Ultimate truth is a fool's goal

Back when I was giving supposedly inspiring talks back in my true believing days, I used the term "ultimate reality" a lot. It just sounded so, well, ultimate. And real.

I enjoyed thinking that one day it'd be possible to know the final truth of the cosmos, what the whole amazing deal is all about, the answer to all possible questions. In short, the Aha! understanding that would demolish the noncomprehending Church of Holy Fuck!

It now seems to me that ultimate truth is a fool's goal. And I readily admit that, in retrospect (the best perspective to view one's shortcomings) this aptly described me: fool.

Ultimate truth came to mind this morning when I responded to some comments on a recent post. Someone noted:

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

I liked the last sentiment. But it seemed out of sorts with the first sentence.

After all, if there are data about something, if evidence concerning some phenomenon exists, then it sure seems like we should be able to figure out what interpretation of the data/evidence makes the most sense.

So I said in my own comment:

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.

For sure.

Lots of people overemphasize the ineffability of mystical, spiritual, and religious experiences. They claim that it's impossible to describe contact with a reality beyond the physical, or of sublime divinity.

Well, if someone has an experience, that's something which happened to them -- an alteration in their consciousness. If they recognized it as an experience, then they should be able to communicate that recognition, albeit imperfectly, haltingly, with difficulty, imprecisely.

Having taken psychedelics quite a few times back in my college days, I can tell you that a LSD "trip" is a journey far out of the ordinary. Yet it is eminently possible to describe what it feels like to be on LSD, though the description isn't the same as the experience (which is true of every experience).

But what about ultimate reality, ultimate truth?

I have no idea what these words mean anymore, assuming I ever did. Like "God," ultimate reality/truth is a concept without any content, an abstraction that's absent any meaningful concreteness.

Ultimate implies the end, the final destination, the There beyond which is no more. What could this be in relation to the cosmos as a whole, all of existence?

Existence exists. It's arguable that this understanding is ultimate truth. If so, I've got it. So do you. So do we all. How would it be possible to get to the edge of existence and take another step beyond? Where would you be? What would you be?

Still existent -- if you were to have an experience of supposedly ultimate truth. Yet you haven't understood why existence exists, because "why" is a meaningless word when it comes to ultimacy.

Again, the ultimate is The End. No why's, what's, which's, or whatever's allowed beyond this point, or at this point.

We humans have evolved an ability to conceptualize fantastical notions like "God" and "ultimate truth." However, this is far different from being able to experience or know them. All kinds of things can be conceived which don't exist in reality.

We can, though, know and experience all sorts of other phenomena. This is where our focus should be: living real life, not pursuing fantasies such as ultimate reality.

 

Comments

[The Rambling Taoist]

Absolutely!! :-D

[Nobody]

Brian,

I think this video by Adi Da might be of relevance to what you just wrote...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KEcMCm4q0A

love

[Brian Hines]

Nobody, Adi Da doesn't make much sense to me. He says a lot of words, but they don't resonate with me. But I understand that other people find him inspiring, for some reason that escapes me.

[Mike Williams]

To amswer some questions in shot gun formation.

Human evolution: From sea sponge, to rare fish off
the coast of Africa, which exists to this day,
to monkey like, to human.

We have all their DNA and it is proven.

The big bang just happenned. No Higher Consciousness,
such as God was needed to create it. Consciousness
now proven an effect of evolution, not a cause.

The mind and soul do not exist. A brain with impersonal
thoughts exists, which the brain mistakenly personalises
into a "WHO".

Kundalini does not exist and neither do the inner planes
exist, as real places. The radiant form is also a
projection of the mind. There is no karma, unless
you consider DNA karma. There are no chakras and ghosts
and Guru miracles do not exist.

The human being created God, not the other way around.
The human couldn't figure out how he got here, not knowing
about evolution, or the big bang.

Priests creted the "WHO" and gave it an eternal soul,
which needed to be saved.

God, needed help from Kal. or Satan and gave them this
world as reward. But, does God need help ?

Everything eats everything else. Animals live in
constant fear. Would God have created a world where
everything kills everything else ?

Did God enjoy watching dinosaurs run around for millions
of years ?

All logic points to no God. This is a good place to start
from. Get your head back together.

I consider myself a die hard atheist, desperately in
search of God.

It is the only position that leaves me sane.

[Roger]

Mike,

Liked your above comment.

As a die hard atheist, do you have a belief or belief system in your die hard atheism?

I'm not finding fault in an atheism, however, I'm fasicnated with a belief or no belief setup for atheism.

Thanks for a reply,
Roger

[Mike in Wisconsin]

Brian,

Believe it or not, I agree with your criticism of my use (or misuse) of a couple of terms. “Data” was simply the wrong word to use. What frustrates me is that I don’t have a satisfactory term for what I intended. But in any event, it should not have been data.

With regard to the term “ultimate reality,” perhaps I should have used something like “ultimate knowledge of reality.” But even that change may not help much. It seems to me that ultimate knowledge of reality is a hypothetical idea we may never reach.

I participate in two philosophical discussion groups in my community. All of the participants are bright and well informed. But every now and then we get hung up on the various meanings of terms and cannot advance the conversation until we agree on definitions. Sometimes, it seems that spiritual terms mean so many different things they don’t mean anything in particular. That can be frustrating.

[tAo]

mike williams:

"The big bang just happenned."

-- did it? there is in fact yet no conclusive proof of that. so lets not assume thingfs that have not been proven. the big bang is one theory, and there are other theories. furthermore, there may very likely never be any proof, since the big bang is claimed to be the point of origin of space and time.

"No Higher Consciousness, such as God was needed to create it."

-- why does consciousness have to equate to god? i don't see that it does. we obviously have consciousness, but the is no evidence for god. god is simply a concept that some people choose to believe in.

"Consciousness now proven an effect of evolution, not a cause."

-- how is that? there is yet no conclusive proof that consciousness is a result of evolution. if you have proof, then provide it. otherwise its just another unfounded claim... just like people who say that consciousness is independent of the brain. there is no proof either way. so don't claim that there is proof, unless you can show it. merely saying things is not the same as proof.

"The mind and soul do not exist."

-- that may, or may not be true. and i don't think its wise to say one way or the other until we know for sure. also, this question lies in the realm of relative truth.

"A brain with impersonal thoughts exists, which the brain mistakenly personalises into a "WHO"."

-- i don't think there is any final conclusion as to the nature of thoughts. of course we know that the brain finctions through electrical and chemical means. but that does not prove that thoughts are merely and only a product of elctro-cehmical activity in the brain.

"Kundalini does not exist and neither do the inner planes exist, as real places."

i agree with the second, but not the first. i agree that inner planes are not real places. but i do not agree that kundalin does not exist. i have experienced kundalini, and very powerfully as a matter of fact. so just because you have not, does not mean that kundalini has not been experienced by others. it has, and it exists as a very real phenomena. however, what that actually is, remains to be determined.

"The radiant form is also a projection of the mind."

-- that quite possibly is true, but we still don't know for sure.

"There is no karma, unless you consider DNA karma."

-- that also is not known for sure. there is obviously cause and effect in the world. and so that may also operate in other ways. we don't know for sure. so i would not say that "karma" does not exist. i choose to remain open-minded.

"There are no chakras and ghosts
and Guru miracles do not exist."

-- i would agree with the latter, but not necessarily the former. i am not a believer in ghosts or miracles. some things can seem miraculous though, but there is always some logical explanation. as for chakras, it is quite possible that there are different centers of energy in the human energetic system.

"The human being created God, not the other way around."

-- i would generally agree with that in terms of "god" as a human concept.

"The human couldn't figure out how he got here, not knowing about evolution, or the big bang."

-- but where is "here"?

"Priests creted the "WHO" and gave it an eternal soul, which needed to be saved."

-- religion has created many ideas and things.

"God, needed help from Kal. or Satan and gave them this world as reward. But, does God need help ?"

-- those are myths.

"Everything eats everything else. Animals live in constant fear. Would God have created a world where everything kills everything else ?"

-- that all depends on your idea of "god". but what if god is totality? so then killing and eating is all part of god too. why should killing and death be not compatible with god?

"Did God enjoy watching dinosaurs run around for millions of years ?"

-- that supposes an idea of god as being a separate and aloof watcher over creation. that idea is illogical imo.

"All logic points to no God."

-- perhaps, but that is only one possible conclusion.

"I consider myself a die hard atheist, desperately in search of God."

-- if you are searching, then you must be entertaining the possibilty. but what if god may never be found through searching? what is god is always already the case? if so, then searching and seeking will only take one farther and farther away from discovering god.

"It is the only position that leaves me sane."

-- for me, the act of searching and seeking is insane. to me, perpetual seeking is doomed to perpetual failure. and that is insane. so imo, the only thing that is "sane" is to stop seeking and accept that which is always already the case... whatever that may be. seeking (searching) is perpetual duality and suffering. so the only option is to stop seeking...... and simply accept what is always already the case.

those who are always seeking, will continue seeking until they are dead. and as long as you are seeking, you are not fully living. reality is not found somewhere in the future. it is always here and now.

[Mike Williams]

Hi Roger,

I adhere to the jnani camp. The jnani
does not know if there is an afterlife,
or God.

But, it looks awful bleek that there is.

If I had to pick something to cheer
everyone up with, I would pick String Theory.

Science has now proven it is possible
11, or so inner dimensions exist.
Possible, the key word.

Something may exist. But, I don't believe
it is possible for our minds to grasp what
it is.

It may be something so far from what we
conceive, that all our theories are wrong.

I keep getting this weird feeling. I will tell you my weird feeling.

You know how it is to fall asleep in a rocking chair ? You dream all sorts of weird stuff.

But, when you wake up, you instantly remember who you are. You dismiss your
dreams instantly as out of hand.

I keep getting this stange feeling death
is like that.

That we are actually exist in some other plane and have fallen asleep there.

The believer, the unbeliever.......
all wake up in the same plane.

But, it is beyond our comprehension
to intuit it before death.

I have been initiated by many masters
of all sorts of yogas and groups.
Experienced everything there was
to experience.

But, all this is no good. It's not
eternal. Not true. I have dismissed it
as out of hand mental creations.

In my opinion, the advanced yogi is an advanced schizophrenic.

There is no line seperating them.
Surat shabda yoga is self induced
schizophrenia.

That's why a good master is always
nuts.

And, mental institutions are loaded
with people whom believe they are God.

Think about some advanced satsangi
you know. (Don't name them)

Is this person not nuts ?
I have belonged to scores of groups.

In every single case, the advanced
person is nuts, after you get to know them well.

The masters are either liars, or nuts.
Or, both.

Do you go to Al Capone for love ?

[Mike Williams]

"there is yet no conclusive proof that consciousness
is a result of evolution."
quote tao

Actually there is, I mentioned it in a post a few days ago
here and where the scientific paper can be found. See Susan Blackmore's site. It is linked there.

" -- i don't think there is any final conclusion as to the nature of thoughts.."
quote Tao

What a thought is does not matter, the question is
'WHO' is thinking 'your' thoughts ?'

The personalization of impersonal thought is the entire problem.

Don't need a science book for this one. A person will never
get to first base unless they answer this question
for themself.

This one question alone can create enlightenment.
Everything else is an escape. It is the first question
and the last question.

What is that by knowing... by which everything else
becomes known ?

Answer the question,'WHO' is thinking 'your' thoughts ?'

" but i do not agree that kundalini does not exist"
quote Tao

[Mike Williams]

" but i do not agree that kundalini does not exist"
quote Tao

I am a forth degree initiate in Sant Mat, although you
people don't know what that means. You only know first
initiation. The higher are secret initiations.

I lost track of the masters that initiated me in kundalini
besides Radha Soami (7 alone).

Instead of me explaining, read U. G. Krishnamurti. It's just harmones and organs. All physical.

"but what if god is totality? so then (animals) killing and eating (each other)is all part of god too. "
quote Tao

If a God exists, he already knows everything. What could he
learn from watching animals eat each other ?

This simple logic proves to me there is no God.
Darwin came to the same conclusion.

The big bang can be explained in miliseconds by science.
They say there is no need for a God to have made it 'happen'.
It is in it's inherent nature to happen by itself.

[tAo]

mike williams,

i know of no such "proof" that consciousness is due to evolution.

and i am fairly familiar with susan blackmore's work and memes, but i am not going to spend hours searching though her site just to find something vague that you have not specifically identified. so if you do have some real "proof" and n ot just mere conjecture, then please give a direct link to exactly where it can be found.

"What a thought is does not matter, the question is 'WHO' is thinking 'your' thoughts ?"

-- this "who" is also a thought. so i don't see what you are trying to say.

"The personalization of impersonal thought is the entire problem."

-- i don't see any problem. things are as they are. personal and impersonal are both merely concepts.

"Don't need a science book for this one. A person will never get to first base unless they answer this question for themself."

-- are you perhaps confusing me with someone else? because i never mentioned science. and what "question" are you referring to? if perhaps you are referring to the method of shri ramana maharshi... well i am quite familiar and well aware of all of that.

"This one question alone can create enlightenment."

-- again, what question are you referring to? but also, i don't believe in so-called "enlightenment". that is a many faceted myth imo.

"Everything else is an escape."

- an "escape" from what?

"It is the first question and the last question."

-- what question?

"What is that by knowing... by which everything else becomes known ?"

-- this is mere word jugglery imo. what knowing? and what is everything? what are you trying to say? why beat around the bush? be direct. what is the point?

"Answer the question,'WHO' is thinking 'your' thoughts ?'"

-- thoughts do not belong to anyone. so there is no question of who.

"I am a forth degree initiate in Sant Mat, although you people don't know what that means. You only know first initiation. The higher are secret initiations."

-- well now you are showing how full of shit you are. frankly, you don't impress me at all. you haven't any clue where i (or others) are at, or what realm of "initiation" attained. moreover, your presumption that i "don't know", is terribly foolish and ignorant at best. you know virtually nothing about my realms of experience. and btw, tooting your horn has the opposite effect.

"I lost track of the masters that initiated me in kundalini besides Radha Soami (7 alone)."

-- well, you just discredited yourself imo. this sort of pretentious stuff is lame. you must think everyone here is rather naive and stupid. you thought wrong. i don't give a shit what supposed "masters" or initiations you claim. your claims mean nothing compared to real experience.

"Instead of me explaining, read U. G. Krishnamurti."

-- the thing is, i don't need to read U.G. i know all about U.G., his life and about what he said. as a matter of fact, it so happens that i met U.G. and i spent some time with him back about 20 years ago, when he was visiting california. and i know exactly what he was talking about from my own direct experience. there are alot of things that you don't know about me and about my life. so don't think you have some special understanding that i don't.

"If a God exists, he already knows everything. What could he learn from watching animals eat each other ?"

-- i didn't say that "a God exists". and i didn't say anything about "watching animals". i simply said: "if god is totality? so then killing and eating is all part of god too." so you apparently have a way of misinterpeting what i actually said.

"This simple logic proves to me there is no God."

-- that may very well be so. but its not proof. there is no way of proving or disproving the existance of god. god is simply a concept that some people believe in. but i did't say i believe that. i am not interested in beliefs.

"The big bang can be explained in miliseconds by science."

-- the big bang is only a theory.

"there is no need for a God to have made it 'happen'. It is in it's inherent nature to happen by itself."

-- no one knows for sure. and there are other very plausible theories and possibilities. the electrical universe is one of them.

[Robert Searle]

Mike W.

"I am a fourth degree initiate..." sounds like Eckankar, or Freemasonry speak?

[Roger]

Mike,

Thanks for your continued responses. You didn't answer my question about belief and a beleif system attached to your die hard atheism. I'm not finding fault with you. You are an OK person. Could you define what a 'die hard' atheism is? In your mind, do you have belief(or beliefs organized into a system) directly attached to your die hard atheism? If you do, you are still an OK person. I do not find fault with you.
So, please provide a direct answer to my question. Thanks Roger

[tucson]

Mike Williams wrote: ""If a God exists, he already knows everything. What could he learn from watching animals eat each other ?"

--You make several assumptions here...

a) that if there is such an entity called god that it would know everything. Why would it necessarily know everything?

b) That god needs to learn something. Why would god necessarily need to learn anything?

c) that god watches animals eat each other. How do you know god watches animals eat each other?

On what basis do you make these assumptions?
Where would god be to do these things?

I want to know this stuff. Can you clear it up?

[Roger]

tucson,

Are you aware of a 4th initiation in Sant Mat? I am aware of the Initiation that begins ones Sant Mat path. However, as one transends to the 5 spiritual planes, does one get initiated again at each spiritual plane? So, there is the physical plane(here) initiation and 5 more initiations, ending with the 6th initiation in the Sach Kand final plane?

WOW, this is fun engaging in conceptuation.....

[Mike Williams]

Hi Robert S.,

Of the three higher initiations, from a Yoganada based guru and a secret guru.

RS only gives first initiation, which you
have all had.

Never belonged to Eckankar, or Freemasonry.

Spent much of my research with kundalini
masters.

Shabda is the kundalini in Indian tradition,
but no such thing as kundalini exists.

Although you are correct when you say early
RS Gurus were not so secret about kundalini.
Modern day masters sweep it under the carpet.

I was initiated by an Agra based RS master also. One that still uses the old initiation. Everything is same as you people have gotten, but they also explain chakras on forehead. They go above Sach Kand
to Radhasoami Pad. So, this part is not
given Beas based masters.

But, once again, no such thing as chakras exist.

I cannot tell you the higher initiations.

But, can tell you, it will not solve the problem of the internal planes being mental fabrications.

But, once again, the internal planes do not exist as real places.

Some groups go to Radhasoami, and beyond and
do not use shabda, or kundalini at all.

RS is not the highest yoga.

Pranahuti masters are the highest. They
transfer energy from the top down. They are extremely rare.

Although the disciple can hear the sounds and see the inner planes, they are told to completely ignore them on their way up.
They go past seeing and hearing, into
'being that', which comes as a deep 'feeling'.

A 'You are That' type deal. Just the same.
How do you know That is eternal ?

Even if you experience That, how do you know you are That ?

But, you won't.

The mystery of life is still there.

Is there an afterlife ?

So, even if you reach the highest goal,
you stll will not know.

[Roger]

Mike,

You stated,

"Of the three higher initiations, from a Yoganada based guru and a secret guru."

"Pranahuti masters are the highest. They
transfer energy from the top down. They are extremely rare."

---Nothing wrong with such statements, however, you might be setting yourself up for some intense questioning.
---My concern, if someone has acheived the 4th initiation(something very rare) then why do you spend time at blogging?
---The 'secret' guru and 'extremely' rare masters are or might end up as the standard spiritual tease. This form of teasing occurs frequently at this blog.
---I'm guessing you have a belief system that may or may not be attached to your 'die hard' atheism. Would love some clarification in that area.

Best wishes to you. Roger

[Nobody]

ok Mike,
Speak English

[tucson]

Mike,

You keep saying things that raise questions as Roger indicated (above). I notice you didn't answer my first questions (above). That's OK. They're tough questions, but you seem to think you know a lot about this stuff so I have more questions:

You said: "But, once again, the internal planes do not exist as real places."

--I wonder if this world exists as a "real" place? Some don't think so, you know.

You said: "Pranahuti masters are the highest. They
transfer energy from the top down. They are extremely rare."

--Where does "high" begin and end? How do you know the "top" is the top? What encompasses the top?

Also, I have heard the Parapranasatnama sages are from a region even higher than the Pranahuti masters, but they are actually quite common. Did you know this?

[tAo]

Mike Williams claims:

"three higher initiations, from a Yoganada based guru and a secret guru."

-- cut the "initiation" hype. frankly, its bullshit. real initiation(s) are esoteric in nature. it has nothing to do with human gurus.

"RS only gives first initiation, which you
have all had."

-- not so fast. fact is, you do not know what sort of initiations other people have or have attained. so why do you make such an assumption? also, not "all" (not everyone) here are RS initiates. only some.

"much of my research with kundalini
masters."

-- well, if one has actually experienced and the power of awakened kundalini, then one need not have any concern (or research) with so-called "kundalini masters". the transforming power of kundalini shakti makes "masters" totally unnecessary and irrelevant.

"Shabda is the kundalini in Indian tradition"

-- not exactly. shabda is only one the of aspects or manifestations of kundalini shakti.

"no such thing as kundalini exists."

-- if that is what you think, then you have most certainly not experienced the power of awakened kundalini.

"early RS Gurus were not so secret about kundalini. Modern day masters sweep it under the carpet."

-- so what? it doesn't matter what
they do.

"I was initiated by an Agra based RS master also."

-- again, these type of exoteric initiations don't really amount to anything significant.

"same as you people have gotten"

-- you are makinbg assumptions again. you don't know what other people "have gotten". you don't know anything about the "initiations" of others.

"They go above Sach Kand to Radhasoami Pad."

-- thats standard sant mat cosmology. this sort of thing is simply concepts.

"no such thing as chakras exist."

-- you tend to make alot of rigid assumptions and conclusions. whether something "exists" or not, is all relative.

"I cannot tell you the higher initiations."

-- thats more BS. it doesn't fool me.

"can tell you, it will not solve the problem of the internal planes being mental fabrications."

-- all perception(s) is mental

"the internal planes do not exist as real places."

-- so-called internal, or so-called external... what is a "real place"?? well, this all depends upon how you define "real".

"Some groups go to Radhasoami, and beyond and do not use shabda, or kundalini at all."

-- i don't know that "groups" do any such thing. experience is confined to the individual. also, "radhasoami and beyond" is just an idea, a concept. this is all rather elementary stuff that has been already discussed years ago.

"RS is not the highest yoga."

-- well thats another assumption, which may or may not be true. who is to say? thats just your opinion. but i don't necessarily think that RS is superior. as for myself, i really have no need for RS or any other "yoga".

"Pranahuti masters are the highest."

-- again, thats merely your own opinion. i guess you have not been around here long enough to realize that opinions are not automatically regarded as true or factual. so you might be wise to become a bit more open-minded and less dogmatic.

"the disciple can hear the sounds and see the inner planes, they are told to completely ignore them on their way up."

-- "on their way up"... to what?? to where??

"go past seeing and hearing, into 'being that', which comes as a deep 'feeling'."

-- "being that" is merely words. and "feeling" is entirely subjective.

"A 'You are That' type deal."

-- huh?? what "You"?? what "That"?? actually, this sort of stuff is nothing but mumbo-jumbo.

"How do you know That is eternal ?"

-- what is eternal?? you make no sense. no thing is eternal.

"Even if you experience That, how do you know you are That ?"

-- what "That"?? there is no "That". there is only "you", me, and everyone else. "That" is nothing but abstract nonsense.

"Is there an afterlife ? even if you reach the highest goal, you stll will not know."

-- who cares? it is what it is... whatever that may be. so it doesn't matter. there is nothing you can do about it. so why waste time worrying about it? its not important. its utterly beyond your control. so forget about it and just enjoy your life.

[tucson]

Mike,
I hate to double up on comments, but I have one more question I need you to clear up:

How does a Pranahuti master transfer energy from the top down if there are no inner planes or stages? i.e. if there are no planes or inner regions then where would this "top" be where the energy is being transfered from?

[Mike Williams]

"I have heard the Parapranasatnama sages are from a region even higher than the Pranahuti masters."
quote tucson

There are no pranahuti masters living at this time. I was initiated by one in 1982.

When I say pranahuti masters are highest,
that is from the typical standpoint of RS.

Actually the jnani is highest.
Only the jnani is actually enlightened.

RS and pranahuti are 'experiential'.
Felt, seen, or heard. The jnani has the
realization of no self. It's not a experience like what most are taught.

Pranahuti is passed from the guru, to successor, on how to transfer. Even if the disciple is near the highest stage, they
will not know how to transfer unless the Guru teaches them.

There are no inner planes as RS perceives
them. Just mental creations. It is reported
Gurinder has said the same in open satsangs,
not to mention Faquir Chand.

But, there very well may be several other
inner dimensions as string theory points out.

I do not know where prananuti comes from.
I am not a master, just an ordinary person.

Parapranasatnama sages ? There are a zillion sages. Almost all claim to be highest for the most part.

Note to Tao,
altough we agree on much, I can't answer
your questions as formatted.

[tucson]

Mike Williams wrote:

"There are no pranahuti masters living at this time. I was initiated by one in 1982.

--How do you know it was a pranahuti master?

"When I say pranahuti masters are highest,
that is from the typical standpoint of RS."

--How is pranahuti higher than formless and nameless...no sound (shabd) even, no description regions of RS? We're talking about infinity here. What is higher than infinity?

"Actually the jnani is highest.
Only the jnani is actually enlightened."

--I thought the pranahuti was the highest?

"RS and pranahuti are 'experiential'.
Felt, seen, or heard. The jnani has the
realization of no self. It's not a experience like what most are taught."

--So a pranahuti isn't the highest master after all? I thought you said it was. You know, RS has alakh, agam, anami...indescribable, formless, nameless regions (states of awareness?) where even Sat Purush is not present. Sounds pretty high to me, but what do I know? What can "I" know? How do you know?

"Pranahuti is passed from the guru, to successor, on how to transfer. Even if the disciple is near the highest stage, they
will not know how to transfer unless the Guru teaches them."

--How do you know that besides heresay?

"There are no inner planes as RS perceives
them. Just mental creations. It is reported
Gurinder has said the same in open satsangs,
not to mention Faquir Chand."

--So, I guess Charan, Jagat, Sawan, and Jaimal (RS gurus and Gurinder's predecessors) were either deluded or liars then? Because they said those regions existed.

"But, there very well may be several other
inner dimensions as string theory points out."

--I thought you said there were no inner planes. I'm getting confused.

"I do not know where prananuti comes from.
I am not a master, just an ordinary person."

--Then how do you know if it is true or not? How do you know anything you just said?

"Parapranasatnama sages ? There are a zillion sages. Almost all claim to be highest for the most part."

--Yes, they all seem to claim that. So many gurus, so little time.

[tAo]

Mike Williams:

"When I say pranahuti masters are highest,
that is from the typical standpoint of RS."

-- why all this concern with RS??

"Actually the jnani is highest.
Only the jnani is actually enlightened."

-- "jnani" and "enlightened" are merely words.

"The jnani has the realization of no self. It's not a experience like what most are taught."

-- "jnani" and "self" are merely words.

"Pranahuti is passed from the guru, to successor, on how to transfer."

-- this is nonsense imo. you are not in control. and clarity can not come until surrender of these notions.

"they will not know how to transfer unless the Guru teaches them."

-- there is nothing to teach or be taught. it is not in your control.

"no inner planes as RS perceives them. Just mental creations. It is reported Gurinder has said the same"

-- why the concern for gurinder?? who cares what that guy says?

"I am not a master, just an ordinary person."

-- this "master" stuff is a myth. so why mention it?

"Note to Tao, I can't answer your questions as formatted."

-- well i don't see why not. my questions are basically pretty simple.

"There are a zillion sages. Almost all claim to be highest for the most part."

-- i don't know that the notion of "sages" is very meaningful. the term "sage" is just another super-imposed concept, a categorical contrivance.

consider this:

http://categoricalanalysis.com

[tAo]

LOL! all very good points tucson! good comment.

and yes, its all so very confusing... or is it, confuse-duh.

LOL!

[tAo]

To: Mike Williams (and anyone else who mistakenly thinks that my name/pseudonym is "Tao"...

fyi, the pseudonym i use is not "Tao".

the pseudonym i use (on this blog) is "tAo" (not "Tao").

"tAo" is simply a combination of three different symbols: a cross (t) or (+), a triangle (A), and a circle (o).

on the other hand, the word "Tao" is a term that represents the 'Great Way', or the 'Way of Life'. such as The Tao, or Taoism.

my pseudonym is not intended to refer to The Tao. it is not really a word. it is simply three symbols together... a cross, a triangle, and a circle.

[Mike Williams]

"So, I guess Charan, Jagat, Sawan, and Jaimal were either deluded, or liars then? Because they said those (inner) regions existed."
quote tucson

They were not deluded, just liars.

Faquir Chand confirmed with Sawan and Kirpal
that the inner planes have no real existance, the Guru is unaware of the disciple inside and is not aware of his radiant form inside the disciple.

Sawan called Faquir a Sant Sat Guru in public and Charan on tape. Faquir told Sawan he was going to change the teachings.
Sawan gave him his blessing.

Gurinder himself is now saying in open satsang, the inner planes have no real existance.

There are two lines of yoga. 'Experiential'
and jnani. Completely different animals.

Kundalini and pranahuti are experiential.
Moving though the so called inner planes.
These masters are not enlightened.

Enlightenment is the realization of no self.
It is complete and total. A`la Buddha.

So, pranahuti is the highest experiential yoga.

Jnani is enlightenemnt, which is not an experience. It shatters the memory banks of the false belief in a 'self'.

The 'self' can no longer function in a jnani. They are 'selfless'.

The public sees unconsciously that people
are 'WHO's' with selfs.

The jnani sees people moving around without
selves.

There is thinking, thought and motion of people. But, no 'WHOS' making life happen.

The jnani is much like an animal. They move around only taking and using what they need
from life and not hurting anything.

It is th 'WHO', personalized thought, that creates an image, that dictates most
peoples' lives.

People build their 'self' image. In so doing,
they trample other people in competition
for fame, money, prestiege.

The jnani realizes they have no 'WHO', therefore they have no 'self' image to live up to.

Saints suppress and repress desire and consider these attainments.

The jnani cannot have unwarranted desire
and needs no supression and repression
to keep him in check.

The saint thinks humility and charity are
big deals.

But, the jnani truly sees everything as himself. He cannot be humble.

When the jnani gives to others, he gives to himself. Therefore, he has given to no one.

The same care a jnani gives to himself is automatically given to so called 'others'.

He can see no difference.

The jnani cannot be holy, or perform good acts.

Everything is him.

[Mike Williams]

Hi tAo,

Your negative approach is very good.

I once knew this crazy guy whom would say
"Bull Crap", to almost everything people
said to him.

After awhile, I realized he was correct.
Most things humans say is bull crap.

And, almost everything the Guru says is
bull crap.

That's why Faqir Chand called the Saints
criminals.

I wish I had your attitude when I started
my long 'spiritual' journey decades ago.

But, I was a fool.

Experiential yoga is like a dog chasing
its tail.

There are two ways to get to a spot one yard
behind you. You can walk 25,000 miles around the world to it.

Or, simply take one step backwards.

But, the backwards step defies all logic.

The journey is not won after a long and
horrible trek supressing the self.

The journey is completed when one realizes there never was a 'self'.

A ghost is not chased away by a cannon.

A ghost is chased away by a broomstick.

---------------------------------------

-----------------------------

[Roger]

Mike,

You stated,

"The journey is not won after a long and
horrible trek supressing the self. The journey is completed when one realizes there never was a 'self'."

---Why does there need to be a journey, to win or lose? This needed 'journey' is another conceptualization. That said, I can see a conceptualized 'Self' creating a need to trek thru a journey.
---If I realize that there is no 'self', then why would I think of a 'journey' being completed? I see a 'no-self' not needing any journey at all. Just my opinion.

[Mike Williams]

"If I realize that there is no 'self', then why would I think of a 'journey' being completed? I see a 'no-self' not needing any journey at all."
quote Roger

That is correct, there is no need for a journey. Only a direct realization of how impersonal thought.... personalizes itself.

The question is transposed from India.
The question 'Who am I ?', should actually
be 'Am I a WHO ?"

The Western mind understands it clearer
that way.

[tucson]

Although Mike did not address most of my questions I feel he generally takes the discussion in an interesting direction.

I (tucson) said above: "So, I guess Charan, Jagat, Sawan, and Jaimal were either deluded, or liars then? Because they said those (inner) regions existed."

Mike responded: "They were not deluded, just liars."

-- Probably.

Mike said: "Faquir Chand confirmed with Sawan and Kirpal
that the inner planes have no real existance, the Guru is unaware of the disciple inside and is not aware of his radiant form inside the disciple."

--While Faquir Chand could have been correct, so what? How do we know what he knew? Why listen to him?

Mike said: "Sawan called Faquir a Sant Sat Guru in public and Charan on tape. Faquir told Sawan he was going to change the teachings. Sawan gave him his blessing."

--So what? Since Sawan was a liar, why listen to him?

Mike said: "Gurinder himself is now saying in open satsang, the inner planes have no real existance."

--He may be right but why would we trust or believe what he says? He has shown himself to be a liar and a crook appointed by a liar and crook. How could we possibly know what he knows anyway about inner planes or the lack of them? How can anyone know what anyone knows about inner regions or the lack of them? How can anyone be verified as an authority for any of this?

Mike said: "Jnani is enlightenemnt, which is not an experience. It shatters the memory banks of the false belief in a 'self'."

--If there is no self, then there is nothing to be enlightened. Enlightenment does not exist except as a concept.

Mike said in quotes:

"The 'self' can no longer function in a jnani. They are 'selfless'."

--There sometimes remains a sense that there is an object to which others respond as an autonomous entity. For example, the wife yells for the jnani to come to the kitchen. The jnani responds by saying, "Be right there honey after I finish taking a crap."
Some jnani's will just simply say just the word "crapping" without the sense of a doer, but still, even in this case, there is a bit of role playing as an ego or the jnani would not have responded at all since there is no self present to reply or to recognise that it is the thing that is being called to the kitchen.

"The public sees unconsciously that people
are 'WHO's' with selfs."

--Maybe more clearly the word "illusorily" could be used in place of "unconsciously" since consciousness is present whether it is under illusion or not.

"The jnani sees people moving around without
selves."

--I think so.

"There is thinking, thought and motion of people. But, no 'WHOS' making life happen."

--I think so.

"The jnani is much like an animal. They move around only taking and using what they need
from life and not hurting anything."

--They may hurt something. After all they are just 'animals' functioning, but there is not the intent to hurt. Just hurting as it is, as it necessarily occurs automatically during the course of things.

"It is th 'WHO', personalized thought, that creates an image, that dictates most
peoples' lives."

--Since the "who" is illusory it does not dictate peoples's lives. Lives are just lived.

"People build their 'self' image. In so doing,
they trample other people in competition
for fame, money, prestiege."

--They appear that they are making this choice but in fact it goes on automatically in spite of 'themselves'.

"The jnani realizes they have no 'WHO', therefore they have no 'self' image to live up to."

--The jnani realizes nothing. Who is there to realize it?

"Saints suppress and repress desire and consider these attainments."

--That appears to be their role as actors in the play.

"The jnani cannot have unwarranted desire
and needs no supression and repression
to keep him in check."

--The jnani may or may not express unwarranted desire. It depends on the script running through them. There is no one to have or not have a quality, so any polarity is possible in manifestation.

"The saint thinks humility and charity are
big deals."

--and as we know, they aren't any more a big deal than egotism and selfishness.

"But, the jnani truly sees everything as himself. He cannot be humble."

--a jnani just sees, there is no 'himself' to see things as.

"When the jnani gives to others, he gives to himself. Therefore, he has given to no one."

--Right on if you leave the 'himself' out.

"The same care a jnani gives to himself is automatically given to so called 'others'."

--unless it isn't given.

"He can see no difference."

--He sees no sameness either.

"The jnani cannot be holy, or perform good acts."

--right on although he may appear holy and performing good acts.

"Everything is him."

--Everything just is as it is.

[Mike Williams]

"Since the "who" is illusory it does not dictate peoples's lives. Lives are just lived."
"The jnani realizes nothing. Who is there to realize it?"
quote tucson

Personalized thought (self) dominates almost everyones lives. The person is not
living his life, he is living the life
the self image tells him to obtain.

The self image drags man by the nose.
Like the carrot before the donkey,
he cannot resist it.

The jnani doesn't realize the state of
no self. Realization (impersonal) realizes it.

The jnani acts without a self. When the self
is gone, actions occur of their own nature.
But, with a selfless response.

Action can happen by itself.

Compassion is spontaneous. But, the jnani
does use thought and logic to proceed.

The jnani realizes everyone around him
believes he has a self. So, he can respond as if he has a self, even though he doesn't.

Action is no longer created by a self.
Action comes from pure need and the enjoyment of the jnani, which does not hurt others.

Except for the first quote above in my post,
we totally agree.

The jnani can make mistakes, when his logic
is faulty, but not on purpose.

For the rest of your post, we are saying the same thing. Just using different words
and angles.

[tucson]

I do this not to argue. Just a discussion.

Mike said: "Personalized thought (self) dominates almost everyones lives. The person is not
living his life, he is living the life
the self image tells him to obtain."

--Life is living a life that appears it is dominated by personalized thought, but this is just part of the play...the mauj as they say. Any sense of 'self' involvement is just a bug flying at itself in a mirror.

"The self image drags man by the nose.
Like the carrot before the donkey,
he cannot resist it."

--How can it drag a man who does not exist?

"The jnani doesn't realize the state of
no self. Realization (impersonal) realizes it."

--I like that one. Awakening awakes.

"The jnani acts without a self. When the self
is gone, actions occur of their own nature.
But, with a selfless response."

--Actions occur of their own nature (accord) anyway.

"Action can happen by itself."

--It just happens. It always just happens doesn't it?

"Compassion is spontaneous. But, the jnani
does use thought and logic to proceed."

--The jnani acts because circumstances compel her to do it. In fact she IS the set of circumstances. Thought and logic are only contiguous appendages to the flow.

"The jnani realizes everyone around him
believes he has a self. So, he can respond as if he has a self, even though he doesn't."

--To the jnani it appears that everyone is clued in and does not believe they have a self. They appear perfectly awake. She is surprised when she finds out otherwise.

"Action is no longer created by a self.
Action comes from pure need and the enjoyment of the jnani, which does not hurt others."

--Action was never created by a self. Action just comes. Sometimes pain results, soemtimes not. Sometimes a jnani will be found hunting because circumstance dictates. Sometimes a jnani will be found saving baby birds fallen from a tree.

"Except for the first quote above in my post,
we totally agree."

--It seems we do. I'm just a nitpicker. But sometimes there are big differences in simple things and meanings conveyed by usage of words.

[Mike Williams]

Hi Tucson,
Yes, we agree.

Let me refine a bit.

The man exists, the brain exists, the self
image (personalization of impersonal thought, the WHO) exists.

The self (WHO) exists. But it only exists
as a BELIEF. Exactly like Santa Claus.

The person acts from this belief standpoint
that they have a self, or WHO.

This is what causes all the problems for mankind.

The self, or WHO, is not real though, even though it EXISTS as a false BELIEF.

Therefore, direct perception by a person,
that this belief is a falacy, is the only thing necessary.

Why would this be ?

Because after a person sees this for themself, they will not lift a finger
to wax a non existant self.

Supression and resistance against sin become
unecessary.

I am very happy Roger, tAo and tucson are smart enough, that they see the foolishness
of searching.

This is my main concern. This is a great place to be.

It is not necessary to take the one step
back and realize.... what one has intellectually figured out. In fact it
is not recommended.

You people are in the perfect place to be.

Again, this makes me happy. Please tell
future generations of people what you know.
This is the best way to help mankind.

[mike smith]

have you seen this www.truthcontest.com