorrect and faulty suppostion. There was no such "chafing ego bashing", "consternation", or "chided into submission". There was no "eventual desired effect". I am not a "raging rabid bulldog", nor am I a "love lost puppy". This is an extreme distortion and misrepresentation of my character and my persona. I did no such 'looking within', nor did I 'discover' any such thing. My posts and commenbts were never "raging rabid intellectual debauchery" nor any so-called "frenzied antagonism against others". This too is a gross misrepresentation of facts, done deliberately and intentionally to ridicule, demaean, and discredit my many valid points, arguements, opinions, and criticisms regarding the RS belief system, its dogma, and some of its more fanatical adherents.

"Could be one of 4 things that might have 'happened'...
4. Its all one big circus clown act, from beginning to end, that nobody really is all that sincere about anything anywhere in cyberspace, say one thing today, quite the opposite tomorrow. That when all is said and done intellectuality really don't cut any ice anywhere and essentially it is the soul that has the last word anyway."

-- This supposition is extremely far off the mark as well. My comments and discussions here over the past four years have not been any such "big circus clown act". Whatever I have may have said was quite haonest and "sincere". Moreover, "intellectuality" is basic to a discussion forum such as this. This is not meditation. This is Brian's personal blog with a section for comments and discussions. Discussion requires intellect. For that reason, your assertion that "intellectuality" somehow doesn't "cut" it is qite obviously terribly lame. And to say, "essentially it is the soul that has the last word anyway", is more or less meaningless. The so-called "soul" is merely an unproven concept. SAnd there is no such "last word" about anything. This is empty nonsense, imo.

"Perhaps tAo has realized after all that it is far better to become human and humble than act like a puffed up ponce looking to score brownie points in cyberspace"

-- I am already human and humble, and I was long before you ever showed up here. I am no such "puffed up ponce", nor am I "looking to score brownie points" with anyone or anything. I post my thoughts, opinions, criticisms, and conclusions. Just like eveyone else does. Thats all. And my thoughts, reasoning, opinions, and comments have hardly been "falsely deluded". So your attempt to ridicule and discredit me is a complete failure. It only reveals your underhanded agenda and personal derision.

"the underlying cause or reason for the sudden turnaround"

-- There is no such "turnaround". I meant everything I said to Manish and to George. But that does not change my truth and over-all views.

"it is most definitely a welcome surprise to witness that [...] there is still hope [...] to shed the ravaged skin of dogmatic churchlessness and be who you actually are, and who you eventually will by natural concurrence automatically become."

-- I have not "shed" anything, nor have I not been 'who I actually am'. I also have nothing to "become". My path is of the heart... the same one path as was revealed by all the prophets. And clearly, you have yet to know anything of the ways, whys and wherefores of my Iman. Concern yourself only with your own path, and don't speculate or fantasize about mine.

TAO clearly understood the need for civility and the unmistakable route these threads and forums were taking. Both George & Manish were blatant with their Attacks...yes I would say Attacks and if TAO did not step in to ease tensions, who knows where they would have taken it!

I for one am glad this has occurred and also how Brian has acted to defuse matters. He could have left those comments, which others including myself have requested. As they were both abusive & abhorrent. Others who wanted to visit the site would have seen the nature of so called RS followers. But Brian thought otherwise and wanted to ensure....yes that word again Civility remains.

Those who want to 'Bash' the non believers can go and set up their own forums and can Bash away to their hearts content!
Furthermore I echo TOA’s thoughts & I have stated on at least a couple of occasions.....don't concern yourselves over us and your perceptions of our eventual demise of damnation BUT concentrate on your own paths and what your Master has continually asked you to do.


For the record:

1) It takes two to tango
2) I am not an RS follower.
3) Civility and bashing cut both ways.

For the record:

To Everyone:

Let me repeat and emphasize (for anyone who doubts or wishes to distort my intent and meaning...

My apologies to Manish and George were and are very sincere, and I have no more enmity towards either one. I meant exactly what I said. I respect them both, and their points of view. And even though I have not yet heard a response from Manish, George has responded in like kind to my apology, and so I trust that he and I now have now reconciled our differences and have a mutual good feeling and respect between us.

I think initially George and I somehow unfortunately got off on the wrong foot with each other, but I take responsibility for any fault of m,ine in that, and so has George for his. So I feel that he he and I are no longer at odds with each other. George can confirm his feelings about this if he so wishes. And furthermorre, I am now actually very glad George is here and I feel that he is no doubt a fine and intellignt fellow who has the best intentions (as do I) and he also brings a sober, rational, and critical sensibility to this group.

As for Manish, he has his beliefs and faith in RS, and I have no issue against him in any way. I respect his chosen path, and I support and defend his sincere search for truth, his questions about why others have joined and then left RS, and his own firm faith in the RS path. His spiritual orientation and his life is no less valid than my own, regardless of any minor differences or similarities between them. Just as I have communicated to George, I wish Manish the best as well. And I hope he returns to share and find benefit in our group. He is one of us, and I hope he comes back.

We all can all be friends. There is no reason for any of to us to be at odds with each other. Out of all the billions of people in the world, Life, God, and/or Destiny has brought us all together here. We should have respect and value each other. We should value all other lives as no less important than our own.

For my own position or influence here, I only wish to be a benign force and a postive contribution. We cannot expect to gain any greater truth or understanding etc, as long as we fail to have unity and peace between one another.

The world has been at odds for far too long. We should all work together towards truth, tolerance, human cooperation, peace, and a better future. So treating each other with tolerance and kindness and mutual respect, is basic and fundamental toward that goal. We cannot expect to move towards greater peace and freedom and happiness for all, if we cannot put our relativly petty and trivial differences to rest here.

So this is why I have extended my sincere hand in reconciliation to Manish and George (as well as all and anyone else whom I may have offended or unduly criticised). It is only for the reason I have stated above. I believe George understands this and feels the same way, and so does brian and others.

I am also hoping that our brother Manish will not have departed yet, and will receive and accept my sincere gesture. I believe that he too is a very good fellow, and I feel that he has good intentions as well.

If any doubt the my words above, let him measure him/her own self against them. And if there is any fault or mistake in what I have said above, then I bear the responsibility and offer my deepest sincere apologies. My intent is not to trouble anyone.

Thank you, and my best wishes to everyone.


Must be a Damascus moment, cause it sure is like chalk and cheese

But nevertheless it is a welcome and most concerting change and swing around, so to you tAo 'ol dude, well done for taking the low road, it is by far the better one to take in all and every nondiscriminatory antagonistic conflict where ego's are bound to get bruised and chafed.

You are quite correct in one summation, each and every seeker after true sincere truth has his or her own value, and lord knows what that is, in spite of every consternating effort brought about by antithesis to it, truth eventually will suffice, and no amount of anti sentiment will in any way lessen its grandeur.

From whichever quarter an individual approaches his or her Damascus, it is almost inconsequential because ultimately what truly counts is reaching the destination, either this a way or that, the destination is essentially what counts.

And funny thing is, all roads do in fact ultimately lead to Rome, just ask Judas Iscariot or Pontius Pilot or Saul of Tarsus for that matter.

From tAo's own heart

'My path is of the heart... the same one path as was revealed by all the prophets'.

Here is one line as attributed to tAo above, uttered by his own admission which I find extremely, not only contradictory to what he and others in his camp have been fighting tooth and nail against, but in fact I find rather highly encouraging to see that all this hullabaloo of being skeptical and rational and reasoning with the cold clear rationale of sharpened scientific intellect, in fact gets tossed out the window when true humility and humanity comes into play.

So in effect what we are agreeing to here is that true spirituality, or true understanding, or true internal awakening is really, when push comes to shove, a path of (or from) the heart, I mean you have said it yourself, and this same one path has been revealed by ALL the prophets.

So pray please tell me again, where is all this skeptical contradiction, I mean Ashy said it a while back already that all true teachers speak from the same experience, the same elevated frame of reference, and now you bring yourselves to acknowledge exactly that, that the true path to elevated unifying harmonious Oneness is in fact a path of the heart which all true prophets have revealed and adhered to.

Yes I have to concur, it is without a doubt a revelation to witness that the champions of dry cold skeptical churchlessness actually do acknowledge when all the myth of cold hard intellectual reasoning gets stripped away from the calculating individual ego, and they come face to face with reality that the One true path as attributed to and revealed by ALL the prophets, is the true path of the HEART.


kool, since your IP address and language indicate that you are Ashy, it isn't surprising that you agree with Ashy.

Why are you always so argumentative? Why do you always feel the need to play one-upmanship? Why are you unwilling to embrace courteous thoughtful dialogue?

You speak of living from the heart. Does the tone of this comment reflect how you feel we all should so live?

Its a test dear Brian, a test of absolute sincerity, just as you would test the verity and accuracy of everything you hope to someday cherish to be true, so why turn ones head away from challenging falsehood, if it is not false it will stand by its own integrity and sincerity, why try and protect oneself from ridicule if on the other hand you are quite willing to dish it out.

If we test the verity and value of anything, whether it be an individual or a concept or a philosophy, and are unable to fault it, then we should be man enough to acknowledge its validity.

So those of you who wish to castigate a path, or understanding, or an individual to be false, be prepared for that very measure of exactitude to be meted out at you.

What are we looking for here, what in essence are we seeking, unbridled unconditional consensus, or validity of truth?

One should be brave enough to accept and acknowledge, that our own perception (limited as it is) is not the be all and end all of all understanding, that there is still always room for growth.

And therefore if one opens the doors to contradicting theory, if we are willing to challenge our own perception or thinking to be either true or inadequate, then one should be willing to acknowledge that our perspective is not necessarily the true one, as scientifically, skeptically, analytically, rational as we would like to peruse the conundrum, we should still allow the heart to have its say, because you may very well find that at the end of the equation, the heart does in fact still know best.

kool, hmmmm...I don't understand what you're getting at. So you are saying that every path or understanding has to be accepted as true, even when those paths and understandings are at complete odds with each other? (like between atheism and theism)

Your attitude seems to be at odds with truth-seeking, where sorting out what is true from what is false is the objective. You also seem to be implying that if any path is criticized or castigated, then some sort of law of nature exacts retribution for that castigation.

How does that work? It sounds quite Islamic. Or Christian.

Me, I'm not into being afraid of a god or divine force who punishes in that fashion. Especially when it isn't possible to know which of the many world religions are true, and which are false. So like I said above, it seems that by your reasoning we have to accept all of them as true to avoid running the risk of having that nasty exactitude being meted out to us.

Yet it's tough to see how Taoism, say, and Christianity, say, can both be true -- at least so long as "truth" is viewed as being objective in any sort of fashion. It could be that ultimate truth is so far beyond human understanding that no path or system of understanding is true, which is pretty much my churchless view.


I agree with your points and glad Civility rains. Decorum was needed and TOA instigated this and appears you have followed suit.

In relation to 'Bashing'...this Forum was started by Brian for him to express his beliefs after being on the path for some 30 years. Hence people who felt something was not quite right with their chosen paths had somewhere to go and be listened to. It gave a voice for discussion and debate to like minded individuals.
Recently it has been hijacked, maybe that's the wrong word but never the less appears that way by individuals who express opinions that we as a collective have known and experienced for many many years....we know your views and wanted to hear the alternatives. This is what I meant when I said you should start your own forums......at least there you will have like minded people. But I am sure you are welcomed by many here as long as the respectability is maintained.

Kool/Ashy wrote:

"all true teachers speak from the same experience, the same elevated frame of reference, and now you bring yourselves to acknowledge exactly that, that the true path to elevated unifying harmonious Oneness is in fact a path of the heart which all true prophets have revealed and adhered to."

--I personally do not agree. How can anyone acknowledge that all true teachers speak from the same experience? How can anyone determine what that is and whether 'true prophets' are indeed true prophets? What is a true prophet? How can you identify such a one? What is true? Perhaps only eagles are true prophets and speak (screech) from the same true experience. Or perhaps only toads croak the truth. Or both. Do the terms Heaven, Sach Khand, Void, Nirvana, Truth identify Reality more acurately than gas passing from the anus of a bucking colt?

All this is based on the assumption that indeed there are true prophets. Christians say Christ was a true prophet. Muslims disagree and say Mohammend was the true prophet. Buddhists say Buddha was a true prophet. Christians disagree. Sant Mat teachings are completely different that Ch'an or Zen. Who is right?

I agree that it is a matter of the heart. Each must find his/her truth according to their own heart, reasoning and intuition, and that may or may not lead them to conclude that Truth is "elevated harmonious Oneness". What if Truth turns out to be degradation and disharmony? Maybe Truth is both?

All these things are ideas and concepts of something we know nothing about. Perhaps the whole thing is a mystery even to God.

No Brian I doubt you catch my drift at all

You are implying I subscribe to some god of retribution or other, very far from that concept I would have to inform you. I fear you have not grasped at all this path of the heart which your friend tAo is now suddenly proclaiming to be the true path that ALL creations prophets have laid testimony to or have revealed to be the way.

It seems to me you are intent to approach this seeming impasse between dichotomous ideological theology or philosophy, where in fact the opposite is the case, every teaching that is of truth, give it any name or category you like, from Zoroaster to Buddha, to Lao Tsu, to Christ, to Shamas Tabriz or Kabir or Nanak is directly from the very same Anurag Sagar that Kabir spoke of, the modern mystics just give credence to it in their own language and in their own format which is attributable to the times we live in, just as it has always been the case.

So what is really new under the sun, absolutely No-thing.

It is as it always has been, we are simply parading through this three score years and ten in some vague hope to find some meaning out of it at the end of the day.

The prophets as your friend tAo has eluded to, come here in order to remind us of the perfect harmonious Oneness that still exists at the other end of the spectrum, we have simply allowed ourselves to become removed from it, separated by way and means of our debilitating separateness, our egocentric arrogance is what separates us from the same Oneness that all true prophets at all times, through each and every age of existence have always ascribed and taught, to and from the Heart.

well tucson, I thought you and your buddy tAo were like two peas in a pod, joined at the hip, birds of a feather in your accrued churchless assumption of what is true and what is false.

So if you care to read what your bosom buddy wrote just a short while ago, I'll transcribe it here again

'My path is of the heart... the same one path as was revealed by all the prophets'.

Now which is it, do ALL the prophets ascribe and teach the SAME True Path, or are they all at loggerheads with one another.

I tend to go with the very same understanding that your friend tAo has finally acknowledged to be the case which is the former, that ALL true prophets, saints, teachers, gurus, messiahs, swami's, avatars, teach and reveal to be the very SAME truth.

How does this toad at the bottom of the well assume this dark damp dingy well to be the sum total of all appreciable experience, when the eagle soaring in the clear bright lit sky is screeching out in absolute free urgency that there is a whole much greater enlightening awakened experience to discover and partake of.

So who is it you would listen to, the toad or the eagle, find yourself an eagle and try follow in its magnificent broad wing wake, if you dare, if you have the courage, and yes if you ultimately do have the faith (born out of appreciable verifiable understanding) to do so.

kool, as Tuscon just observed, your supposed philosophy of "No-thing" has some decided things in it, as your message indicates.

Prophets. Harmonious Oneness. Egocentric arrogance as a separation from the Oneness. From the Heart.

All these concepts are fine to believe in, but they have no more evidence behind them that the belief that Jesus died for our sins, or Allah redeems the faithful.

Each of us has our notions about what is truly real. But in the metaphysical realm that's all these are: notions. Hence, I choose to embrace uncertainty and openness to whatever evidence comes along.

way past bedtime over here

so long

But does the eagle have the courage to follow the toad down into mud? ;)

Is god not everything that is? Is there something beyond god? Truth is present everywhere, yet not as a concept, but simply as reality itself, which means that there are infinite ways to interpret it.


Again, your supposition of a supposed "Damascus moment" does not pertain to me. I have had no such similar 'conversion' or change of heart, as implied by your reference to Saul/Paul vs the Christians.

Is it so difficult for you to accept that I have my own reasons that are not at all according to what you would like to portray... for your own bias and agenda? And furthermore, "all roads" clearly do NOT "ultimately lead to Rome" in my opinion. This is yet another irrational idea which you continue to foist upon those who clearly differ with you.

I had said previously: "My path is of the heart... the same one path as was revealed by all the prophets."

You now say that that is "contradictory to what he and others in his camp have been fighting tooth and nail against".

That is not so. My own position remains very much the same. Also, I have not been "fighting tooth and nail against" anything. You obviously interpret me (and us) that way, but that is not what I myself have done or communicated.

You have your own particular personal agenda here - one which is not in sync with the stated orientation and purpose of this blog. You are the one who has been fighting against those who have left RS (of their own accord and liberty) and/or those who do not find aspects of the RS dogma useful. You feel threatened and obviously quite angry that other people do not and will not buy your authoritarian guru-cult mentality. That is your problem, and not the fault of others who have chosen other views and have gone in other directions away from the narrow RS theology, beliefs, and world view.

There has been no "hullabaloo of being skeptical and rational and reasoning with the cold clear rationale of sharpened scientific intellect" that has gotten "tossed out the window when true humility and humanity comes into play". The two are not incompatible at all. You simply desire to hi-jack this forum to promote your own biased (and angry) agenda.

I do not agree that "true spirituality, or true understanding, or true internal awakening" is a path of the heart. I said that I am on the path of heart, but that is not the "same" path as others. And my use of the term "prophets" does not include your so-called "masters" and "sants" of the Santmat and RS guru-cult persuasion. Again, you are attempting to hi-jack my words to suit your own beliefs and agenda.

You asked: "where is all this skeptical contradiction". It is right where it has always been.

You now say that Ashy (ie: yourself)) has said that "all true teachers speak from the same experience, the same elevated frame of reference". Well I don't agree with that. I don't agree that ALL teachers speak from the "same experince" or "frame of reference". It is very clear that they do not. Nor have I brought myself "to acknowledge [...] that the true path [...] is in fact a path of the heart". And as I said above, I also do not include Santmat & RS as being "all true prophets".

It is not so that "the champions of dry cold skeptical churchlessness actually do acknowledge".

On my part, there has been no such coming "face to face with reality" that "the One true path" is the "true path of the HEART". I am the same now as I ever was. I simply wish to open a way for more peaceful discussion without the friction of personal animosity and hostility.

So try as you may, you are not going to hi-jack my words and views, my reasons, or my intentions. You have already repeatedly shown that your modus operandi here is one of blatant antagonism, harassment, and vulgar abuse towards ex-RS satsangis and non-believers.

What you hope to achieve by this, I don't know. If you are really the disciple of RS that you imply, then I must wonder why you are not satified with that? Why do you feel a need to harass non-believers? Are you so twisted in your thinking, that you cannot accept that other people have a right to their own views and paths?

If you were the satsangi and disciple that you claim, then you would simply honor and respect your master's will that you not discuss or argue Santmat (or bother other initiates and non-initiates) on the internet. The fact that you continue to ignore that, only goes to show that your supposed 'righteous indignation' against the so-called critics of RS, is clearly hypocrisy on your part.

You can join the discussion and share your own views, pro or con... but just like everyone else here, you have no right to attack and belittle and abuse other people and their opinions.

If I can refrain from that sort of thing, then so can you. And if you don't, then by all means Brian should boot you out like he did before.

So whats it gonna be Ashy? I am willing to forgive and forget, just as long as you too can change YOUR cynical vibe and your derogatory tune (your negative agenda). Are you going to join the party or not?

If you have somnething positive to share, then I am open to it, and so are others I'm sure.

Fyi again, I am not at all "now suddenly proclaiming" a path of the heart "to be the true path that ALL creations prophets have laid testimony to or have revealed to be the way".

I simply said "prophets" But I did not mean to say that all are one and the same, or that "prophets" are what you are now attempting to hi-jack my words into saying.

My point had nothing to do with so-called "prophets" per se. It was about myself. You are confusing and distorting the issue Kool/Ashy. You are hi-jacking my words to fit your own biews and agenda. Please refrain from doing that. Thank you.

Also, btw, Tucson and I are very much in agreement. And same goes for Brian. If my words appear not to convey that, then the fault is in my own choice of words.

kool wrote, "well tucson, I thought you and your buddy tAo were like two peas in a pod, joined at the hip, birds of a feather in your accrued churchless assumption of what is true and what is false."

--While tAo and I appear to agree on many subjects we each have our own viewponts as well.

"So if you care to read what your bosom buddy wrote just a short while ago, I'll transcribe it here again

'My path is of the heart... the same one path as was revealed by all the prophets'.

Now which is it, do ALL the prophets ascribe and teach the SAME True Path, or are they all at loggerheads with one another."

--tAo can say what he likes. As for me, I can't even determine who is a prophet or what a prophet is. All I know is that some supposed prophets appear to see and approach life differently than others while others appear to be similar. I learned the most from an apparent schizophrenic beach bum repeatedly singing "Merry go, merry go, merry go round." He was, for me, the most "enlightened" person I had encountered in quite awile

"I tend to go with the very same understanding that your friend tAo has finally acknowledged to be the case which is the former, that ALL true prophets, saints, teachers, gurus, messiahs, swami's, avatars, teach and reveal to be the very SAME truth."

--OK, but I don't because of reasons already stated.

"How does this toad at the bottom of the well assume this dark damp dingy well to be the sum total of all appreciable experience, when the eagle soaring in the clear bright lit sky is screeching out in absolute free urgency that there is a whole much greater enlightening awakened experience to discover and partake of."

--I have no way of knowing what each perceives. Perhaps the well is reality and the bright lit sky is illusion? I don't know, but I think the same reality is present in the dark well as in the bright sky. As soon as you chase it, its gone...that is, IT then becomes objectified into what it isn't, but as what it is, it is what it is wherever it is.

"So who is it you would listen to, the toad or the eagle,"


"find yourself an eagle and try follow in its magnificent broad wing wake, if you dare, if you have the courage, and yes if you ultimately do have the faith (born out of appreciable verifiable understanding) to do so.

--I may follow the eagle and experience what it has to offer for awile or not. Same with the toad. I may end up spending more time with a duckbill platypus.

Once again absolutely nothing is being said by the stalker. Increased stalker activity is registered when attention is given to stalkers- that's a fact. So Brian, continue to delete or experience increased obsession.

Catherine, I hear you. I'm still deleting "obsessive" comments that are high on the ranting scale. But if a ranter changes course and starts to engage in some comment discussions in a moderately coherent manner, I'll cut some slack. For now, that seems to be the case here.

You say that "absolutely nothing" is being said by the stalker/ranter. I'd say it's "almost nothing." Being the optimist that I am, I'll allow some "almost" comments to stay up. But rest assured that if the content goes back to "absolutely," they will be deleted.

Tucson, the D.B.Platypus comment was very good and funny! It also cut through the mindlessness of hackneyed rhetoric. I find the following birds have a great deal to teach- Lilac-breasted Roller and Stripey-necked Moron.

Humankind's common problem is developing the awareness to know for sure.

Naturally, taking everything the schitzophrenic person had to say would have been nonsensical and so there is a case for looking at past mystics from today's medical perspective. Joan of Arc would most likely have been a schitzophrenic- the type that hears voices. Commonly with Schitzophrenia, a person will experience uncommon religious fervour in their youth ie: excessive praying, attending church services three times on Sunday etc.

To run with that line of thought; I was very interested to learn that many of the Rishis and Swamis in India are also frequent hashish smokers. Their concentration on 'higher things'is reverently regarded in India. I think it was in Rishikesh where a woman travel commentator was presented with naked ash covered holy men all sitting in small structures along the river, many grabbing their penises and waving them at her as she floated past in a boat. One considered it the height of abstinence to have grown his hair to the ground. Their spoken human and godly insights were vague.

After seeing that, I got in my car, negotiated some traffic, some business, some other things and I had an insight into the way I think today- all the people around me had washed themselves and their clothes, had cared to present themselves amicably, were able to skillfully manipulate complex machinery- car, computers, etc and they were working as a contributing member of a community. I respect these people more.

Back to Paragraph 3 and again on a different tack- it is tragic that people with personality disorders today are often unable to find adequate shelter and professional care. How frequently they end up without a roof over their heads in the filth of neglect.


I confirm their are no more feelings of emnity from my side, your apology seemed whole-hearted to me and left quite an impression. As I say i feel a bit ashamed.

I agree we probably got off on the wrong foot. My impression was that you were particularly goading and intolerant towards the RS bunch, whereas perhaps yours was that I was an RS follower troll trying to inflame things.

Honestly, I just like to hear both sides of the story and i felt one-side was getting shouted down a bit. Your knowledge on these issues is greatly appreciated, but i was hoping some sort of calmer discourse between you and ashy might have unfolded.

Anyway your apology says alot about your personality, which i never factored in, and i will no longer interfere with your robust discussions with the RS-folk. Again, i can only apologise for my irreverant childish barbs aimed at you and this matter between us is now closed and i look forward to reading more of your views.


Fair enough, but I doubt very much that 'we know your views' is accurate either. In fact, I believe even the brightest and most knowledgable amongst us knows very little about this universe, let alone what our fellow man thinks.

On the issue of staying or going, its pretty immaterial to me. This is a general open internet forum whereby i assume my opinion counts the same as anyone else. If there is some sort of seniority or doffing-of-the-cap that is needed to get like-minded folk on board, then i would suggest making it a restricted site.

As in life in general there are some ppl we get on with and others we do not, often in my experience, those we fight with most initially are actually quite similar to us in many ways and sometimes even become very good friends in due course.

My intention is not to ruin Brian's blog, Brian only has to say the word and i guarentee you i will not be back.


Like is said you are most welcome....the forum was heading down a slippery slope and now hopefully this has been averted. But there are others like Ashy or whatever guise he appears, who still persist with their agenda.

In regards to me....I am a fourth generation initiate. It is in the blood going back to before the Great Master. My views have been outlined many times, especially on my original foray into this 2/3 months ago 'good questions from RS truth seeker'. Without going into all that again I can only say I am having an internal battle and an external one with friends & family. There are too many questions unanswered and too many excuses to hide behind. I have been associated with the faith for the last 40years, well since my birth. I started seva at the local centre when I was about 5. So there is very little RS rhetoric I have not heard, read or felt. But throughout I never questioned and was just another drone. It is human nature to use your intellect and I feel I was finally able to use it without fear over the past 5 or so years. It might surprise a few here but my whole circle consisted only of Premie RS followers. Individuals who like my family have been on the path for generations...but it may not surprise you to know, many of these, well at least the present generation now also question and their belief has been shaken and it is only Forums like these and speaking to non dogmatic people are they finding alternative views.
Some may return, some may find a new path but Truly all I want to do is LET GO.....let go of everything which not only controls my mind but my body too.

"Is god not everything that is? Is there something beyond god? Truth is present everywhere, yet not as a concept, but simply as reality itself, which means that there are infinite ways to interpret it."

---Amaranth.....I like this......

In praise of the God who wasn't there, but who never left me.

What is God good for 'objectively'? What a deeply misguided question born of ignorance, and stated with such misplaced arrogance! To fully unravel the utter meaninglessness of such an intellectual query could take volumes of writing, but I'll give it a go.

First of all, whoever said God (or his/her/it's effects) was an 'object' to be perceived by a 'subject'? The analogy of an eye seeking or looking for itself perhaps conveys something of such an absurd enquiry; whilst not even beginning to capture the infinitely deeper mystery (read complex & nuanced, for those of an intellectual bent of mind) that is actually being addressed here. At best the eye can only catch a reflection of itself on some 'other' surface. But on investigation of that reflection, nothing of any objective substance will be found.

However, even in such narrow, linear, linguistic, intellectual confines can such a question be answered. On a wide variety of models or paradigms too (don't worry, all intellectual!).

First of all, let's go back to back to the scientific history of 'lucid dreaming'. For centuries numerous humans had been describing such experiences as very 'real' phenomenal experiences. The scientific community balked and ridiculed at such a possibility, almost in complete unity. It was impossible, they claimed, and those who described such experiences were severly deluded, liars or simply mistaken etc

After many, many years of this ridicule and dismissal from the scientific community, with the relatively recent arrival of brain scanning technologies, they, the scientific community, were to be proven completely mistaken in their arrogance, and actually *proven* to be completely ignorant. It is now, for the last 20-30 years so, a universally accepted 'objective' scientific fact that 'lucid dreaming' does indeed occur. Something the 'subjects' had been saying for millenia. They were previously labelled 'deluded'. And now it is commonly accepted that it was in fact the scientific consensus that was deluded.

How does this relate to what 'God's good for'? Well, despite the abject ignorance of our current sciences, I believe the 'connection' from the subject/object-dualism-free 'Absolute' or 'God', to the individualised human being is what has been labelled 'kundalini'. As somebody who has experienced this personally, and utterly spontaneously, I *know* this to be a 'reality' - with it's counterpart/reflection in the 'objective' physical realm. There are *definite* neuro-biological changes that occur in the human organism. After my experience, I have studied this enough to know numerous people have also experienced similar or identical 'objective physical' changes. Personally, I am without doubt this is a very real objective phenomena that, as yet, science is unable to understand. Much like lucid dreaming was. But, this phenomena is far, far more complex than that. And, I believe, even at the height of scientific technology, they will only ever be able to grasp the body-mind changes, not the ending of the subject-object dualism that this physically-objective 'bridge' leads to.

How does 'God' fit into this? Well, it very, very often transpires that those with a devotion or bhakti towards a 'God' like form (any form will do, imo - it's not *the-thing-in-itself*, merely a reflective mental representation of that which has no subject-object form) somehow, through some unknown process, 'awaken' their 'kundalini'. How is this 'good'? Well, in a world of greed, lust, desire for power & fame etc etc - Kundalini is unparralleled. The absolute pinnacle of sexual pleasure (multiple whole-body orgasms for men - yes it is possible) appears like a tap dripping slowly, whereas the kundalini experience is like drowning in a raging ocean of unbearable ecstsasy (yet much, much deeper than this does the 'goodness of God's' potential go, but how to describe that?). In the stream of kundalini can be experienced infinite worlds and universes, nectars and blisses, all simultaneously. The clamour of the worldly man/woman for just one out of an infinite strand of possibilities (fame, stardom, becoming rich, having lots of sexual encounters, lots of book sales etc) simply appears delicously amusing to one truely absorbed in kundalini/shabd, even if they be seated on a pile of garbage.

Whether or not science can objectively 'prove' any of this is utterly meaningless to the one absorbed. And even though 'God' as 'object' is not being discussed here, such a one would certainely know that this is all 'good', compared to any 'worldly' activity.

On another track, with all the recent shouting and arm waving from the atheistic, materialist reductionist quarters about the death of God (Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens etc), whislt seated in their relatively affluent communities, doing their world-wide book selling tours, appearing on TV at any given opportunity etc - how about a little humility and acceptance of their limited understanding and appreciation of life? In a world where the majority are suffering from lack of food, medicine, shelter, family, love, or having to work 100 hour weeks to bring home 10 dollars pay etc etc - How about we accept that for SOME, maybe not ME/I, that 'God' is indeed 'good', if not absolutely indespensible? God-damn it, I live in the UK and I see people, almost everyone I meet or know, that is suffering deeply from some kind of trauma or affliction or grief or whatever. The relative affluence, ease of life, support, plentiful material comfort etc being of absolutely no relief to them! Sometimes I ponder to myself, what if they just had a little of that 'good' 'God' stuff about them, that would allay just a tiny portion of their suffering....? Let's deal with hatred, bogotry, racism, greed, personal & group abuses, whether religous or not, as human issues, and address them as they arise - and let God be?

Lastly, to use a metaphor to explain how I see this whole discussion. But it would probably help to realise it really is just a metaphor, and is merely pointing to other insights not explicity expressed, ie it is not literal but poetical (duh :):

The scientific and/or atheistic search/deconstruction of 'God' is much like a race (let's call them moonies) of being that cannot bend their necks to look upwards. This is a race that lives by a lake, upon which a moon shines constantly. Despite seeing a crystal clear reflection of the moon in the water of the lake, the moon can never be grasped or 'objectified', because looking upon the water is to merely gaze upon the reflection of the moon, not the moon itself. Now, those moonies who are scientifically or 'objectively' inclined dismiss the reality of the moon because it cannot be grasped in their hands, cannot be measured; indeed, when they grasp at the water, even the reflection dissappears, and only darkened water remains! Hah, it is merely delusion, they say! Only water truely exists! Well, this may be 'objectively' true, from that particular perspective on reality. But if only they could turn their necks upward to see the *source*, then they would realise their focus or attention was in the completely wrong direction....

And so it is with scientific reductionism, seeking the 'objective'. Let's not forget that, according to scientific objectivity, consciousness itself does not exist! Neither does love, friendship, morality, racism, bigotry, patriotism etc etc! Yet - everyday in every moment we see the 'objective' effects of such 'subjective' realities. Quite often in terrifying ways. Nazi idealogy is certainely not 'objective', but we all bear witness to it's atrocious objective effects. Various levels of meaning of influence, all inter-dependant, certainely not all 'objective'. So why all this undue importance of 'objectivity' when it comes to 'God' or the 'Absolute'? I believe this is merely poor thinking, haughtily masquerading as wisdom or insight.

But, as I like to say, each to their own.

"I am free, my mind is free,
I am neither a sick person nor a physician
Neither a believer nor an infidel
Nor a mullah or syed
In the fourteen spheres I walk in freedom
I can be imprisoned nowhere."

"I know not who I am

I am neither a believer going to the mosque
Nor given to non-believing ways
Neither clean, nor unclean
Neither Moses not Pharaoh
I know not who I am

I am neither among sinners nor among saints
Neither happy, nor unhappy
I belong neither to water not to earth
I am neither fire, not air
I know not who I am"

Bulleh Shah

Manjit, thanks for agreeing with me. For some reason the tone of your comment seems critical of this post. Yet your conclusions are almost exactly the same as mine.

Namely, that there isn't any objective evidence for God or ultimate truth. It is entirely within the mind, or consciousness, of the beholder -- just as lucid dreaming is. So anyone who claims that he or she knows God (ultimate reality) won't be able to demonstrate the truth of that claim.

This seems to be your basic point. However, you also mention that your kundalini experiences are objective physical changes that also are experienced by other people. If that is the case, then seemingly some evidence of those changes should be demonstrable.

Anyway, aside from that we seem to be on the same track. Knowledge of God or ultimate reality doesn't produce any sort of objective observable change in someone, or cause them to be different in any way that can be demonstrated to others and separates them from "non-Godded" people.

I entirely agree with you that believing in God can be beneficial for many people. It's nice to have an imaginary friend. That can be very comforting, either for children or adults. The big question is whether this is anything more than a subjective belief -- whether it points to objective reality.

You say, "No." I agree.

Hi Brian,

No, I really don't believe you've engaged with my 'basic point' at all, instead, rather conveniently & easily, trying to make it seem as if I 'agree' with your essential *meaning*. I'd call that a cop out, but I understand your reluctance to engage more honestly.

A few points:

I said kundalini cannot be proven 'objectively' because I believe science is nowhere near the capabilities and/or enough research on the subject to do so. I even cited precedent (lucid dreams) as an 'objective example'.

Also, I said to even consider a 'God' to be subject (pardon the pun) to be a deeply misguided and ignorant supposition. Your emphasis of the 'objective' being exceptionally short-sighted, imo.

Lastly, the 'imaginary' friend you refer to, assumably because it cannot be contained within the test-tube of your 'objectivity' is a rather weak, and poorly thought out criticism. I provided numerous examples of where this lack of 'objective reality' does not even begin to approach 'reality', not 'imaginary'. Of these numerous examples of very REAL non-objective things, which in many, many ways are far more causal & world-turning than 'objective' things (love, patriotism, hatred etc) I mentioned the holy grail of non-objectivity (which you seem to have missed); consciousness itself.

Now, as consciousness is clearly non-objective, that makes this an entirely 'imaginary' discussion between two entirely 'imaginary' entities.

Do you see the absurdity of your deeply ingrained limitations of parameters? Or will you not even allow such contradicotry, yet exceptionally valid points as they demolish your entire edifice of argument?

Sorry Brian, I've been following this forum for several years, and enjoyed it immensely for several too. But this blog has 'lost it'. It is as fundamentalist, unable to accept & engage in contrarian views etc as any 'religous' group. Even descending into abundantly clear partisan censorship etc.

In other words, cheerio & I hope you and all your, what I perceive as arrogant & ignorant, Churchite followers all the best.


Oops, sorry this:

"Also, I said to even consider a 'God' to be subject (pardon the pun) to be a deeply misguided and ignorant supposition."

Should have read:

consider a 'God be subject to a subject-object duality to be a deeply misguided and ignorant supposition"

I believe this is based on your deeply entrenched, yet false assumption that reality=objective.

Though I'm sure you believe this to be so much more wise & insightful than those who believe in imaginary Gods who cannot be contained therein.


Manjit, just because I pointed out inconsistencies in your arguments, you shouldn't pack up and leave. Also, calling people names (arrogant, ignorant, etc.) isn't very persuasive. This is what guys did in my high school locker room to try to win an argument. We should be able to do better.

So now you're saying that there are plenty of non-objective things that are "far more causal and world-turning" than objective things. What are they? Oh, that's right -- you can't say, because they aren't objective. Yet somehow you're able to identify them as "things." Huh?

Obviously consciousness is subjective. That's a central point of the series of my posts on "The Ego Tunnel" and modern neuroscience. No scientist I'm aware of says otherwise. Awareness is subjective.

Where we differ is that you seem to claim that this ineffable subjectivity is more real than objective reality -- even though there is no evidence that consciousness exists apart from objective reality. Meaning, objectivity and subjectivity seem to be the flip sides of the same coin of reality.

One side is public, and what exists there can be demonstrated to exist to others. The other side is private, and no evidence of it can be shown to other people. So if God is the melding of knower and known, the eye seeing itself, there can't be any evidence of God. Which is what deep mystics have been saying all along, while religions try to make God into something to be known.

Pack up because you have pointed inconsistencies in my arguments, Brian? Simply saying things doesn't make them so, you know? I think there's some deep-rooted projection in there, myself. But I'm sure your Churchy groupies will think otherwise :)

No, no - I'm packing up because I've become bored of this blog! One less on my favourites list. Well, they do say less is more ;-)

It's okay, I have no need to 'win' this argument. The veracity and force of your intellect has beaten me into submission. I shall retreat into my cave with only my imaginary friend for company. Giggling silently, as I very often tend to do...

Take care of yourself Brian, I sincerely wish you all the best. Truely. Peace.

PS, I certainely didn't want to appear as someone calling people 'names'. I'm truely sorry if that's how it comes across, but I can believe it does.

For me, ignorant & arrogant are more literal linguistic devices to express a conceptual 'truth', as best and politely as possible.

But, again, apologies if they came across as some sort of profanity or un-needed putdown, most sincerely.

PPS - I would keep a closer eye on those on your 'side' of the intellectual divide. I'm pretty sure some, maybe one in particular, has 'descended' far deeper into the realm of un-needed, disproportianate ad hominem/put down - and subsequenytly praised for his exceptionally wise & insightful comments, and often labelled as even 'neccessary' to communicate to the 'other'?!!

Ahh, us humans and our blind spots hey.


Manjit, I wish you were correct, but I don't have any groupies, so far as I can tell (maybe they are hidden and unknowable, like God). Sometimes people agree with stuff I've written. Sometimes they disagree. But always they make up their own minds.

Which is my goal for this blog: encouraging people to think for themselves and practice spiritual independence.

Sorry Brian, now I really am getting into Ashy censorship type territory with my multiple postings (really, I am quite sorry about taking up all the 'comments' space :)

But I thought I should answer this, as it may lead you or others into interesting territory (my parting gift :oP). You wrote:

"So now you're saying that there are plenty of non-objective things that are "far more causal and world-turning" than objective things. What are they? Oh, that's right -- you can't say, because they aren't objective. Yet somehow you're able to identify them as "things." Huh?"

Actually Brian, I have mentioned SEVERAL of these non-objective things which ARE far more causal than many others; love, racism, patriotism, philosophy, idealogy etc.

If you look at the world today, much of it has been 'built' up by us humans on the ground of these non-objective things. It's actually quite interesting how these non-objective 'things' appear to be MORE causal than objective physical things. So which way is it, matter-to-concept, or concept-to-matter?

Look at how we organise the world based on insubstantial non-objective things. The 'force' certainely appears to be with the imaginary objective, causally at least.

Skyscrapers and cities - based on non-objective captialistic idealogy.

Sporting events - based on non-objective subjective desire for competetion and amusement.

Wars - based on non-objective patriotism, greed or hatred etc.

The list is actually endless.

Examine the neurons and electrons or whatever bouncing around at whatever level you wish, but over-arching MEANING and DIRECTION comes from the non-objective.

Deep stuff....

Right, that's definitely IT. Last post here, bash away at will now, no comebacks I promise. Out you come Tao ;-)

Manjit, I think we've gotten off the post discussion track. What I was talking about in this post was whether there is any evidence of God or metaphysical entities.

All the things you mentioned are products of the physical brain: ideas, concepts, thoughts, emotions, and such. Where do patriotism, greed, hatred, and all of these other "non-objective" entities come from? From physical human beings living in the material world.

You seem to be saying that science denies the reality of music, poetry, philosophy, emotions, and everything else that can't be measured or quantified. This isn't true, obviously. Science simply denies that metaphysical entities exist, in the absence of evidence that they do.

Brian said: "What I was talking about in this post was whether there is any evidence of God or metaphysical entities."

--By now this is almost cliche' but consider that maybe the difficulty in understanding/seeing is this:

Does/can the ocean find evidence of ocean?

Does/can the atmosphere find evidence of atmosphere?

Does/can the universe find evidence of the universe?

Does/can God find evidence of God?

Only if they objectivise themselves into concepts or reflections of what they really are. Thus, as such, what they perceive is an abstraction and unreal. What is real is simply the BEING of what they are and no way for them to KNOW what they are. For such knowing is unknowing and not knowing is true being.

All It is is just this being now and no one to know It. Hidden in plain view.

tucson, good points. I don't disagree, in the sense that what you say is a reasonable cosmic hypothesis. My quibble is with those who do claim that God can be known objectively, yet can't come up with any objective evidence of divinity.

I can't either because to show objective evidence of God would be to show what God isn't. All I can say is...This...and don't think about it.

Not very original and probably, for most, not very helpful either but that's about all that can be semi-accurately said on the subject (which is no object).

Two questions:

What kind of evidence would you require to believe that God is "good," intimately connected with individuals and has directly influenced changes in their lives? What kind of evidence would you find convincing?

You said...
"What you want to do, do it now. What you want to know, know it now. What you want to be, be it now. What you want to have, have it now."

Which God opposes this approach to life?

"What kind of evidence would you require to believe that God is "good," intimately connected with individuals and has directly influenced changes in their lives? What kind of evidence would you find convincing?"

---The word "evidence" could be confusing here. One person's evidence, is another's non-evidence.
---Goodness, connected with individuals is an interpretation. Again, my goodness may be different than yours.
---I would agree, goodness, can bring about changes in Ones life.

Dear Roger,

What do you mean by your (rather frequent) use of the capitalized term "One" (as in just above)?

Robert Paul Howard


good question....


However, in a dualistic blog and dualist blogging, I have no problem with One, using an I, or me, or you, or myself, etc. I don't see the big deal, whatever One uses.
Likewise, I don't make a big deal if Ones spelling is off. Ones basic message in Ones comment, finds it's way.

Best wishes to you,

EnnisP, in order to believe that God has an effect on people's lives, first I'd have to see some demonstrable evidence that a metaphysical influence has been at work -- rather than the physical causes and effects apparent in everyday life.

Then, I'd need to be convinced that the source of this metaphysical influence was an entity with God's characteristics, whatever those might be -- rather than some unexplained non-physical force (such as an everpresent impersonal cosmic energy) that science hasn't learned about yet.

So there are big hurdles to believing God has effects on people and this world. That's why I don't believe in God, absent the evidence above.


Some questions for you:

What significant, undeniable, proveable evidence do YOU have that there exists any so-called GOD (ie: an absolute ominscient, omnipotent, omnipresent creator of the Universe (space, time, matter, energy, organic life, and consciousness ?

If you have no such evidence of this so-called GOD, then why even bother asking if there is evidence that this so-called GOD (whose existance is yet to be proven) is good, or intimately connected with individuals, or has direct influence in human lives?

You first must show evidence that this GOD exists in the first place.

You asked:

"Which God opposes this approach to life?"

[Note: The phrase "this approach" refers to the approach of: 'whatever you want to do, do it now. whatever you want to know, know it now. whatever you want to be, be it now. whatever you want to have, have it now']

-- You asked "Which God"... implying that there are several, more than one God. But as was indicated above, what God exists is there in the first place? There is yet no evidence of even one God, much less of more than one God. So basically (at this point), your question is actually predicated upon a mere supposition (your supposition), which is merely idea, and is not yet a proven fact or reality. So in a sense, you are putting the cart before the horse. You are assuming and implying that there already exists a God (or Gods), and then you asking "Which God opposes".

HOWEVER... there is yet NO significant and conclusive evidence, or proof of the existance of even one God, much less several Gods.

So first, it is imperitve that you give us evidence that this God or Gods really exist (as you have implied), and then we can proceed.

Tao you are lost in semantics. God is inside of you. It is inside of it. It is It. It. here is your non-duality.

Brian said :
In the end... it's my blog, and I have to do what feels right with it. Just like with my philosophy and life in general.

what if someone hacks and deletes everything?
Are you sure is your blog?
Is what i am writting now yours?
Actually by you writting that comment I realised that I do not want to participate in this blog anymore.
And I would like this comment not to be deleted.

a, you are lost in semantics. Things are simpler than you make them out to be. My life is mine. Your life is yours. Each of us is living our life, not someone else's.

Yes, I am sure this is my blog. I started it. I maintain it. I could end it. And yes, I could delete your comment. Or I could leave it up.

If speaking of this reality makes you not want to participate in this blog anymore, well, it's your life, and that's your decision. Feel free.

That's what this blog is about. Spiritual independence. Do what feels right to you, just as you are doing, and as I said I have to do. We agree on that much.


You said: "God is inside of you."

-- This "God" that you speak of is simply a word and an idea that you hold. I don't see any such God, not within, nor without. I see only myself, other people, the earth and the cosmos. You say this "God" is "inside". But there is no thing inside. There is also no "inside". Inside of where? Inside of what? It is not inside of the body, because the body has been opened up and there is on blood and guts and organs inside of the body. So if this "God" is not "inside" of the body, then where is it "inside", and inside of what?

If this God is actually right "inside" of us, then everyone should be able to see and know that. But no one sees any such God anywhere, not inside nor outside. No one can find or show this "God" that you speak of. All we can see is each other and the world and the cosmos.

So... where is this "God" that you speak of? If this "God" is really "inside" as you say, then it should be very easy to find. But no one has ever been able to prove that this "God" exists. If "God" really exists as you say, and is "inside", then where is this "inside"?

Next you said: "It is inside of it."

-- OK, then where is "it"?

Next you said: "It is It. It."

-- That says nothing. Thats like saying "God is God". It does't mean anything if there is no evidence of this "God". But you haven't produced any evidence of this so-called "God" yet. So saying "It is it" means absolutely nothing. In other words, you are talking nonsense.

Next you said: "here is your non-duality"

-- Where is 'non-duality"? You have shown no such "non-duality". And non-duality is not an object, so where is "here"? Agin, you are not saying anything, but meaningless nonsense.

Finally you said to Brian: "Actually by you writting that comment I realised that I do not want to participate in this blog anymore."

-- No one is making you "participate" in anything. So don't "participate" if you don't want to. So your comment is ridiculous. If you don't want to be here, then go somewhere else. Its as simple as that. And if you don't want to be here, then why are you posting comments about "God"? So your entire comment is sort of ridiculous. Are you aware of that?

Think about it.

You fail to catch the spirit of A's comment.

By responding literally to each line of A's comment, you are implying his/her intention is to make a series of points.

There is in fact only one point being made that I can see, but only when the paragraph is taken as a whole.

Ok, last participatory post.

Brian, you said:

"Yes, I am sure this is my blog. I started it. I maintain it. I could end it. And yes, I could delete your comment. Or I could leave it up."

Yet two sentences further on you say:

"That's what this blog is about. Spiritual independence."

And I am the one who is lost in semantics.

Further on Tao (or Brian, Or .. we cant really know) said:

-- This "God" that you speak of is simply a word and an idea that you hold. I don't see any such God, not within, nor without. I see only myself, other people, the earth and the cosmos.

"I do not see any god" I see only myself etc etc. Other people....the earth the cosmos...

I,,,What is this I? Isnt it another word for God.The cosmos the earth. The cosmos,,the earth..cosmos is one word earth is another. myself another..How many things this I sees? I counted three.

Ok...This "I" that sees only yourself...is not inside of you, nor outside of you. is beyond words. ok. We agree. I call it god. God is "inside" of you is not different than "I see only myself." And I am the one who is lost in semantics. I said previously: "It is inside of it. It is It. It. here is your non-duality."

Clarift the semantics for me then:
Again you said "I see only myself"
What is "I"
What is "see"
What is "only"
What is "myself"

This I of which you speak of is only an word and an idea which you hold on to.

Actually I understand what you mean. Dont have to reply. Its a rhetorical q.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

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

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.


Post a comment

Your Information

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


  • 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.