« I changed a Bollywood actor's life... turning him vegetarian | Main | Oklahoma tornado tragedy shows absurdity of prayer »

May 19, 2013

Comments

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

Again, this reminds me of the "something" rather than "nothing" question. Philosophers imagine that an entity which shows no sign of existing does, then wonder how it can be that what exists isn't what doesn't exist.

Brian, are you suggesting that consciousness 'just is' with no possibility of not being, same as you are for something vs nothing?

Sam Harris gave this link and it is a nice counter to Dennett, though I like you am really liking Intuition Pumps..... very clear and quite convincing at turns.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8Xkdf4q0e4

David, I wrote about Giulio Tononi's book/ideas in this post:

http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2012/10/phi-integrated-information-the-fountain-of-phenomena.html

I don't really see that much of a difference between Dennett's and Tononi's attitude toward consciousness. Both view consciousness as thoroughly brain-based. Tononi says:

"Integrated information is the information generated by a system above its parts, where the parts are those that, taken independently, generate the most information... Consciousness lives within a system where integrated information reaches a maximum, inside its own drop.

...Integrated information measures how much can be distinguished by the whole above and beyond its parts, and phi is its symbol. A complex is when phi reaches its maximum, and therein lies one consciousness -- a single entity of experience."

It sure sounds to me Tononi believes consciousness can be explained. That it isn't an irreducible "hard problem." After all, he views consciousness as a continuum, with a thermostat minimally conscious and the human brain as vastly more conscious.

Hi Sandra,
Great post on the other Yoganada listing.
Excellent.

Now for consciousness. I do not believe
it exists.

The clinched hand is not a fist. The fist
is an effect. Consciousness is an effect.

Consciousness is the result of a combination of factors coming together.

Consciousness cannot exist by itself as a
freestanding entity.

Tom, no. That wasn't my point. Obviously consciousness can cease to exist. This is what death and serious brain damage produces.

My analogy rather is this: something = "easy" problems of consciousness: nothing = "the hard" problem of consciousness.

As I said in the post:
-------------------
Again, this reminds me of the "something" rather than "nothing" question. Philosophers imagine that an entity which shows no sign of existing does, then wonder how it can be that what exists isn't what doesn't exist.
-------------------
"What it is like to be a... [human, bat, etc.]" basically is the core of the so-called hard problem. But this is an abstraction, a human construct. There is no evidence that something akin to the "hard problem" actually exists.

Meaning, is consciousness anything different from what brains, nervous systems, or other forms of information processing do? Is there an entity called "consciousness" that is separate and distinct from what conscious entities do?

This may not be exactly what Dennett is asking, but it is close. Sometimes problems are best solved by no longer recognizing the validity of a problem -- by stepping outside the system in which the problem is embedded and seeing it from another angle.

Tom, no. That wasn't my point. Obviously consciousness can cease to exist. This is what death and serious brain damage produces.

I didn't really think so, it was just the obvious symmetry between 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' and 'Why is there consciousness rather than zombiehood?'.

And yet, when it comes to the 'felt sense', perhaps 'just is' is as good an explanation as any. After all, when you look at two magnets repelling, physics can describe the behaviour precisely with mathematical equations, but as far as tangible explanations go it ultimately 'just is'.

"What it is like to be a... [human, bat, etc.]" basically is the core of the so-called hard problem. But this is an abstraction, a human construct. There is no evidence that something akin to the "hard problem" actually exists.

I like what Tononi is saying about this. He's saying 'What's it like to be a...?' is actually one of the most important features of consciousness. Far from being merely a source of abstraction, consciousness is what makes things 'really real' rather than 'merely real'. By which he means (I think) that you can point to the world and say it is independent of consciousness, but in doing so you can make the mistake of assigning it a flavour of reality that belongs entirely *to* consciousness. Without that flavour (and I'm not even sure it's possible to entirely extract it) what is left over?

Hi Brian,

While they both agree that consciousness is brain based, it appears they depart company over the issue of qualia..... which is interesting in light of what is or isn't a hard problem.

Tom (and David), the way I've come to see this is, sort of...

Consciousness surely is a product of the brain, right? No brain, no consciousness.

And the brain is a product of nature, right? No nature, no evolution, no natural selection, no consciousness.

Yet advocates of solving the "hard problem" posit consciousness as something mysterious, almost miraculous, something separate from nature, because (as Tom said) consciousness is how we are aware of everything natural.

But consciousness is part of nature. It is nature. There isn't nature and consciousness. There is just nature, of which human consciousness is one aspect.

Thus I've come to feel that Dennett is on the right track. Don't multiply entities, or problems, unnecessarily. Don't abstract consciousness from the natural world. Assume that, like everything else, consciousness has natural explanations, even if we don't know what they are yet.

Mike makes a significant point, IMO..

"Consciousness cannot exist by itself as a
freestanding entity."

--Consciousness can only be a conceptual assumption without demonstrable existence. It may be regarded as the manifested aspect of the unmanifested, which is the nearest it seems possible to go towards expressing in a concept that which by definition is inconceivable.

This must be so because conceptuality can't have conceptuality as its source, but only the non-conceptual, because that which objectively conceives must necessarily spring from the objectively non-existent, the manifested from non-manifestation, for conceptuality cannot conceive or objectify itself in the same way an eye cannot see itself.

So, consciousness can be described as pure non-conceptuality, which is 'pure' because it is unstained by either the conceptual or the non-conceptual, which implies that there is total absence of both positive and negative conceptuality.

Not existing as an object, even conceptual, there can be no 'it', there is no thing to have a name, no subject is possible where no object is, and total absence of being is what inevitably is implied.

All we can do about this which we are, which for this conversation must be objectified as 'it' in order to even speak of it at all, is to regard it as the formless potential of phenomena, but, since neither of these exists objectively, regarded phenomenally it may be understood as the ultimate absence from which all presence comes to appear.

Consciousness or mind does not project the phenomenal universe. It IS the phenomenal universe which is manifested as itself.

This-Here-Now, then, which cannot be subject or object, which cannot be named or thought, and the realization of which is the ultimate awakening, can only be indicated something like this:

I am not, but the universe is my self.

This issue was resolved 2200 years ago
to my satisfaction. It involved two
primative tribes of sheep herders in
a debate.

Did consciousness precede creation, or was
it the product of creation ?

Consciousness was declared to be an
end product of physical creation by the following logic.

You take a grape. You make wine. You
get drunk.

Drunkeness was declared the effect of grapes.

A state of mind was produced from something
physical.

Therefore something physical can make something mental.


"I am not, but the universe is my self."
quote tucson

If we have no self, must not everything
be our Self ?

Mike W., your explanations by reference to practical examples seem very logical to me.

I don't understand tucson's describings.

Nevertheless, there is still the open question:

If you say: "Consciousness was declared to be an end product of physical creation by the following logic."

What is the primal ground, the "source" of the physical creation?

Do you mean that creating the creation doesn't need any logic? Did/does all happen at random?

"something physical can make something mental"

Couldn't it also be the other way round?

Yes, I agree with much of the comments that consciousness is an effect - similar to brain processes that give the impression of a separate 'self'.

Brian reflects the human dilemma when he says:-
"Reading Dennett, part of me feels... Hey, dude, don't take away that Big Mystery I've been so invested in fathoming. What am I supposed to do with the rest of my life?"

Exactly, we humans are programmed to look for meaning and purpose, it is part of physical survival. Now the mind (another effect) has taken over, it seems we are now cursed with looking for meaning through concepts - dogs chasing tails comes to mind!

Hi Brian,

Yes I quite agree with your view about championing a naturalistic view of consciousness, given as you say that it is nature itself in some way.

To add more grist for the mill, John Searle also champions a naturalistic view but has some fairly harsh things to say in his ongoing debate with certain reductionists. You may have seen this before, but just in case:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/jan/10/can-information-theory-explain-consciousness/?pagination=false

Sandra,

It is not to be understood but rather, 'seen'. All verbalizations of intuitional apperceptions obscure whatever they attempt to reveal.

***********

I am not subject to space. Therefore I know no 'where'.
I am not subject to time. Therefore I know no 'when'.
What space-time is I am, and nothing finite pertains to me.

Being nowhere I am every 'where', being everywhere I am no 'where'.
For I am neither any 'where' nor no 'where'.
Neither inside nor outside any thing or no thing.
Neither above nor below, before nor after, at either side of any or no thing.

I do not belong to anything that is perceptible or knowable, since perceiving and knowing is what I am.
I am not beyond here or there, within or without, because they too are what I am.

I am not extended in space, I am not developed in time.. all of these are my manifestations...all of these are conceptual images of what I am.. because it is my absence, my absolute absence, which renders concepts conceivable.

I am ubiquitous as both absence and presence since, as I, I am neither present nor absent.

I can never be known as an object in mind because I am what is knowing, and even 'mind', even 'consciousness' is my object.

***********

The birds have vanished into the sky,
and the last cloud drains away.
We sit together, the mountain and me,
until only the mountain remains.


Hi Sandra,
tucson has been saying what I have been
saying. I like to break down things in
their simplest form for easy understanding.

The odds are universe could have happenned by chance are a decimal point with 120 zeros behind it and a 1.

In other words, it is impossible our universe was an accident according
to the cosmological constant.

To get around this, scientists say there
must be an infinite number of universes
besides ours. This is the Multiverse theory.

Without this theory and if it is incorrect,
then we were indeed created.

Oddly enough, believers in God have the upper hand in the creation debate, as we
know this universe exists, we don't know if a Multiverse exists.

So athiests are the ones whom are speculating there is not a creator
and the irrational theorists of
a Multiverse.

I am irrational, so I think the Multiverse
exists.

If there is a creator, he must at least be aware, if not conscious.

Here's link, for all here to ponder, to recent RadioLab broadcast entitled "Words" re how very important language is to consciousness.
http://www.radiolab.org/2010/aug/09/#commentlist

Sandra

How we perceive and understand reality is subject to the limits of human biology.

As a result of our particular cognitive disposition we attempt to understand existence via the poles of matter/energy OR mind/consciousness.

These seem to be the two metaphysical options on offer to humans at this juncture of evolution: mind/consciousness OR matter/energy.

So here's the thing: Questions about what is the source of creation will always be met by a version of the same limited metaphysics.

People who attempt to throw light on this question will once more fall into a idealist stance or a physicalist stance.

What if the real secret of the source of things was truly beyond the cognitive grasp of this bipedal species. Beyond our grasp in ways that we cannot imagine (precisely because it's beyond our grasp.)

We may intuit that there is something else or something more but our attempts to account for it or formulate it are just more of the same old human story telling - inventing a God in man's image, so to speak.

What if the source is by default ineffable, mysterious? Can we live with not knowing? Doesn't look like it does it? :)

Jon wrote:

"These seem to be the two metaphysical options on offer to humans at this juncture of evolution: mind/consciousness OR matter/energy"

-- It would seem that they are all one and the same. Even modern physics at least implies it. Some sub-atomic quanta, believed to be at the foundation of matter, are so immeasurably small that they are only theoretical and have no known form or dimension in much the same way as "mind", "consciousness", or "spirit". At this level, matter/spirit are a fusion. Where is the option?


Hey Mike,

Do you believe in Sapurush? Faqir Chand believed in Satpurush and so do I.

I don't believe in GIHF, but i believe in the supereme power that created all of us and the universe.

Also do you know much about RS Tarn Taran?
Here is an interesting link, its got q&a from the present leader at Taran Taran, go to p34, there is an interesting story on Sawan & Bagga Singh.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/130544428/QUESTIONS-ANSWERS-II-by-Baba-Kehar-Singh-Ji

Let me know what you think.

Best

Singh

Thanks to all of you for the precious suggestions.

Mike W,
I like the multiverse - theory you pointed out. Why? Because all along in my life I asked the silly question: what is behind our universe? “Silly” because limited on our human space/time perception. So, the imagination of a limitless quantity of universes is some kind of a satisfactory answer.

Jon,
“What if the real secret of the source of things was truly beyond the cognitive grasp of this bipedal species”
I am quite sure that there is endlessly much we cannot grasp, we cannot know, not to say the most. The more I ponder the less I seem to know. The realisation not to know anything at last fills me with kind of satisfaction. It has an effect of openness.

tucson,
“Some sub-atomic quanta, believed to be at the foundation of matter, are so immeasurably small that they are only theoretical and have no known form or dimension in much the same way as "mind", "consciousness", or "spirit". At this level, matter/spirit are a fusion. Where is the option?”

All this only from the viewpoint of the human being. If we ourselves were smaller in size, a sub-atomic quanta, we could probably perceive even smaller units, i suppose. All things are relative. No limits regarding “both” directions: micro – macro. The word “both” is again unsufficient, since there are infinitely many directions. Everything unlimited. Great notion.
tucson, you are right: language cannot express what the intuition is “seeing”. Ineffable, as Jon says. The immeasurable cannot be measured.

"So immeasurably small that they are only theoretical"

Surely they are so immeasurably small that they are… immeasurable. This is not the same as saying they are theoretical. They seem to exist in ways which increasingly defy our cognitive and biological abilities (our instruments of measurement). To then make a link with consciousness or spirit is pure supposition.

This is a good example of my point. When phenomena begin to escape our cognitive and measurable grasp we start to speculate. We invent theories to account for things.

And let's be clear, there is NOTHING WRONG with speculation. It's only a problem when it is claimed as the truth. (This is the strategy of religion.)

By all means make a claim - but clearly state that it is a theory - or at least, your vision of things.

"And let's be clear, there is NOTHING WRONG with speculation. It's only a problem when it is claimed as the truth. (This is the strategy of religion)."

---it can be claimed as relative truth. What would be an example of a claimed absolute truth?


"I don't believe in GIHF, but i believe in the supreme power that created all of us and the universe."

---How supreme does a power need to be to create the universe? Surely, this can be measured, since the universe is easily measureable.

Hi Singh,
There was no p 34 in the book.

My view is Jaimal was a fake whom was called
out formally by Swami Ji's family. No one
ever appointed Jaimal a master. In fact he even
admitted 'he was not a sant' in writing to Chachaji and Sudarshan.

No one appointed Sawan a master. Radhasoami
faith ended in 1949 when the last Agra master died.

Sawan used to sit at the last
Agra masters feet, Babuji, then would go
back to Beas.

Beas admits all Agra masters were genuine,
but Agra never endorsed Beas masters.

This is a major problem.

Mike,

What would make an Agra master genuine? And, what exactly was the 'faith' in Radasoami faith?

Hi Mike,
I have always found it curious that Beas offered no pictures of Jaimal as of the last time I checked 30 years ago, or so. I mean, the Dera is named after him (Dera Baba Jaimal Singh) and there are no photos or even drawings or paintings?

Do you have a theory about why this is? Do you know of or have you seen any pictures of Jaimal? This couldn't be because he was ugly or looked like a marsupial.

Hello Roger,

I am sure Mike will have more to say on this. But how can anyone know ANY master is genuine, meaning he/she has reached the highest spiritual realm or consciousness and has total command of their disciples karma (as taught in the RS faith)?

A master carpenter can demonstrate his/her skill by building an excellent structure, but how does a genuine spiritual master demonstrate their spiritual attainment? By glowing in the dark? Levitating? By not emitting malodorous feces, or better yet, by not emitting any feces at all? (I'm not sure who would be assigned to confirm this) Would turning geese into chihuahuas seal the deal? The whole thing must be a scam. So some dude makes a dry lake fill up with water. These things may be impressive but what would any of it prove as far as someone being God is concerned? Gurudom is a career opportunity for the brazen and/or deluded. In my opinion of course.

So, this is why Radha Soami is called a faith. You just believe because you choose to do so based on reasons which are most likely irrational.

Hi Tucson and Roger,

Roger, Swami Ji had Girdhari Das as
his guru. There is no question of this,
as even Chachaji, Swami Ji's brother,
called Girdhari Das CHIEF DISCIPLE
of Tulsi Sahib in his biography of Swami Ji.
Swami Ji immediately takes up the role of
guru at Girdhari's death.

Girdhari lived in one of Swami Ji's houses in Lucknov.

Letters exist to this day
saying Swami Ji treated Girdhari as HIS GURU.

This is why Swami Ji used the ploy of born guru.

Tulsi Sahib's group was too close
for comfort.

Hi tucson,
Jaimal was short and stocky. He lived
with 2 to 3 little girls across the road from Salig Ram's ashram. Salig Ram didn't go for this crap and threw Jaimal out of his satsang. His successor Misra also
threw jaimal out.

Chachaji and Sudarshan were in the excommunication process of Jaimal when he died.

Jaimal was a schmuck.

Beas can never show his picture because they
know he was not a guru and was a paedophile.

The real question is.... why doesn't Beas
show a picture of the founder of Radhasoami faith in their satsangs ? Salig Ram.

It is the greatest obsurdity I have ever seen not showing your founders picture.

This is why I have Salig Ram's picture on the front page of my website now.

Beas people are so naive, they don't even know who founded their faith.

http://radhasoamis.freeyellow.com/

(continued from above post)
There are 3 known photos of Jaimal. None
have appeared in public domain so far.

The third mantra On Kar is Satan, of the
5 names in the initiation.

A good surat shabda master such as Thakar Singh, or (Hariharananda ,Yogananda group) can produce great experience at initiation.
Fantastic experience 100% of the time. I know you Beas people got nothing.

Experience is caused by demons. Either
you envoked demons successfully, or
your master did.

If you have gotten no experience, consider
yourself Very Very Lucky. It is very hard to get rid of the demons once they are in you.

When you sit down to mediatate you are in fact conjuring Lucifer with your mantra.
That's a fact, just like a Satanist envokes An Kar, such as Aleister Crowley.

Radhasoami is Luciferianism. Even Mark Juergensmeyer said something to this effect.

If you are successful at Radhasoami Beas
mantras meditation, you will have envoked Satan and be in his possession now.

Thakar said he was possessed and Sawan Ashran was buzzing with demons. He was
not kidding.

If you people had been initiated in the Kirpal groups you would understand there are lots of possessed people.

Beas is so incompetent you can't even envoke
anything, not alone Satan. You are lucky
your masters were plain scam artists.

You are practising kundalini yoga. The sounds and colors are those of the chakras.

Look at the horrible scandals of Yogananda
with girls and money.

You people played with fire, you are very
lucky you did not get burned. You dabbled
in Satanism like babes in the woods.

Salig Ram switched the mantra to Radhasoami when he crated the new faith. This mantra does not evoke Satan as the old 5 names did.

Yo Mike,

I have written about this before. I was initiated by Thakar out of curiosity as I was already initiated by Charan. At Thakar's initiation I experienced a blue light. This was no big deal. I had seen it other times. Nothing to get your knickers in a twist about. Probably just the optic nerve firing in a different way and not a "third eye" sort of thing.

Afterwards, in my interview with Thakar the energy was good. "I" disappeared for a while. This happens with me from time to time, more easily with certain individuals. There was this sort of transparent light and we just sat there in/as it. Not much to say. Just a few pleasantries and a handshake. Soft hand. He seemed to be tuned in to the same vibe. In fact, we were the same vibe.

My friend, also an initiate of Charan, was there as well, but he said he experienced nothing at all although he liked Thakar.

Another Charan satsangi was also there, but I think she was a bit embarrassed about being there like she was being disloyal to Charan or something like that and she avoided eye contact or speaking with us.
No problem. What happens with Thakar stays with Thakar. I wouldn't tattle.

Never had any contact with Thakar since. I am a little surprised there is dirt on him. He seemed alright..for a guru.

The post at the bottom is being reprinted as
it came up out of sequence and you will have missed it.

I watched Thakar give hundreds of initiations. In fact I gave him $3,000
to help him come to America one time.
Thakar was the nicest guys you could ever meet, except for the fact he was possessed.

(see my book to read his confidential letter
admitting he was possessed and had had affairs with girls.)

You have to get initiated and not just be
a meditating bystander, or the person
will get nothing. It was not unusual for
people to give detailed experiences of very
high inner planes at initiation. His initiations were remarkable.

What you hear people say about Thakar now days is pure fiction bunk.
He was an incredible character. He would talk sometimes 10 hours in a day and
was riviting to listen to. He spoke from inner experience, not like these idiots pretending to be gurus now days.

Kirpal, Darshan, Ajaib, Charan, Gurinder
gave no inner experiences. Neither did Sawan. But, sometimes a person could become
possessed, especially in Kirpal groups.
I only know a few possessed people in Charan's group. But, then they will get
experience.

I use Satan and possession in the sense
Carl Jung used it to explain the collective unconscious archetypes. But, living archetypes. Something like zombies, but not really.

Not all possession is evil. There can be some angels.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi Tucson and Roger,

Roger, Swami Ji had Girdhari Das as
his guru. There is no question of this,
as even Chachaji, Swami Ji's brother,
called Girdhari Das CHIEF DISCIPLE
of Tulsi Sahib in his biography of Swami Ji.
Swami Ji immediately takes up the role of
guru at Girdhari's death.

Girdhari lived in one of Swami Ji's houses in Lucknov.

Letters exist to this day
saying Swami Ji treated Girdhari as HIS GURU.

This is why Swami Ji used the ploy of born guru.

Tulsi Sahib's group was too close
for comfort.

Hi tucson,
Jaimal was short and stocky. He lived
with 2 to 3 little girls across the road from Salig Ram's ashram. Salig Ram didn't go for this crap and threw Jaimal out of his satsang. His successor Misra also
threw jaimal out.

Chachaji and Sudarshan were in the excommunication process of Jaimal when he died.

Jaimal was a schmuck.

Beas can never show his picture because they
know he was not a guru and was a paedophile.

The real question is.... why doesn't Beas
show a picture of the founder of Radhasoami faith in their satsangs ? Salig Ram.

It is the greatest obsurdity I have ever seen not showing your founders picture.

This is why I have Salig Ram's picture on the front page of my website now.

Beas people are so naive, they don't even know who founded their faith.

http://radhasoamis.freeyellow.com/

I was initiated by the successor of Thakar, Baljit Singh, last year. I experienced some coloured lights, but it was not new for me, since I tried to meditate before with the same results. I fell asleep during the meditation, dreamt of horses and other farm-animals. I was not very engaged and concentrated and then I had to renew the park ticket for the car and went out for about 20 minutes. I was not able to accept this so called “master” as a GIHF, because it seemed ridiculous to me and I didn’t take the initiation procedure seriously. I was just curious, because a friend (Thakar-initiate) told me a lot of interesting and wondrous stories about the “Sant-Mat-Science” ;-)

For some months I seriously tried to meditate with the five names, but it was so difficult for me to sit calmly and I always had the feeling to waste time. I am happy to have found this blog, which confirms my views. I was a bit bewildered and unsecure before, now I am sure that there is no truth in the whole thing, I would actually say: a big fraud.

Thanks Tucson and Mike,

The reason for the faith question was to create a discussion regarding the Science of the Soul. That is, what would be the 'faith' in the 'science' of the soul? Or, does Science need faith to function? Just a fun topic to immerse in. No big deal.


"The third mantra On Kar is Satan, of the
5 names in the initiation."

--- Thought the On Kar was the second mantra name. The first, would be Jot Naringen(sp?). Rarenkar, the third? Again, spelling is way off. Could the 5 names be different from one santmat branch to the other?

Hi Roger,
The 5 names and initiation are posted
on the front page of my website.

http://radhasoamis.freeyellow.com/

Radhasoami Beas Initiation and Kirpal Groups Initiation

Presiding dieties, chakras, sounds of the Kirpal groups and Radhasoami Beas initiation. You don't need a guru, here is the 5 name initiation mantra. Stick your thumbs in your ears, with fingers over eyes. Peer into darkness. Listen to sound from right ear with right hand thumb.

Jot Naranjan, Om Kar, Ranrankar, Sohang, Sat nam

1.Sahas Dal Kanwel, Jot Naranjan Flame of candle, bell, conch shell, 3/4 inches behind Tirsa Til 2. Trikuti, Om Kar, Rising sun,, Thunder, drum, between two eyebrows. 3.Sunn (Dswan Dar), Ranrankar, full moon, fiddle, center of forehead. Maha Sunn vast region 4. Bhawar Gupta Sohang Ji, mid day sun, flute, 5. Sat Lok, Sat Nam, where hair starts on forehead,, harp, bin, 100 million suns 5a.Below are extra inner planes of Agra groups who go to Radhasoami Pad using Radhasoami mantra. 6. Alakh Lok, Alakh Parush, 2 fingers after hair starts, undescribable 7. Agam Lok, Agam Parush, 2 fingers after Alakh line, undescribable 8. Radhasoami Dayal, top of head, undescribable It should be noted no inner planes actually exist as real places. They are just places in your brain.

Thanks Mike,

Fascinating info on the 5 mantra names.

Sandra,

I've been thinking of Baljit Singh, the guy is a fraud and his father was also a fraud.

Tucson,Mike,Roger,Tara

Check this out http://babagurindersinghji.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/babagurindersinghji.html

Singh,
thx for the comment on Baljit. Could you please specify, if possible?
This is the person concerned (because perhaps there are some namesakes -?-)
www.santmat.at

to all:
Do you think that the gurus themselves know that they are frauds? Or is it rather so that they act "bona fide"; I mean do they themselves believe they are GIHF, or do they deceive people in the full knowledge they aren't?

Singh,
thx for the comment on Baljit. Could you please specify, if possible?
This is the person concerned (because perhaps there are some namesakes -?-)
www.santmat.at
to all:
Do you think that the gurus themselves know that they are frauds? Or is it rather so that they act "bona fide"; I mean do they themselves believe they are GIHF, or do they deceive people in the full knowledge they aren't?

We are supposed to take no more than 3 lives
to reach our destination in Sant Mat.

This would mean that at any one time 33%
of the satsangis around us will have reached
sach kand by an older age.

Yet, we see no satsangis reaching sach kand.

Have any of you people stopped to think
Superman never wore a mask. How come Louis
Lane did not recognise him when he became
Clark Kent ?

We are in a hypnotic spell.

Reading a gamblers site just now, a great mathematician
described gamblers beliefs in their systems thus :

Their faith surpasses religious levels. However,
in all things, the more ridiculous a belief is the more
tenaciously it tends to be held.

Mike W,

Your comments are delighting me. They are full of not yet considered views.

Anyway, for me there is still the question: do the gurus deceive people in the full knowledge of committing a fraud? If so, they could be called criminals, playing with the credulousness of so many people.
On the other hand, everybody should be responsible for him/herself.

Could it be possible that the gurus themselves are misled and deceived?
Maybe one cannot tar them all with the same brush (?)

"the more ridiculous a belief is the more tenaciously it tends to be held"

Do you have an explanation for that? Is it only the fear of the final extinction of our being that makes us believe the most absurd things?

Hi Sandra,

The other day there were posts on Yogananda
telling how you could reach enlightenment,
or Sat Lok with his methods.

And, I am thinking to myself, there are 3 people on this club,
whom are already enlightened.

Tucson, Brian and Tao

Yet anyone here can ask them a question
for free with no obligation. Instead,
people pump up some unenlightened guru
as if they are special.

Dr. Lal of Dayal Bagh flat out admitted
he was not a guru. Charan admitted he was not a guru at first. Sawan admitted he was not a guru at first. Faquir Chand said
he had no power, nor did any other gurus,
accusing them of being criminals for telling
people they could protect them in afterlife
or consciously place the radiant form in the disciple.

A pattern can be seen.

Most gurus are flat out deceptive frauds.

Some gurus are insane, but brilliant and charismatic.

Some gurus get sucked in like Charan
and Sawan, then just go with the flow.

Yogananda actually studied messmerism before
he became a guru. He had every scandal you could imagine.

Read the Rick Ross cult buster site to see
all your favorite gurus debunked.

These gurus such as Kirpal and Darshan
and Summa Ching Hai (fastest growing sant mat group and she is probably richer than Gurinder.)...these people are sociopaths.

They can look right in your face and lie.

RIGHT IN YOUR FACE WITHOUT BLINKING.

Arrogant bastards, whom could care less
about humanity.

They are ACTORS.

We are told we will go to hell or face
the wheel of 84, if we do not honor them.

They demand we believe, because they are incapable of giving any inner experience.

I can see why the saints of old were treated
so badly by the public.

Complete total lack of ethics or compassion.

Gurus are gypsies. The lowest form of humanity.

P.S. From Monday to Thurs I will be gone
but back afterwards.

Thanks a lot, Mike W.
Nothing to add here.

Brian - again: I like your blog.

You all do an unestimably important educational work here. True selfless service.

Mike Williams,

Ching Chang Hai is dangerous, check this out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4yxt7gBErs

Is such possible? I'm guessing it was the mind that projected those images.

How did Darshan die? I heard some Sikhs shot him in the UK.

Hi Gaz,
I have now added Summa Ching Hai to initiation on front page of my website.
http://radhasoamis.freeyellow.com/

She uses 5 names and had been a disciple of Thakar Singh and spent 6 months at Thakar's New York center. Thakar was a successor to Kirpal. Demonic, but successful.

The Darshan you speak of was an obscure guru, not Kirpal's successor son.

I had been on jets with both Darshan
and Thakar and knew them both.

Summa Chung Hai, the material girl, has the fastest growing Radhasoami group in the world. She attracks mostly orientals to
her group.

She came to noteriety when she donated $250,000 to Al Gore and he attended her
services. The USA public got pissed off
at this and it cost Al Gore the election.

Had Al Gore not gone to see Summa Ching Hai,
George Bush would never have won.

Ching Hi was portrayed as a Buddhist in
the newpaper scandals.

She sold gold jewlery and expensive objects
in her monthly newsletters.

I believe she is richer than Gurinder now.

But, remember, Thakar could induce the demons and people were often taken to high
inner planes.

I believe Summa Ching Hai did get to high
places, but this has nothing to do with
honesty or integrity or God.

It must be remembered surat shabda yoga
has nothing to do with goodness, compassion,
or human decency.

It is kundalini based and Ankar is Satan.
2nd 3rd initiation names Radhasoami
and stand alone mantra of Satanists such as the old Aleister Crowley and Anton Le Vay.

Do you think that the gurus themselves know that they are frauds? Or is it rather so that they act "bona fide"; I mean do they themselves believe they are GIHF, or do they deceive people in the full knowledge they aren't?


……The Gurus know everything, past and future lifes, though they may sometimes tell you about your past life, they know the present and future as well, but they will never disclose it.


Do the gurus deceive people in the full knowledge of committing a fraud?


…..Not at all, they have been assigned the task of bringing back the marked souls to the Lord, and they are doing it and will go on doing it.

Juan,

are you joking?

“The Gurus know everything, past and future lifes, though they may sometimes tell you about your past life, they know the present and future as well, but they will never disclose it.”

If they never disclose it, you will never know if they are lying or telling the truth. So what gives you that idea – “the gurus know everything”? Where is the evidence? This is just your personal belief, an assertion without substance, a blind belief without any basis.

What do you mean by "the marked souls"?

Hey Mike,

Thank you for your post.

I've got another question, how much do you know about mind control?
I believe the RS Gurus utilize this. Compare the Beas group to others, the Beas Gurus are very clever, they can control enemies minds and make them into RS followers.

A perfect example of this Sant Baba Daduwal, this guy was an RS hater before his meeting with Gurinder. He threatened to assassinate Gurinder and demolish RS Beas.
But after his meeting he became an RS, he invited Gurinder to his wedding, here is below footage to validate my point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnBs4iRKEoI

As you can see, Gurinder was in attendance at his wedding, traditionally, the groom bows down to the holy book, but Baljit bowed down to Gurinder instead of the holy book.

What is this Mike? It must be some kind of mind control.

Best

Gaz

And what is possession? Something that happens to people who think about specific words, that have been placed in these comments?

If it were on television, we'd all know it was fake. But we haven't yet learned to be unafraid of things we read on the internet. Nonetheless, the stories told in these comments are just as fake.

It simply feeds the temptation to be prejudiced, to assume that there is a religion "over there" that worships a devil -- our devil, by name. Such things are merely the fantasies of tabloid writers.

Hi gaz and collin.

Gaz, it is all hypnotic. By our own
self suggestion we indoctinate ourselves.
We live in a complete manufactured fantasy.
We have created our own Disneyland.

collin,
The first three names of RS mantra
are all names for Satan. The Indians
call him Kal and Maha Kal.

RS does not deny the first regions
are ruled by Kal.

Carl Jung did great work on the
collective unconsciousness and its archetypes.

Even Freud was impressed and told Jung
to be careful, or many people would
want to envoke the hidden powers.

But Mike the names , you wrote them wrong.

The names can have one letter difference
depending on the group, per word. I am using the original Agra group names.

ie, you can say on kar or om kar


Radhasoami Beas Initiation, Kirpal Groups Initiation, Yogananda first initiation, Summa Ching Hai initiation.

Presiding dieties, chakras, sounds.. You don't need a guru. All they do is take your money. Here is the 5 name initiation mantra. Stick your thumbs in your ears, with fingers over eyes and elbows on knees. Peer into darkness. Listen to sound from right ear with right hand thumb pressed over earlobe. No one gets anywhere with this even with a guru, even if you meditate 30 years.

Jot Naranjan, Om Kar, Ranrankar, Sohang, Sat nam

1.Sahas Dal Kanwel, Jot Naranjan Flame of candle, bell, conch shell, 3/4 inches behind Tirsa Til 2. Trikuti, Om Kar, Rising sun,, Thunder, drum, between two eyebrows. 3.Sunn (Dswan Dar), Ranrankar, Satan, Kal, Lucifer, full moon, fiddle, center of forehead. Maha Sunn vast region, Ankar is also the mantra of Aleister Crowley Satanic groups.. 4. Bhawar Gupta Sohang Ji, mid day sun, flute, 5. Sat Lok, Sat Nam, where hair starts on forehead,, harp, bin, 100 million suns 5a.Below are extra inner planes of Agra groups who go to Radhasoami Pad using Radhasoami mantra. 6. Alakh Lok, Alakh Parush, 2 fingers after hair starts, undescribable 7. Agam Lok, Agam Parush, 2 fingers after Alakh line, undescribable 8. Radhasoami Dayal, top of head, undescribable It should be noted no inner planes actually exist as real places. They are just places in your brain. Some caution needs to be exercised using the 5 names, as they envoke Satan.

ranrankar or rarankar
niranjan or naranjan
they will not evoke satan they will just make you see your negative side also

To me "the hard problem" bears a lot of resemblance to the famous question, "why is there something rather than nothing?" This presumes the validity of "rather than nothing." Why not solve the problem of why there is something rather than nothing by simply saying, "there is something." End of story.

Because "because" isnt an answer. You don't really believe it is, and no one else believes it is.

You, Brian, owe me $100. Why? Because.

So where is my $100? Or did you not believe me?

i am a disciple of Master Chinghai, and after read all of your comments i hope we can live in harmony. It's already 2 years from the last comment (Mike Williams), i wonder how are you today and i hope you're doing fine.

we can argue using our intellectual or any experiences, it's your right actually.

my point is, don't care who is your Guru.. but your attitude are the reflection of your finding in this life.

i just found Master Chinghai suits me just fine, and i am happy with my choice :)

Hi Inspektur

Great respect I have for Supr Chinghai
working with so much succes in Malaysia
for the vegetarian cause - really an achievement, . .
and telling to listen to the Sweet Sound

Y'r right
Stay close to humans who make us happy

Was She initiated by Kyrpal? - I heard her mention Sawan JI
the Great Master but she is to young for that <3

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

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

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

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

Welcome


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.