« "Ground zero" mosque dispute fanned by supernaturalism | Main | Ultimate truth is a fool's goal »

August 20, 2010


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

A light year is just under six trillion miles...our galaxy is thought to be about 100,000 light years in diameter. The Milky Way is but one of hundreds of billions of galaxies in the observable universe.

The closest sun to our own is about 4 light years away - approximately 25 trillion miles. The Milky Way is comprised of billions of suns and, again, the Milky Way is but one of hundreds of billions of other galaxies.

We have Hubble to thank for this data about the physical universe, which has "opened the heavens" to our observation.

But this mind-boggling grandeur is all concerning the world "outside" of our own body. What about the world(s) inside? Can there be an equally, or exceedingly, grand and cosmic internal reality, one which has been historically documented by the Saints and Mahatmas Who have left detailed accounts? Is there an "internal telescope" that is just as illuminating internally as the orbiting Hubble Telescope is to the starry night existing outside of ourselves?

I would be a fool not to think so. The Saints tell us that the human microcosm is a perfect replica of the entire macrocosm. If ever there was given instrumentation for ascertaining the secrets of creation, it is the human body and mind, illuminated by the indwelling spirit. The path to such exalted knowledge is internal, not external.

What is needed is simply a humble desire to know, beginning with the realization that one does not know. To know nothing and have the belief that one knows everything is the height of ignorance. To know much, and yet consider that one knows nothing, marks the beginning of real anguish and angst. One then feels the pains of separation from the Maker, the Supreme Being...i.e. God.

There is an Original Author of this incomprehensibly enormous and refulgent creation and He has provided a means whereby all the secrets of the microcosm, as well as the macrocosm, can be known. The secrets are hidden within the human cosmology. One need only find the medium and correct methodology to proceed within, under the tutelage of the True Guide.

I don't know anything except that I would like to meet the Original Author and get His Darshan - indeed, this is the very purpose of my existence as an individual conscous entity.

albert, your sentiments are sincere, and I can understand your desire to experience a hypothesized "inner" cosmos that is even more majestic than the outer.

However, what you speak of is analogous to what all religious believers consider to be true. Meaning, belief isn't reality. Followers of every faith believe that marvelous truths are open to them which are closed to non-believers.

What you said in your comment makes sense to you, but there is no demonstrable truth behind it, just like there is no demonstrable truth behind the dogmas of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or any other organized religious belief system.

So I respect your desire to know a greater inner reality, but I have to look upon it as just that -- a personal desire that is quite different from the goal of scientists to understand the majestic reality of the physical universe that you described quite well.

Thanks for your hearfelt and tolerant reply. I appreciate your openness, as well as your own sincerity. One's individual search is always personal and intimate. In my case, it is and has been intensely so. For this reason I cannot exclude or denigrate the beauty and sacredness of anyone's path, beliefs or attempts to find joy and meaning in this very complex and ever-changing world. Life, itself, is a very efficient teacher. Death can be a moment away or decades away but its certainty is unquestionable and its advent unknown.

The world ever seduces our attention outwards...the Lord ever is attracting us inwards, towards Him and the imperishable, undecaying realities internally. May you have deep and abiding success in growing closer to your own truth and love essence, Brian.

We are strange creatures - humans. Unlike animals, we are rarely content with the basic physical requirements of existence, food, warmth, clothing, shelter etc. These alone do not bring us contentment, we also want social standing, power, authority, a sense of importance, structure, and activities for the mind. But even these do not complete the list of our needs, apart from physical and mental needs, we have a deeper sense of needing purpose, its not enough to have physical and mental contentment, we humans alone seem to need to ask the question why are we here, whats it all about, for what purpose?
If Albert has found his sense of purpose, to seek the inner worlds, then why should anyone attempt to take this away from him by declaring there is no physical evidence to support any inner realm.

It is those like Albert whose determination to and commitment to discover that which is not known who lead humanity forward and it is those who keep stating the same old same old, there is no evidence, there is nothing to see, nothing to explore nothing to discover, who hold humanity back.

That others find no evidence to justify an area of research is fine, but do not discourage those who feel there is evidence, they have no need to convince others, just do it Albert, and I hope you find what you are looking for. There is no need to come back to this forum to explain your findings, the more active on here would not accept anything except a peer reviewed paper in New Scientist of the like.

Both of you are interpreting the available data from your particular bias. None of us knows what’s ultimately true.

Mike, if none of us knows what is ultimately true, then you don't either. So how do you know that "none of us knows what is ultimately true"?

Your solipsistic "we all choose our own reality" philosophy is popular nowadays, but nobody lives by it. Do you really believe that life is just people interpreting available data from their own particular biases?

I doubt it. You trust science by the fact that you're using a computer, and many other technological devices, I'm sure.

Plus, we aren't talking about ultimate truth here. We're talking about evidence that a supernatural realm exists, that certain humans have supernatural powers, that a part of human existence (soul) is linked to a supernatural realm.

This isn't ultimate reality stuff. This is just reality, and there should be some evidence for those things. Asking for evidence of Albert isn't impolite or challenging. It's simply respectful of reality, of truth, of the commonality of experience that is the foundation of love.

Sasha, no one is discouraging Albert from pursuing any personal quest that he wants to engage in. But when Albert comes on the Internet and chooses to make public statements about what he believes to be true and what false, then it's entirely appropriate for people to respond to his comment(s) with their own.

This is what a conversation is: back and forth talking. If people want to remain in their own private truth-seeking world, and not get any feedback about it, they shouldn't be going on a blog and talking.

I believe in God. However, I am convinced that if instead of saying Satnam, Radhasoami, Om, Ram or Krishna I repeat 1,2,3,4,5… with love it gives benefit of meditation. If I repeat 100 to 1, it gives better results.

Bharat, I've found the same thing. The less meaning we give to our mantra, the less we're inclined to think about the words that are being repeated. It isn't the words that are important, but the concentration, the focus, the letting go of ourselves.

Brian, I said that "none" of us knows; that includes me. There are plenty of well-informed people of good will who take some form of an idealist position or who take a purely materialist position. Again, none of us (including me) knows for sure. Any one of our positions may turn out to be true, but for now, no one knows which one (if any of us) is right. I never said that you can "have your own reality," as you put it. I simply said that no one knows for sure. Which, of course, is my particular bias.

Mike, I hear you. And agree with you. I just wanted to make sure that I understood what you were saying.

Which seems to be that until we reach the "ultimate truth" level, there are indeed ways of determining what is true and false about objective reality, and we should be engaging in conversations about this.

That, after all, is basically what science is all about -- an ongoing conversation about the nature of reality.

Brain, It seems to me that there are two ways of determining the value of one’s views regarding ultimate truth and/or spirituality. One is the plausibility test. That is, evaluating a spiritual outlook by how it relates to everything else we know about the world. In other words, does it make any sense. The other way of determining the value of a spiritual outlook is to see how it impacts someone’s life. That is, does it give them meaning and hope, and does it encourage them to be a better, more compassionate person. My personal preference is the plausibility test, but I suspect that the second way has a much more positive impact on society. The really fortunate people have views that pass both tests.

"one’s views regarding ultimate truth"

--this ultimate truth may be beyond one's view and mind. Utimate being a absolute.

Nothing wrong with having both ways of determining.
And, I like, "The really fortunate people have views that pass both tests."

The "really fornunate" term sounds totally KOOL........
What title can I get if I absolutely know the Absolute Truth? This is the one I need.

Brian, humming or singing in a choir would cover the breath control and the chorus repetition for 12 minutes or more.

Many traditional meditations and the approaches to life promoted by their accompanying philosophies, in fact cause disassociation as highlighted in your previous posts. In other words,social awareness may be promoted but not necessarily the accompanying empathy.

An advantage of repeating a bunch of words that one does not understand (as opposed to numbers for instance) is that one can sort out all the problems from the day before while doing the repeating- clear the charge of what happened.

Brian said, "What you said in your comment makes sense to you, but there is no demonstrable truth behind it, just like there is no demonstrable truth behind the dogmas of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or any other organized religious belief system."

It is also like many areas of science, for example, quantum mechanics. There was no demonstrable truth behind the concept until Max Plank came up with an idea, note - an idea with no demonstrable truth behind it.
Many other ideas have been dreamt up in science only to be later put on the back burner or deemed wrong. For example, aether, ZPF, Big bang and inflation, and so on.
That you refer to Alberts interest as a dogma is to immediately categorise it as a religious faith, whereas it remains a valid scientific field of enquiry until such time as it can be proven to be wrong. Unless you have some proof that the ideas and concepts put forward by Albert are indeed proven wrong, then the open conversation to which you refer should be that, open in the true spirit of enquiry.

Sasha, you don't understand the scientific method, or common sense, very well. It is up to the person making a claim to prove that it is correct, not for other people to prove them wrong.

Can you prove that I am not God? Can you prove that I don't have miraculous powers, such as the ability to know what you are doing right now? Can you prove that I can't levitate and turn iron into gold?

No, you can't.

Sure, when evidence is presented for something miraculous, then a conversation about it's validity should take place. But there is no reason to take crazy claims seriously when there is no demonstrable evidence for them. In that case, like I said, they are just religious dogma.

Or crazy talk, like the claims I made about myself above.

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.