Here's a link to a fascinating essay by David Lane, "Why I Meditate." It starts off with:
Recently there was an intense discussion on spiritual matters on Brian Hines’ widely read blog, The Church of the Churchless, and an Indian gentleman wrote to me via email providing a link to it, primarily because there was a question about why I still meditate given my skeptical outlook on most things religious. He too was curious and wanted to know more about my daily practice and my reasoning behind it. The following is my response.
At this point I don't really want to comment on what Lane says. After all, this piece is very personal. It's about why he meditates, even though he isn't religious in any traditional sense.
David Lane in India
So, read it. Feel free to leave your own comments if you like.
I'll just say (OK, I couldn't resist commenting, at least a little bit) that my main question after my own quick read involves whether Lane considers that his meditation experiences reflect, at least in part, an objective transcendent reality beyond his own mind, or whether those experiences are brain-states reflecting goings-on within his own cranium.
Thanks for your post and for your very pertinent question. My sense is that my meditation experiences are part and parcel of my brain, just as every other experience I have had in life has been filtered by the same mechanism.
This is why our experiences tend to reflect our own personal biography and cultural upbringing. Faqir Chand, as you know, is very much on point in this regard, arguing over and over again that all such experiences are products of our own mind but we tend to impute them on some other being (or some "objective" grid), forgetting in the process that it is our own faith and our own concentration.
Now I realize that it might be irritable for some to say that meditation experiences are by-products of the brain, but I don't see that way at all, given the absolute wonder of our three pounds of glorious wonder tissue.
When we surf (as you have in Maui), we don't think our experiences are LESS because we discover that it was just water and wind and foam that we were sliding down on..... We are still stoked all the same.
Matter itself is as mysterious as anything conjured up in our supposed holy books and once we get clear about the multi-dimensional character of matter (it isn't flat, it isn't one thing only), then we see that much of our difficulty is a linguistic confusion.
When I eat a tasty pizza or a potato taco with some great zesty salsa, the experience isn't lessened if I say it has something to do with my brain via its olfactory nerve and my tongue.
Likewise, as you have continually pointed out here, there is nothing "just" about this material cosmos.
Thanks and keep up the good work on this blog.
Posted by: david lane | September 07, 2015 at 10:33 PM
Hey mr Lane what part of the discussion you mention was intense to you?
Posted by: rhubarbara | September 08, 2015 at 03:08 AM
It seems I placed my answer concerning meditation in the wrong chapter
So, I will repeat it here where it belongs.
But first :
Have you ever in the room you showed
experienced between 10 and 60 seconds of
complete thoughtless-ness while being fully awake.
If not there was no meditation but contemplation.
Here is my copy under this Brian's copy :
I'm at the end of your autobiography
and can tell you what's the beginning
and the end of succeeded meditation
and why you still on hold.
When Jagat Ji says not to resist the suction, it can only be done by LOVE
You Yourself are the only who can discern if LOVE ever played a role in your life.
You didn't mention the word even , like Ramana never did , - I might have missed it - I ‘v read the same books as you did.
Don't worry :
Love is a gift ; like any puber knows one can hardly decide. - You are initiated. LOVE will come.
A great help would be to throw away that hyper sleep or half-sleep inviting chair and sit on the ground with a vertebrae straight, straight and very straight , physically reaching to the ceiling
Or buy that very old , very a creaky wicker chair
next avoiding all possible sounds produced by the chair
and then cry for LOVE to the Beloved Satguru and when it's honest and devoid of self-importance
you will join the great vertical stream of the ( what catholics 'r not understanding )
Saints , - one being sucked in the former one - going up through those “mind-regions" up to the center of LOVE which is ever accumulating.
This RSSB path is great joy, not just comfort, , in and outside the sittings. You can be in that state ALL THE TIME , even while paying the casher in the mall . . . Radha Soami
Ego will never be deleted by ego
Love can, because when it increases , . . there is no time left
Posted by: 777 | September 06, 2015 at 04:53 AM
- See more at: http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2015/08/what-is-seva-in-the-rssb-organization.html#sthash.5ilOhPW7.dpuf
Posted by: [email protected] | September 08, 2015 at 04:01 AM
Yes, I thought most of the discussion over seva displayed strong feelings and emotions concerning it and how it is conducted. On one level I was deeply impressed by how well organized the Delhi satsang was when I attended it this last year. I was also treated very well. However, I have also witnessed some fairly horrific behavior at the Dera back in the day when there were sevadars shoving women to hurry up during money seva...... So it is a mixed bag and I think it is fair that it be discussed openly and honestly. Accentuate the positive and try to weed out the unnecessary rules and over arching control systems......
Posted by: David Lane | September 08, 2015 at 03:23 PM
"How did they ever win the war"
Posted by: 777 | September 08, 2015 at 06:43 PM
Yes love and bhakti are very powerful in of themselves. Some things, however, are so personal (or so particular to one individual and not necessarily of import to others) that it is difficult to discuss them on an open forum. I remember when Professor Juergensmeyer was interviewing Charan Singh in his office at the Dera in the summer of 1978 and he asked Charan if he had contact with Sawan Singh's spirit.... Charan replied that some things are too intimate for such discussion. I didn't think Charan was blowing Mark off, but rather that it was so deep to Charan that it would be nearly impossible to discuss publicly without trivializing it. Anyone who knows me knows what I feel about Charan.
Posted by: David Lane | September 08, 2015 at 09:18 PM
""" Anyone who knows me knows what I feel about Charan. """
Symbolically I feel the faqir stole a lot of that love
Well, . . who steals has to repair like we all have
Thank you for this particular segmental honesty
After 5 times stating, here , I like to debunk the faqir again as follows :
that he's right about the ignorance of a physical Master while he is just following orders,
but ( by His Master's given ) all necessary divine knowledge appears
when the associated disciple enters physically, directly , or even by email, whatever
but this faqir was so completely ignorant by calling names to the real Saints who never say they are in the know;
In a former comment I also explained how it happens that a Master even refuses initiation.
Stories come from disciples and not from Saints
Saints say at each meeting that they do their duty, follow the MauJ.
We all , -specially satsangies from Beas- have all our synchronitities, serendipities and so called accidents including : "did I say that ???? "
uttered in sheer astonishment
So how much more this applies to an appointed one, a Holy Saint , The actual and genuine Son of God !
What I say here doesn't diminish anything concerning the Greatness of a Saint
What we are dealing with is God's Total Power !
Your 'private' love cannot grow by repeating the faqir saying your Master Charan Ji and His Beloved Master Sawan Ji were liars,
Therefore apart from the lazy chair, a mental resetting which might be embarrassing is a must for your fruitful bhakti filled meditation.
Your neurons ( antahkaran_willing ) can easily understand
this special way God is acting
without definitely giving all his power ( See what the faqir did with a little bit )
Do not wait for your last breath. You still can do a lot, inside and outside-ly
Wishing all possible blessing to you
Posted by: 777 | September 09, 2015 at 05:19 AM
Faqir Chand, unlike his shabd yoga colleagues, stated very clearly how gurus are much more human than the Beas or Agra books wish to admit. He rightly called out Radhasoami masters to be much more transparent and upfront about their limitations and stop keeping up the charade that they know more than they actually do. In this regard he has provided us with a wonderful "seva"! :/ Faqir even criticized his own guru, Shiv Brat Lal, for not being more forthcoming. Faqir also lifted the veil behind why religious visions occur and how the guru in question is "unknowing" about such manifestations. Moreover, these gurus make mistakes on a number of issues, whether it was Charan being wrong about Shiv Dayal Singh not smoking a huqqa (Shiv Dayal did indeed smoke a huqqa, besides taking paan), or Sawan Singh promulgating pseudo-sciences that turn out to be claptrap. It is time for these gurus to be rightly criticized and Faqir to his great credit opened Pandora's box on these points. This is not to suggest that Faqir was exempt from criticisms himself (he also believed in things that are nonsense), but to his credit always said he could be wrong. In any case, there is far too much hype on Radhasoami, especially as it wishes to advertise itself as a science. Time for Beas to grow up and act like a science (and take its lumps) if that is how it wishes to be accepted.
As for bhakti and love, I have found through a long life of experience that it is much wiser to accept that we are all "human, all too human"--and this includes our cherished gurus or teachers. We do them no service by standing scared like the lion in the Wizard of Oz and bowing to illusory projections. Better to be like Toto and pull the curtain and find out that behind all that puffery is a human being who like ourselves can make mistakes and on occasion be wrong.
P.S. The pictures of chairs in my essay are from my reading rooms, not my meditation rooms.
Posted by: david lane | September 09, 2015 at 09:11 AM
U.G. Krishnamurti - Freedom from illusion and facing reality
Quote U.G. "Unfortunately gurus have become such monsters on this planet today and you guys have everything that you can ask for have created a market for those people"
[from 4:35] "I have always maintained that the great heritage of India which they are so proud of, the heritage that they are trying to sell, shoddy piece of goods abroad, was born out of acid heads. All those sages lived in the jungles taking... Soma juice and experiencing some strange experiences and translated them into spiritual experiences and passed it on from generation to generation. We in our turn used those techniques through the help of thought created those experiences and believed that we are in the same state that those people were talking about."
Interviewer: Wait a moment, so you're basically saying that the psychedelic experience is the bases of the religions...
U.G. - ... [first time his friend took drugs] he experienced all the spiritual experiences, all the sages, saints and saviours of mankind in the past and present and yet to be born are going to experience the same thing... so there is nothing marvellous about it... meditation is one of the worst techniques people are preaching...
Posted by: Jen | September 09, 2015 at 03:06 PM
David, you said you are still a Satsangi, and NOT an Ex-Satsangi. You can't be both. Are you a Hybrid? Do you believe Charan Singh projected his Clone in your Third Eye when he initiated you, as Dr.Iswar Puri says happens? If so, Dr. Puri says he is not a Perfect Master, but initiates FOR Sawan Singh, so I obviously wonder if Ishwar or Sawan's Clones are projected to the Third Eye of any one Dr. Puri initiates? Or both? Those like Brian who have meditated for 40 years and never met Charan's Clone inside ( per his own admission) has reason to be disgruntled. But, what about you? Have you EVER seen Charan or Sawan's Clones, inside, at the Thid Eye, and is why you "secretly" still meditate, hoping for instructions from Charan and Sawan to perhaps succeed Dr. Iswar Puri as the American Revival of Sant Mat West , when Dr. Puri finishes the new Sawan Singh Dera in Wisconson? Are you on board with what Dr. Ishwar Puri is doing, or do you oppose what he is teaching all over the world and do you believe, or disbelieve he has been told by Sawan Singh's Clone to unite Western Radhasoami Initiates in to Sant Mat the American Revival? I think you are the perfect Candidate to become Ishwar Puri's Successor when he turns over his Mantle to another long time Initiate to continue the work of initiated Seekers who beleve the Sant Mat Path is The Path of The Masters, by one who has the Clone of the Guru implanted in to his Thrd Eye. What say you, Dr. Lane? Are you the Real Deal, or ?????????? Regards, Jim
Posted by: Jim Sutherland | September 09, 2015 at 05:08 PM
Those like Brian who have meditated for 40...quote Jim...
.....Brian didn't meditate he tried to....
Posted by: sloncek | September 10, 2015 at 12:59 AM
Hey Jim how come is Lane secret if over the years always Is open . I think he is not secret and he is naked on this forums. He doesn't hide like others. Like tAo with insults all over the place.
..Hey Lane what part of discussion was intense?
Posted by: rhuby the rhubarbarian | September 10, 2015 at 01:04 AM
Faqir Chand did all us a wonderful service by pulling back the curtain on the so-called all knowing Wizard/Master and showing how very human he is.
As we know now, gurus makes mistakes and it is better to acknowledge that instead of ideologically justifying it.
Thank you for your advice and P.S. the pictures of those chairs are of my reading rooms not my meditation rooms.
Posted by: david lane | September 10, 2015 at 08:21 AM
Thank you for your comment and your questions, though perhaps you are saying them with a slight wink.
In any case, my definition of a satsangi may not be the official one, but I tend to think that anyone who wants to associate with the truth and tries their best to do such is a satsangi.
For example, I regard Brian Hines as a genuine satsangi in the proper sense of that term. He didn't go "off" the path. He simply upped the game by not allowing himself to be boxed in within cultic parameters of herd thinking.
Thus, I think one can still do shabd yoga meditation, be a vegetarian, etc., and yet still be critical of R.S. theology and some of its controlling policies.
I don't think the radiant form is some sort of clone implanted into initiates. Rather, inner visions and the like are our own projections which can potentially happen to anyone (regardless of whether they are initiated or not). Of course, this will why Christians see Jesus in their NDEs and not the multiple arms of Shiva.
It is not as difficult as we assume to have inner visions. Sawan Singh wasn't jesting when he said that if one could sit still for three straight hours and keep one's focus on the center he or she "must go within."
But, as Faqir readily points out, this structural potential within human beings doesn't mean as much as we hyperbolically believe. That is why Faqir's argument about the illusory nature of such phenomena is both refreshing and liberating.
In the article and movie, The Kirpal Statistic, I argue that we make a mistake when we think that some "outer" magical guru has the power to take one within. No, it is our own projective heritage and as such we mistakenly project it onto to some guru or master.
Thus, it is our love, devotion, and attachment that (ironically) determines how we view our respective gurus. Some are attracted to Charan, some to Kirpal, some to Ramana, some to nobody in particular..... It is our attachment that determines the outcome, not some objective guru hierarchy.
In any case, I don't know Ishwar though I do think he is a very polished and interesting speaker. He is much more engaging (regardless of the content, whether we agree or disagree about it) than most Sant Mat related talkers.
I don't "secretly" meditate. I love meditating and anyone who knows me personally knows about it, given that I have created two over-the-top special rooms for doing it (both In H.B. and the Desert), which shouldn't be confused with the pictures I posted (since those are of my reading rooms).
We are all the real deal in our humanness and that is why I think it is important for R.S. to be more honest about what a guru can and cannot do.
Posted by: david lane | September 10, 2015 at 08:43 AM
David, thanks for your response. We are each individual projections of Soul that became souls, but have since forgotten how we got entangled with minds and bodies. Many Satsangis like you and Brian have departed from Orthodox Sant Mat Dogma, yet there are also many like me who are Satsangis who became initiated but never bought in to the GIHF Dogma nor visited the Dera r chased the physical dorms f the Gurus, because we knew the real Master is always inside and is only projected out side to the Marked Elect who have become tired of the material show and are seeking the Way back Home. I just posted on my blog a chapter from The Spirits' Book why we might never merge back in to the Ocean but remain grains of sand in the Desert.
Posted by: Jim Sutherland | September 10, 2015 at 10:31 AM
Hi David and Jim,
One of my favorite quotes is from Charan Singh
“May your love of the form culminate in the love of the formless.” “Outward forms of worship are better than doing nothing at all, but we should not spend our whole life involved with these games.”
GSD subtly says that the real Guru is the shabad/inner Guru not the outer Guru.
He says that he just a sevadar, spiritual guide and nothing else.
He has done well to cut out the dogma, he says that even 24 hours of physical darshan can have no effect, and seva doesn't burn karmas.
But satsangis still don't follow this, GSD is preaching one thing and the followers are preaching another thing.
One of my favorite blogs from Brian is this
I think what Brian points out is the true Sant Mat teachings.
Posted by: Gaz | September 10, 2015 at 01:02 PM
I don't think anyone knows what is going on... gurus, scientists, religions, philosophers, shamans, wise men, Donald Trump, any of them, and especially me. But since I don't know anything it is possible that I don't know there is someone, some thing, some way that knows something, but I doubt it. Everyone is just babbling in their helplessness, in their feeble attempts to comprehend the incomprehensible. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing right with it either. It's just something we do. Something we, as self-aware beings, are compelled to do to try to unravel the mystery of our apparent existence... WTF? Why this?
Posted by: tucson | September 10, 2015 at 05:28 PM
"Something we, as self-aware beings, are compelled to do to try to unravel the mystery of our apparent existence..."
I absolutely love this vimeo. I think its about the closest we can get to understanding who and what we are...
Kensho: a short film dreamt by Aaron Paradox narrated by Alan Watts
Posted by: Jen | September 10, 2015 at 06:28 PM
Thanks for that, Jen. Watts has always been one of my favorite philosophers. It used to seem to me he was on to something, and maybe he was. His book, "The Book, on the taboo against knowing who you really are" was seminal for me back in '68. Unfortunately, he died an alcoholic. Understanding that what you are is "the fabric of existence" apparently was not enough for him. Even for him there was no escaping the concept- "I" am going to die-.
Posted by: tucson | September 10, 2015 at 08:06 PM
I think of meditation as swimming in the vast seas of our unconscious mind. When we relinquish focus and control, the vast presence of the unconcious can be sensed.
If we sense another presence, it may be our (larger) self.
I am very Jungian in this regard. It's another way of saying our brains are very complex, and a unitary self-identity may not be as solid or as cohesive as it seems.
Posted by: Datasmithy | September 12, 2015 at 11:14 AM
Kensho: a short film dreamt by Aaron Paradox narrated by Alan Watts
I wonder how Watts would feel about the background noise and video crap that's been added to his spoken words. At the time he was doing this on radio, his speaking voice was more than adequate. Now, it seems, people can't listen to speech without audio and visual distraction.
It's ironic. He was talking about awakening from the dream of "poor little me" to the reality of being the "fabric and structure of existence", to an audience who took it straight and unadorned. Now, the audience has to be coddled and distracted so as not to be jarred out of their dream world.
Posted by: x | September 13, 2015 at 11:18 AM
"Now, the audience has to be coddled and distracted so as not to be jarred out of their dream world."
Some people are moved by visual experience as well as sound. If we all became 'jarred out of our dream world' what a cold and clinical world we would live in. There would be no imagination, no dreams, no artistic expression. Would be horrible to be so coldly detached from emotions and feelings. Very robotic.
Posted by: Jen | September 13, 2015 at 02:49 PM
Would be horrible to be so coldly detached from emotions and feelings.
It's hard to tell what your emotional response is when you're being manipulated by audio-visual distractions. Alan Watts was a speaker, par excellence...he didn't need gimmickry.
Posted by: x | September 13, 2015 at 06:24 PM
wrote in his blog
"" But,…..I have come to my conclusion that until I depart ALL physical Materiality, once and for all, and return to Him, than, that part of “i”
that is the individual spirit that I AM, only observes, or witnesses, the creations that my mind creates. ( Mostly illusions. ) """
So I read in your Oasis Page and of course your comment here
We could conclude, but I think it isn't the case
that you never visited, met with one of the two RSSB Masters .
You gave also the impression to have followed the eckankar man
You write you would rather be assured before death, . . reason I'm asking . . .
You directed us to Oasis but If you find my questions indiscrete, don't follow it up
Posted by: 777 | September 13, 2015 at 06:38 PM
"Alan Watts was a speaker, par excellence...he didn't need gimmickry."
--He was a great speaker, but for some, great speaking is further enhanced by "gimmickry". To each his own. For me, neither does the trick, at least in regard to matters eternal.
At the beginning of the video I wasn't sure it wasn't a trailer for "The Agony and the Ecstasy" or a commercial for migraine medicine. Spiritual bliss appears to be rather unsettling in the view of the video producers. I've heard stories of monks "getting it" and just shrugging their shoulders and continuing to sweep the floor with a Mona Lisa-like smile on their face.
So, the beginning of the video was a bit of a distraction and overdone, imnsho. I did like how at the end it faded into formless light. That was more effective for me than all the rest. Still, I've been witnessing that sort of thing for decades and here I am, the same old schlub, utterly clueless.
Posted by: tucson | September 13, 2015 at 08:36 PM
"So, the beginning of the video was a bit of a distraction and overdone"
Yeah it was kinda weird but did grab my attention somewhat! My son said the beginning sounded like the "double rainbow guy" whose video went viral and now there are lots of videos copying him.
Don't be an 'old schlub' your comments are usually cheerful and funny.
Sorry Brian, off topic...
Posted by: Jen | September 13, 2015 at 10:53 PM
Dear David Lane
Thanks for your thanks BUT :
I read here (under) about the latest hours of the faqir
I felt really very sorry for the man
but also more sorry even , understanding that David Lane instructed thousand of souls by his books, films and blogs, probably conferences,
without mentioning at least what the faqir writes and declare here
I take it again because this is about the MAIN ASPECT of the Radha Soami Philosiphy and the faqir called that lies and the real Masters : Liars
Sant Mat is that by The Grace of the SatGuru and sometimes some discipline, . . a disciple can be ABSORBED in the sweet Sound Stream and from time to time more or less, but definitely at the end
will be fully integrated in the Master, which is Sound already.
Gurinder is right : a disciple is after initiation always and accumulating in that state and FEELS this more and more
The Master is not showing up when being there already.
while at the same time wonderful serendipities appear to show up each day more and more and more as does the sweetness and grandeur of the Sound Current
A Satsangi hasn't to wait at all and as they say "the Master is always there"
it's the calculating mind that gives up at death even when it was sturdy at life and not diminished by meditations
That's the advantage of the simple and the childish ones as Jesus said.
SO, Why in heaven's sake refer to this man, . . who was not initiated !
you could have referred to any youtube teacher. There are so many
and all of them are desperately sad
as the faqir was at death time
This page makes clear that sadly he had no master and most pundits and learned have none.
The greatness in RSSB is that millions of 'simple) people see ( IN THEIR LIFE TIME ) in the physical molecules of an Appointed one the Gates of Heaven widely open.
Like in meditation but now without any effort
His Glance brings thousands ABOVE THEIR EYES in a flash
Please read the JapJi or the Magnificat - there cannot be praise enough for this phenomenon of Sound & Light for the meek .
Nothing has changed since Jesus !
Not even speaking about the real LOVE that people feel / experience - - - it’s like “being in Love’ for the first time multiplied by a lot
It's ALL about THAT and you do not even or only rarely find the word Love in many pages !
Posted by: 777 | September 15, 2015 at 03:21 AM
Not entirely sure I understand your post. But I suspect it has something to do with "lineage correctness" since you continually refer to RSSB and its "greatness."
Faqir was initiated by Shiv Brat Lal, who in turn was initiated by Rai Salig Ram who in turn was initiated by the founder of Radhasoami, Shiv Dayal Singh.
Faqir, however, stopped giving formal initiations in the 1940s and instead gave public satsangs where he explained the modus operandi behind why people have religious visions and the like but mistakenly believe that their respective gurus are doing the projecting (whereas they remain ignorant of such happenings).
Faqir was surprisingly honest about what he was going through in life and this is perfectly illustrated by his last days in a hospital in Pennsylvania.
As you may know, Faqir was supposed to fly from there to Los Angeles to stay at my Mom's home in the Valley. We had arranged for him to be interviewed and filmed and give a talk about his experiences. But he turned ill.
I even had the occasion to talk to him on the telephone shortly before he was taken to the hospital.
Faqir's letter from the hospital is a moving one and reflects well on Faqir's honesty about what he was going through.
I wish other gurus were as forthcoming. It is quite an existential document and a moving one as well.
As for lineage and the like I think that it should be much more closely inspected.
Here is an article I wrote that touches upon it:
Posted by: david lane | September 15, 2015 at 10:28 AM
Hi Dear David,
Thanks for this new information
It makes somewhat more transparant your sturdiness on the faqir
I didn't know it was personal and that he was your personal invité until karma decided it couln't happen and he died
As far as the lineage : I do not need scriptures, old letters and so.
The faqir's end was not enlighting and very sorrow-some.
When in 1985 my first-life initiated mother in law died and she hardly did any meditation,
at her last hour The Beautiful Radiant Appearance of her Satguru
appeared at the head end of the bed - like 3 meters high - yes higher than the ceiling,,
with his arms around the total bed - as if it were protecting her against
what indeed is marked in the Bardo Thodol : the LURING irrisistable boddhisattwas (personal attachments) around the exit tunnel
making SO TRUE what is mentioned exactly in the middle of the book,
"those who have sought during their lifetime the protection of a Holy Saint, . .
. . . they don't need to attend/hear these recitations for three days because they
will immediately approach the flame, (Jioty) the brilliant light at the end of the crooked tunnel.
When a first life satsangi receives the boon, as promised at initiation, what must we think about the last desperate remarks of the faqir
Could it have to do with the first page of Adi Granth, The Jap Ji
where in one page the complete Path is explained :
Here it is :
JAP JI :
By the Grace of the One Supreme Being,
The All-pervading Purusha,
The Creator, Without Hate, Without Fear,
The Being Beyond Time, Self-existent, The Enlightener, Incarnated.
True at the Beginning, True in the Primeval age
True is He and True He shall be.
Thinking avails not, how so hard one thinks;
Nor silence avails, howsoever one shrinks Into oneself.
Nor hunger goes With the loads of the worlds.
Of a myriad cleverness, not one works.
How then to be True ?
How rend the Veil of shame, untruth?
His Will forsooth
Inborn in us, ingrained°°° in us,
Thus is Truth attained
The Mighty sing of His Might, and the Blessed of His Light,
some sing that He is distant Far, . .
some sing that He see-eth , watcheth All
Oh Countless sing of countless things, . . He fills them all to overflowing.
True is the Master, True is His Name, . . what offer to make to see His Court,
What words to utter for His support?
meditate thou in the Ambrosial morn on the true Name.
THEY WHO HEARKEN TO THE WORD OF THE LORD,
KNOW THE SKY THE EARTHS, THE BULL, THE ISLANDS,
THE SPHERES AND UNDERWORLDS,
Deathless become they who who hearken to the word, . .
A devotee is foreever joyed and his pain and sin are destroyed.
THEY WHO HEARKEN TO THE WORD OF THE LORD,
fathom the deeps of virtue all,
are Glorious like a King, a SHEIKH , a PIR Divine, . .
even the Blind will see the Path Sublime.
They who hear the Word , are the creations Cream, . .
The are the ones approved suprime, . .
are honoured in the court of God, -such beings-,
look beautious in the Counsels of Kings
they fix their minds on the one Master only
they say and do what's thoughtful, Holy . .
And know that Gods doings are beyond the count of us beings, -
Who is it that supports them, . . 't is God,
Whose eternal finger has writ the features, . . and color , kind and form of
all creatures . .
Oh, would one dare to write the account, . . How staggering the count
How Great is His Power, . . How striking His Beauty, . . and of his gifts ,
Oh, who could tell with surity
One Word and the whole Universe throbbed into being,
and myriads rivers of Life came gushing, . .
Powerless am I , Oh Lord , to describe what thy excellence be, . .
sacrifice am I a myriad times unto thee, . .
that what pleaseth Thee is the only good done, . . O THOU the Eternal The
Countless the ways of Recitation, . . Countless the ways of Devotion,
Countless the ways of worship, . . countless the aussterities, their
hardships, . .
Countless the books, . . countless the reciters, . .Countless the yogis, .
Countless the men of piety, . .countless the men of merci
Countless the devotees on Thee ruminate, . . in Silence meditate . .
Countless the Heroes who face the steel, . . how powerless I feel Oh Lord, .
To tell what Thy Excellence be, . . sacrifice I am a myriad times unto Thee.
That what pleaseth thee is the only good done, . . Oh Thou
The Eternal, The formless One .
Countless the Unwise in black ignorance reel, . .
Countless the usurpers and those that steel, . .
Countless the Rulers who force their way, . . .
countless the cut-throats whom violence sways, . .
Countless the sinners whom sin engages, . .
countless the liars who wander in Mazes, . .
Countless the wretches , . . have filth as fill, . .
countless the slanderers, carrying loads of evil, . . Himself much is vain, . . and will look small in God's
A King who's dominion is like an Ocean and
has a Mind like a Mountain equals not a worm in whom dwells The Lord
Limitless his praise, . .Limitless its ways, . . Limetless His workings, .
Limitless his givings
Limitless the Sounds, . . Limitless the sights, . .
Limitless the mysteries of His Mind . .
Limitless the Creation, . . Limitless the expanse, . .
Oh countless struggle to find , Who can?
The more one says , the more is Yet to say, . .
Great is The Lord , . . High , High is His Mansion
To know the Highest of the High one may try, . .
If one be as high as He, . . HE alone knows How Great He be.
It's GRACE that brings us Merci.
THE MAN WHO KNOWS GOD, . . HE REALLY CREATED THE UNIVERSES.
Priceless the virtues, . . priceless the Trade, . .
priceless the customers, . . priceless the purchase,
priceless the dealers, priceless the Treasures,
priceless the weight, priceless the Measures,
priceless the devotion, priceless the absorbtion,
priceless the Law Divine, priceless the Masters Court ,
Priceless , beyond word, beyont thought,
They who seek to tell, knowing it Not, . .
The Vedas say, the Bibles say,
and the Learned they read, . .
interpreting as they may.
Say the Brahmas, say the Indras, say the Gopis, say the Krishnas,
say the Shivas, say the Siddhas,
say the many many Buddhas, . . . say the Demons, say the Gods,
the Seeers and the Sages,
some have said, . .some may say more, . .
others have said and left the shores, . . . .
How Great He is, . . only the the True One knows,
and he who presumes and says he knows , . .is a fool
among fools and as such he goes.
How does a human merge in the great peace of The Eternal Lord ?
Oh, . . He who has the Masters Nectar Name in his Mind and
Dwells on it, becomes invaluable
and all vegetation seemeth in blossom and bloom to Him
For Nanak, This is the Highest State of Bliss, . . that His Mind
remains imbued with Thy Name
Oh Tongue, utter thou the Lord's Praise, . . Night and Day, .
By the Lord's Grace do we dwell upon the Name
Like in the States , here in France there was a
rather Edgar Cayce equivalent sage Maitre Philippe in Lyon
You are educated and perhaps you can read it :
When he cured a person
he never accepted money or compensation
but he ALWAYS said : "don't gossip anymore”
if you knew what gossip and slander do to your Soul !
A lady came and she was healed
Philippe said : " Difficult to ask but could you please stop gossiping for half an hour
It will make a great difference concerning your destiny !!
My and your Master also said :
"Gossip brings the bad karma of the subject on your own shoulders
and your good stuff goes to the victim "
Instead of worrying about moneys, the faqir should have worried about the slander practised during his lifetime and so should you David
Even the Catholic Church knows about the last seconds before death :
If there is PURE LOVE there is nothing than Heaven, no attachments ( boddhisatwas) in sight
This is also very true in Sant Mat ( RSSB, yes )
and all the Holy genuine Sages but not with the fake youtube imposters filled with their own . . .
Posted by: 777 | September 16, 2015 at 04:25 AM
Faqir's letter, lest you forget, was not written on the day he died, but well before it. According to his attending physician with whom I spoke with on the very night Faqir died, Faqir died peacefully and fully conscious.
Second, if you wish to be consistent then look at the suffering that Sawan Singh endured during the last six months of his life. It was so bad, at one point, that his own doctor (and initiate), Dr. Schmidt thought that Sawan may be suffering from dementia.
The point, of course, is an obvious one: you cannot make theology out of near-death reports since they vary widely and it all depends on the person's own life trajectory.
Even Charan Singh's own death was not met with all bliss and lightness as he was very tired and asked everyone to leave the room so he could rest and turned to his side.... Moments later he died.
Those around him were taken by surprise.
I realize that you have a certain belief system and that Faqir's views are in some ways counter to it.
Faqir was quite outspoken about how gurus are not honest. In this regard, we never really do get the unvarnished truth about what a guru goes through in his day to day life.
What we get, mostly, is hagiography..... highly edited narratives that make us think it is all sweetness and light.
As Faqir pointedly stated,
"Generally, you know, that of a man knows about the tricks of a
Juggler, he would not be attracted by his show. But contrary to it, a man who is ignorant of his tricks would enjoy his show and even would give money to the Juggler. Similarly these Mahatmas and the Gurus play tricks with the ignorant masses, keep them in dark and exploit them. If they reveal their tricks, then who would come to them and offer them money. They do not disclose the true meaning of Nama and keep the devotees attached to their own mortal existence. This policy of their’s has proved very dangerous to the ignorant disciples. Many of the disciples committed suicide, when there gurus died, because they could not tolerate separation from their gurus. This is the result of wrong teachings of these gurus. These gurus are responsible for the deaths of these ignorant devotees, because they did not unveil the truth to them. This is the greatest sin.
Once, I was sitting at a shop. One man known to the shopkeeper
came there. The shopkeeper enquired about the well-being of his
family. That man, instead of telling about the health and happiness of his family started to abuse the Radhaswamis. I thought that he was abusing the Radhaswamis, because of me. But when he went away, I enquired about him from that shopkeeper. The shopkeeper told “he is an officer in the Army and have five/six children. His wife was a disciple of some Mahatma of Radhaswami faith. When the mahatma died, his wife jumped into the river and died. Now his life is miserable and hat is why he abuses the Radhaswamis.”
The reason I have written so extensively on Faqir was not because I think he is infallible or correct on all his observations, but because he was refreshingly open and honest about his own life and what he was going through..... contrary to what most R.S. gurus hide from us.
Read Treasure Beyond Measure without the editorial spins and you will see a very human Charan. That is Faqir's real message: these gurus are human, all too human.
Posted by: david lane | September 16, 2015 at 09:32 AM
"Faqir was quite outspoken about how gurus are not honest. In this regard, we never really do get the unvarnished truth about what a guru goes through in his day to day life. What we get, mostly, is hagiography..... highly edited narratives that make us think ........"
David, why don't you use this same arguement against your self, when you sentence the late Sant Thakar Singh as a "Scumbag Guru? " Did you ever personally witness him doing all the sexual abuses to women you have slandered hm doing in your writngs? Why did you believe all the rumors you heard from a few dsgruntled frustrated women? Look at how vicious some females can be, and how they turn against men who they once loved, or praised, using how a dsgruntled female slandered you, me, Glenn, an innocent Aussie, and the late Michael Martin, when what she accussed all of all of were lies. All your slander against Sant Thakar Singh could just as well have been the rumors festerng from similar disgruntled females not getting what they wanted from Thakar Singh. I was i tated frat by Thakar, and spent a lot of time with him, before I was initiared by Charan Singh,mans to tha day, I dn't believe any of the female rumrs in your writngs about the "Scumbag Guru."
Posted by: Jim Sutherland | September 16, 2015 at 06:38 PM
First listening to the sweet sound goes very well on your side.
Yes, Charan Singh Ji MaharaJI was a very nice utterly human person
but do you understand the semantics of the word serendipities
You must experience one per decennie: imaging all your decisions are guided by those and each time you feel the Love in them
SatGurus exist not for directing, they see it happening
Their task is Dashan which makes us thoughtless in a twink and I will not repeat the splendids - I did so many times
please read the following which is 100% objective :
A Personal story of
the Power expressed throughThose SatGurus in RSSB Sant Mat
as always happened back to Melchesadech
It's about a Giant Miracle
that could NOT have happened - that is :
to make such a thing happen , the Doer should have to go back in history at least a hundred years, starting modifying circumstances.
You might know an actuarian and ask
Sometimes I think one has to re-do even the big bang to have this miracle happen
the latest super nova might be easier :)
The Beauty here is : I have physical PROOF°* that it happened
I guess the Catholic church would be jubilant to the extreme when they had only ONE such SOLID PROOF of a miracle in their 2000 year history
this is the story * If any body is reckognizing me, . . please keep silent.
Initiated in 1965 - I had the idea - This Path is much to difficult and exalted for me and if anything would result it's not by my force , neither my interest, c q love
but two things of the vow-list I could easily do
The non-meat and the Simran
So I tried really hard this simran 24/7 and I started even using it which is not 'allowed' in business and so and I developped from a minus 1000 $ guy to the oppsite- then acquiring an IBM mainframe 360 at the time
using that computer 'wisely'
and came to a point that someone offered me a fantastic home in the Saint Tropez neighbourhood of France and I moved in
but that was after 6 years to costly and my father in law phoning often from Holland saying ;
"You have to come back" - a lot is mismanaged and your employéés they steal even
I said OK, at your next visit here
please bring the book keeping papers and we go through it together
So he came and I said :
Let's go to the beach and discuss and so we were on the beach and I saw that he was right and I had to give up this nice life, living as God in France which is a dutch expression
Twenty meters of where we were sitting there was a man reading the local newspaper : "THE NICE MATIN"
It's rather heavy - full of advertisements
anyway - the man there was putting the Journal in the sand and went to the sea to swim
The weather was mild with almost no wind
The moment that i agreed to return to Holland as a final decision and we were a sort of voting ) I said
"I choose for Holland"
At that precise moment the NICE MATIN journal of the neighbour
by the force of the wind but I m not sure
flew the whole 20 meters and landed halfway in my lap
and opened ( the man had closed it)
Immediately as if it was written with big characteres in the middle of the opened page
I saw written
"Nous choissisons Vivaldi"
This was so heavy a chocker because
in english this is
"WE CHOOSE VIVALDI"
that I immediately
added and changed my decision
because Vivaldi is the owner of the super house where I still live
and "WE" is pluralis majestatis
which gives a lot of goose busting or bursting
Then we took that Journal of August , 2 1986 in our hands
and saw that it was about the horse-racing in
and that one of the experts , mentioning a little list of 9 horses
had added his choice to be 'VIVALDI" the name of horse N° 7
But this story hasn't ended yet
Looking to the list of the horses and yes, : there was Vivaldi
but the last one had the name RIGHTLY which was so nice an extra
to the sphere we were in
BUT the first Horse on the list had the exalted name :
I still consider this Nice Matin as a Recommended Letter and it was
* I still possess this newpaper
and I have given copies to certain satsangis
because I will have it published ( also here ) after
my body will be no more
In 1991 I have send a copy to Gurinder, narcisticly thinking that it would be a great help to Him
and He answered me so nicely
That it was no wonder that Charan
helped his disciples and he thanked me for the letter and my narcistic invitation to come here at the house for a vacation
* - I changed the name of the landlord into another componist for privicy reasons
These SatGurus : everything is nicely done for them
So they can be completely in the Glance of their Masters at all time.
How can the last words of the fair
be written days before he died ??
Posted by: 777 | September 16, 2015 at 06:48 PM
Hi Jim who is this tAo guy do you know him?
Posted by: suzy | September 16, 2015 at 10:19 PM
Dear Jim, (part one of two)
Thank you for your post. The sexual allegations against Thakar Singh didn’t arise from me but rather from a variety of sources, some of whom had no contact with each other.
I first met Thakar Singh in 1977 when he was giving a series of talks in Baja, Mexico. At that time a young woman received initiation from him. However, during her private personal interview with him, Thakar Singh made sexual advances to her and she immediately quit associating with him and his satsang. This woman recounted her experience to me, not knowing that other women would later on tell similar tales. She had no axe to grind, didn’t have a vested interest in the guru or the group, having only been associated with him for a short time.
Later, I was contacted by a number of women—some of whom didn’t know each other—who revealed varying stories of how Thakar Singh came on to them, ranging from fondling their breasts to kissing them on their lips and on other parts of their body to oral sex, etc.
Some of these women told their story publicly, providing explicit details that were published in a feature critique of Thakar Singh in the San Francisco Chronicle. Others went to television outlets and told their sordid stories on air, including an in-depth documentary on Oregon Public Broadcasting which unwittingly captured Thakar Singh lying on air denying that he ever massaged or touched the breasts of his female disciples, even though one ardent female devotee (who was pro Thakar) admitted on air that her guru had indeed massaged her chest and neck.
Some devotees spoke about being sexually abused on a newscast on Toronto television. Other women wrote detailed letters explaining what Thakar Singh had done to them.
All of this, however, was not news, since almost from the beginning of Thakar Singh’s ministry there were reports of his sexual activities. Dr. Harbhajan Singh, a highly positioned initiate of Kirpal Singh, talked about complaints by female devotees in India complaining of Thakar Singh’s sexual advances from the very beginning of his fledgling ministry.
Also during this time, Thakar Singh admitted in a letter that he has a sexual problem and that he blames Kal for it. Steve Morrow, founder of the Prison Project in Texas, also received a personal letter from Thakar Singh who confessed the same. Steve Morrow then contacted me directly about it. Thakar admitted to some of the charges claiming that "These devils had been working very strongly on my lower self including body and mind and also had been creating great disturbances in the Sangat in all parts of the world. The women problem is also a result of temptation of these devils on my pure Self and in this respect could succeed to some extend [sic: extent]." But it did not squelch the criticism that eventually resulted in a large exodus from his movement, including the resignation of his chief representative, Bernadine Chard, of northern California.
Posted by: david lane | September 17, 2015 at 12:34 AM
Dear Jim (part two of two):
Around this time, I decided it would also be helpful to contact Thakar Singh’s first general representative, Bernadine Chard, since she was responsible for backing Thakar and getting him better known in the West. What she told me in my interview of her was disturbing to say the least.
She could no longer tolerate Thakar sexual advances to a number of women and other matters and decided to resign her position and stop her association.
I don’t regard these numerous allegations as mere rumors, since the reports come from different quarters and all tell a similar tale about Thakar Singh’s actions.
I, myself, lived with Thakar Singh for a period of time in the summer of 1978 as part of my work as a research assistant to Professor Juergensmeyer and for a spell was the only American at Sawan Ashram. I saw Thakar Singh personally abuse his wife. It was not a pleasant scene, nor was it pleasant to be asked to illegally take donated money to the black market and have it exchanged for rupees. I refused point blank.
Thakar Singh and I didn’t get along and at one point almost came to blows. I subsequently left and stayed at a hotel in New Delhi.
It isn’t merely one woman claiming such sexual advances from Thakar, but a number of women both in India and in America. These women should be commended for coming out, not disparaged.
Posted by: david lane | September 17, 2015 at 12:36 AM
And, finally, here is an excerpt from a Thakar initiate concerning some of the allegations:
Robert L. Lockwood, in a letter dated August 4, 1988, provides a gist of Thakar Singh's numerous transgressions:
“1. The first incident I recall was when a German girl. . . came to me while we were with Thakar Singh in India and told me that he had kissed her in a very sexual way. 2. While at Singh's ashram in India, I witnessed firsthand a young woman named Stephanie bound (hands and feet) and gagged as a means to restrain her. I was told that she was sent by the "negative power" to ruin Thakar Singh's Godly mission and that when she "acted up", this was the only way to handle her. I also heard that it had been going on for years. 3. On June 18 and 19 of this year , I accompanied two women initiates to see Singh in Rochester, N.Y. One of these women was being treated for "entities" she supposedly had and when she returned from the treatment, I observed bruises over her face and neck. 4. While in Buffalo, N.Y. during this same tour, I learned from [another woman] that she had witnessed incidents of this violence repeatedly in India to this same woman and several others too. 5. One such woman I met personally while in India and remember her when she arrived as seeming to be of sound mind and body. I learned that she was regularly held down--sometimes by several men--and given "treatments". I have heard several first-hand reports that by the time she left India, she was in a very sorry state, both physically and mentally. 6. I have been told directly by another woman recently that she was repeatedly assaulted, physically and sexually, by Singh in the name of "treatments" for dealing with her entities, while she was with him in India this year and last. 7. I spoke with Cindy Elmer, whom I met in India last year and who has always struck me as being a very sincere and devout follower of Singh. She said she was also physically abused and that Singh touched her in sexual ways. 8. I spoke directly with another woman who told me of "treatments" involving physical and sexual abuse by Singh. These treatments continued throughout India and also on Singh's U.S.A. and Canadian tour this year. 9. I recently spoke with. . . who told me that she was lied to and sexually abused. 10. I was told of an incident in India by two men who witnessed it first-hand. Singh's personal secretary threatened to throw her baby off the roof of the ashram in Delhi and Singh reacted by pounding her head on the cement. 11. I talked with Bernadine Chard, a former National Representative of Singh's organization and a constant companion on his many tours, who told me of numerous experiences and knowledge of both physical and sexual abuse by Singh before 1983.
Posted by: david lane | September 17, 2015 at 12:38 AM
Suzy, I rarely read or post here, so I do not know him or most of the Stars here. I beleve my self to be a well rounded down the middle non-extremist skeptic or Cultist. I never knew Brian until I read his Beas Book, nor have I ever met Dr. Lane other than reading his Mega-Tomes of Selfie Books & Vides. "Look AT Me, .....Me., ......, Me,.......I AM The GREATIST! I am a non Dogmatic middle of the Road Satsangi initiated by Sant Thakar Singh and Charan Singh who admires Dr. Ishwar Puri's Youtube Discourses teaching Sant Mat while always taking the High Road of refusing to gve his private opinion on other Gurus and Teachers. Nuff said.
Posted by: Jim Sutherland | September 17, 2015 at 03:09 AM
David Lane, next time you "meet" one of these gurus in meditation, ask them about Jesus Christ and see what happens.
Posted by: david r | September 17, 2015 at 05:30 AM
"Now I realize that it might be irritable for some to say that meditation experiences are by-products of the brain, but I don't see that way at all, given the absolute wonder of our three pounds of glorious wonder tissue"
I wouldn't say "irritated" Dave, I would say completely and utterly baseless. A fervent belief held with dogmatic rigidity, even though there is precisely zero to suggest it is true - or indeed even remotely plausible.
Where is that consciousness based in the brain, again, David?
How do you fit an idea into a quark?
Posted by: manjit | September 17, 2015 at 05:36 AM
I cannot fit a huge tsunami in a drop of water, but if we have enough drops of water (read: an ocean), we can generate a wave in Tahiti and Hawaii that allows surfers to get tubed.
As for brains and consciousness, as with an orchestra and a conductor, get enough instruments in harmony (read: get a sufficient number of neuronal connections) and we see the emergence of different types of consciousness (or melodies).... such as we see in humans who have on order some 86 billion neurons. Reduce that same number by a factor of 20 and we have a dog's brain and its attendant response to the world at large.
Why is such complexity necessary for the output of awareness? Is it because such brains are "filters" as some would argue, working as receiving stations? Or, is it because such complexity gives rise to consciousness itself?
Add a chemical mix to the brain and you can shut it off, as we do when we sleep. Does that mean the receiving station is closed for the night? Or, are such chemicals part and parcel (and not merely adjacent) of self awareness?
In any case, as I have long argued, let's exhaust the neuronal option first and even if we are unsuccessful it will help us better understand the nature of consciousness and why it arises..... raising questions of whether it is substrate neutral or some other factor is at play.
Again, it doesn't have to be an either/or situation, but I do think that exhausting the physicalist explanations first is altogether wise..... even if it turns out that something "else" is going on.
Posted by: david lane | September 17, 2015 at 08:29 AM
Manjit, it sounds like you don't know much about modern neuroscience. Most researchers in this area don't think there is a place in the brain where consciousness resides. Rather, the entire brain produces consciousness and what we call "mind," the brain in action.
It's sort of like if you asked, "Where in the ocean are waves located?" Waves ARE the ocean, the ocean in motion. This isn't an exact analogy, of course, because brains are extremely complex, while the ocean is made of water -- pretty darn simple.
Still, my point is that you're looking for a dualistic explanation, whereas almost certainly consciousness is a global brain phenomenon.
Posted by: Brian Hines | September 17, 2015 at 08:58 AM
Hey Jim how you say you don't know tAo when you made this response to him...
Hi tau JD, "old Friend??" If I recall, in your last conversations to me, if you treated all of your friends like you treated me, Then I am amazed you still have any friends left. Your refrerenced San Diego Dudes look too rough for me. I left that scene in 1977 and never looked back. Check out my referenced Blog, to see where I'm at presently, I'm too old and burnt out to argue about Casper the Spook, and similar hot button issues. As you must have heard, our mutual Pal, MM departed this world, and Lane hasn't turned into a gorilla yet! ( maybe next time around. ) best to you and your lovely Lady, ....( assuming you are still together? ) I am traveling since retirement. I have visited 44 countries in the last 2 years. Meow to your cats! I still have my same 2 old Guys. Jim
Posted by: suzy | September 17, 2015 at 09:55 AM
Brianerro Hinesotti ...
Posted by: bukakkero | September 17, 2015 at 10:01 AM
Hi Brian / Dave,
Thanks for your responses. Mine below:
I was humoured by the unintentional irony in both your posts. Brian wrote, and much of Dave's post implies the same:
"Manjit, it sounds like you don't know much about modern neuroscience. Most researchers in this area don't think there is a place in the brain where consciousness resides."
Imo, to understand anything "modern", one must understand the full history of the subject, and it's evolution. Go back to the pioneers of neuroscience, such as Wilder Penfeld or John Eccles, and follow it's progression through time to the current day. (incidentally, neither John or Wilder would agree with your staunch philosophical reductionism, despite being scientists who did the pioneering research in the field you are translating your ideologies from, and neither have their arguments and scepticism of such reductionism been effectively philosophically countered or disproven by actual scientific data to this day).
The irony of Brian's quote above is, that it was PRECISELY such philosophical reductionists as Brian & Dave are today, that believed the "mind" or "consciousness" could be reduced to being a "by-product" or "created" by a singular part of the brain some few decades ago. It is only because of the profound, repeated, glorious failures of science to locate this place of consciousness, that the idea has evolved....but the underlying premise is identical.
Now, with a magical sleight of hand, both Dave & Brian are at pains to explain to me "no, no, silly boy, it is not one part of the brain that creates consciousness, it is SEVERAL parts of the brain! It is not ONE atom that creates consciousness, it is SEVERAL atoms wiggling in specific ways/frequencies/coherence/whatever scientists think matter is nowadays that creates consciousness! - and don't forget, these atoms all fell into place entirely randomly - Jaques Monod rules!"
One doesn't need to be up to date with "modern neuroscience" to understand this philosophical idea. It is, after all, a simple, obvious, inevitable outcome of the spectacular failed attempt to locate the singular "source" of consciousness in the brain - and is an idea that has been around for decades.
But, whilst thanks goes out to both you Dave and Brian, for reminding us of this philosophy, could you please cite some reference-able scientific studies which show, encouragingly at least, that this is any more than a fanciful theory of yours? If I say the Flying Spaghetti Monster pisses consciousness into our brains whilst we are in the womb, is there any ACTUAL scientific data which suggests your idea that consciousness is created by a confluence of brain activity that "creates", perhaps as a "by-product", is any more true or valid SCIENITIFICALLY?
Dave - you make many nice sounding statements, all sounding very reasonable and intelligent - but they have also all been addressed and countered. I will attempt to recap several points:
"Why is such complexity necessary for the output of awareness? Is it because such brains are "filters" as some would argue, working as receiving stations? Or, is it because such complexity gives rise to consciousness itself?"
Yes, there are several theories of the brain's relationship to consciousness (which there clearly is); filter/transducer, receiver or generator. I hold little faith in any particular theory, for reasons may become clearer near the end of this post. I would, however, seriously question several assumptions in your question; 1) You assume consciousness only exists with brains. How do you know that all matter isn't "conscious"? 2) What about all the evidence of hyper-alert/lucid/complex states of consciousness in those who's brains are seriously impaired, such as NDEs, brain trauma, or the research that suggests psylocibin use actually REDUCES brain functions, yet the experience appears, subjectively, hyper-real?
DAVE: "Add a chemical mix to the brain and you can shut it off, as we do when we sleep. Does that mean the receiving station is closed for the night? Or, are such chemicals part and parcel (and not merely adjacent) of self awareness?"
Ahh, the old reliance on "anecdotal evidence", but only when it is convenient!
I think we are dealing with a far, far more complex and mysterious reality than you give it credit for. Too one-dimensional for me. I'll try to explain:
Will you also give an ear to the "anecdotal evidence" of those who are given a "certain chemical", or that other pop-cliche "hit over the head with a hammer" but do not, gasp!, lose consciousness? Even, perhaps, enter a hyper-real dimension of consciousness experience, precisely because of that hit over the head, or chemical?
Or are you only interested in the anecdotal evidence of those who say "I lost consciousness!"?
You see, we all dream every night. Almost every single human being on this planet. Many dreams a night. I would say about 1% of those dreams are "remembered" on this side of sleep.
Does that mean dreams do not exist? They are impossible?
The veil may be far more powerful than you imagine it to be, from your perspective, and, should that veil have any mechanisms, it is obvious you have no comprehension of them.
DAVE: "In any case, as I have long argued, let's exhaust the neuronal option first and even if we are unsuccessful it will help us better understand the nature of consciousness and why it arises"
You have indeed long argued this!
Of course, it is wonderfully worded, reasonable sounding declaration of faith; promisory materialism.
Some of us have other adventures to look forward to.
Posted by: manjit | September 17, 2015 at 11:18 AM
PS - to an astute readers of this blog who are genuinely interested in this subject, and do not wish to just re-inforce their own dogmatic beliefs, the following is worth noting. Within it is contained a profound answer, and the reason why reductionism is so inherently absurd:
Science has not even come close to detecting "consciousness". Indeed, it hasn't even come close to defining what "consciousness" is. This is undisputed fact.
The whole field of philosophical reductionism, as engaged in by Brian and Dave here imo, can be reduced to the image of blind men hoping to catch phantoms with their fish nets.
Each to their own!
Posted by: manjit | September 17, 2015 at 11:25 AM
manjit, if you read David Lane's comment above, you'll see that he said "I do think that exhausting the physicalist explanations first is altogether wise..... even if it turns out that something 'else' is going on."
This is my view also, along with every neuroscientist I've read. (And I've read a lot on the subject of consciousness and the brain.)
Just think logically for a second. We know that the physical brain exists, and that changes to the brain cause changes to consciousness. Animals also have brains, the same applies.
Drink alcohol. Get anesthesized. Have a cup of coffee. Go to sleep. Physical changes produce changes in consciousness. So it does indeed make sense to exhaust physical explanations for consciousness before going to non-physical explanations.
You asked for references about how the brain produces mind and consciousness. Currently I'm reading Antonio Damasio's "Self Comes to Mind: Constructing the Conscious Brain." Give it a read.
I've only gotten through a few chapters so far. I can already tell that Damasio makes a lot of sense.
From the back cover: "He rejects the long-standing idea that consciousness is somehow separate from the body, and presents compelling new scientific evidence that posits an evolutionary perspective. His view entails a radical change in the way the history of the conscious mind is viewed and told, suggesting that the brain's development of a human self is a challenge to nature's indifference."
There's plenty evidence and arguments pointing to the physical nature of consciousness. So give us your evidence and arguments for believing that human consciousness is non-physical and doesn't require a brain.
Posted by: Brian Hines | September 17, 2015 at 11:45 AM
Manjit just sand bagged two older ladies.
Posted by: moongoes | September 17, 2015 at 11:52 AM
To 777 Re: Questions to Jim: Never met Charan in person, but was accepted for initiation by him and Roland DeVries nitiated me by Proxy, Attended Gurinder Singh's Satasang at Palm Springs only. Never attended a single Eckankar meeting, but read most of their books. Know all about Twitch plagerizings Sant Mat books. The Eckarkar information on my blog is all from Research done by a friend of mine who is an Ex-Eckest. Last, I write as either Eternal Flame or Marked Elect on my blog, and try to keep my belief system up to date, as when there are any new tweaks in my understanding. I stand by what I write on my blog, but am much less cautious with comments I make on Forums sch as some I comment on. Cheers, Jim
Posted by: Jim Sutherland | September 17, 2015 at 01:02 PM
To Suzy from Jim Re: tAo. Now I remember, who he is. We once had many deep PRIVATE email exchanges, which I keep private. But we parted company years ago when he started becoming too abusive to continue civil cnversations with. And I now know why you would bring him in to the conversation regarding Thakar Singh, who he also spent time with. But to my knowledge, tAo never once witnessed Thakar Singh SEXUALLY abducting any females, .....or males. What he said he witness as NOT sexual abuse. And never did belive the testimony of the person claiming that Thakar forced her to give him head .right in a public meditation session with other mditators present .....onDavid Lane's Video. I sat in dozens of his public meditation sessons, and witnessed who he mved from each seeker trying to help them hear Sound and see Light.
Posted by: Jim Sutherland | September 17, 2015 at 01:23 PM
Jim no i did not ask because of Thakar but because of his attacking posts here. On one hand he knows so many stuff but on other his behaviour is hm....is he musician cause he said ,He was in many countries...i too had a few mail exchanges but he suddenly stopped so i stayed in wonder what is issue with him...so knowledgeble but so...dont know is it anger or depression..hm.
Posted by: Suzy | September 17, 2015 at 02:09 PM
David Lane, next time you "meet" one of these gurus in meditation, ask them about Jesus Christ and see what happens.
Posted by: david r | September 17, 2015 at 11:23 PM
To Dr. Lane Re: Thakar's "kissing and molestiing. " If a sexual witch hunt was researched against you, David, from your teen age years to now,...can you imagne if any disgruntled females ,......or males,....might surface to testify against any "improper advances" you might have made against them? ( once the first one surfaced) Just wondering how squeeqy clean your skeleton closet is. :-). Do you think Thakar Singh was as bad as Bill Cosby?
Posted by: Jim Sutherland | September 18, 2015 at 01:12 PM
Dear David R,
If and when I meet some guru inside I will try remember your question about Jesus :)
Posted by: David Lane | September 18, 2015 at 03:33 PM
Nice, this Monsieur Philippe story, thanks 777
So, reading further it seems that
graciously are giving away their good karma
to the fake gurus.
Well , they may need it !
Monsieur Schadenfreude -
Posted by: Monsieur SchadenFreude | September 19, 2015 at 04:26 AM
Question for Spiritual Seekers:
Any one think that Dr. Lane is the Guru Buster is as effective with his Video and Books as Miley Cyrus starring on MTV? :-). ( jk)
Posted by: Jim Sutherland | September 19, 2015 at 06:07 AM
Great question, Jim. Thanks for sharing the link. I like Cyrus' bluntness:
The 22-year-old “Party in the USA” singer went on to slam Christians who believe Noah’s Ark was a real vessel: “That’s f–king insane,” she told the magazine. “We’ve outgrown that fairy tale, like we’ve outgrown f–king Santa and the tooth fairy.”
But I'd say Lane beats out Cyrus on reason, evidence, and thoughtfulness.
The big question of course, is whether Lane can twerk anywhere near as expertly as Cyrus can. There, I suspect, Cyrus beats Lane BIG TIME.
Posted by: Brian Hines | September 19, 2015 at 07:59 AM
Brian thanks for your Keen Observation! But, again, it proves that each of us see differently through our Maya colored glasses. You wonder if Lane is able to twerk as well as Miley, while I in turn, wondered if Lane's tongue was ever as long as Miley's when he was a rebellious young debunker. To me, Dr. David Lane is the Pop King of Guru Busters on he Internet as is Miley Cyrus the Pop Queen religions basher of MTV. But actually, my Kids liked Miley better when she was Hannah Montana. But, Lane was cute too in this story as the young serious Guru Interviewer.
Posted by: Jim Sutherland | September 19, 2015 at 09:09 AM
What is amazing to me
From young to old, all over the planet
sing ( even when there's war around )
Almost Everybody agrees
God must be LOVE
Each human hopes for LOVE
Sant Mat teaches that the Sound
Shabd is extreme ever growing LOVE
All mystics declare experiencing / found LOVE
essentially above the eyes
Today I read about the oceans without oxygen and Fukushima
not even taken into account
Plus the end of oxygen before the year 2100
So little time and
LOVE isn't part (yet) of these discussions here
Churchless doesn't include LOVE-less
On the contrary I presume
Posted by: 777 | September 19, 2015 at 09:52 AM
Jim no i did not ask because of Thakar but because of his attacking posts here. On one hand he knows so many stuff but on other his behaviour is hm....is he musician cause he said ,He was in many countries...i too had a few mail exchanges but he suddenly stopped so i stayed in wonder what is issue with him...so knowledgeble but so...dont know is it anger or depression..hm.
Posted by: suzy | September 19, 2015 at 01:17 PM
Suzy, I don't discuss private conversations I have had with people who have trusted me enough in the past to share prvate information with that they might not still agree with 5-10 years later. Such is the case of tAo, who I never knew by that Moniker. He posted under the Moniker of "swamianami" when we had exchanges years ago. He usually deleted his public posts a couple of days later. I will say,......he forgot more about Eastern Philosophy and Gurus than most seekers can learn in this life time. But he can get pretty vicious when you push his Hot Buttons. I'm thru pushing any. Cheers,
Posted by: Jim Sutherland | September 19, 2015 at 01:51 PM
Posted by: suzy | September 19, 2015 at 02:18 PM
I will say,......he forgot more about Eastern Philosophy and Gurus than most seekers can learn in this life time.
.....what do you mean by this?
Posted by: suzy | September 19, 2015 at 02:19 PM
You wrote "manjit, if you read David Lane's comment above, you'll see that he said "I do think that exhausting the physicalist explanations first is altogether wise..... even if it turns out that something 'else' is going on."
This is my view also, along with every neuroscientist I've read. (And I've read a lot on the subject of consciousness and the brain.)
Just think logically for a second. We know that the physical brain exists, and that changes to the brain cause changes to consciousness. Animals also have brains, the same applies.
Drink alcohol. Get anesthesized. Have a cup of coffee. Go to sleep. Physical changes produce changes in consciousness. So it does indeed make sense to exhaust physical explanations for consciousness before going to non-physical explanations."
Yes, it is obviously "wise" to "exhaust" the "physicalist explanations". Once you've exhausted them - and you absolutely, with almost 100% certainty, WILL exclude them in trying to find the materialist basis of consciousness - because consciousness clearly isn't materialistic - then perhaps this conversation will evolve to a more sophisticated level.
As it is, this is just wishful, ideological & dogmatic thinking in PRESUMING there is materialistic explanation for consciousness.
Regarding all your very basic arguments regarding coffee, sleep etc - you should be aware that NONE of these suggest a brain-generated consciousness is more likely or plausible than a brain-receiver of consciousness theory. This is basic, standard stuff. If you mess with the settings on a TV or radio receiver, the output is affected. And that's the point - all the effects you mention in your support of a brain-generated conscoiusness, or as a "By-product" of the brain are, in fact, merely the CONTENTS of conscious experience, not consciousness itself. This lack of clarity in your arguments highlights precisely how weak the reductionist argument is, and, actually, utterly incoherent and lacking in integrity.
Better philosophy is needed.
You will notice David didn't bother responding. You can pretend this is due to any other reason than the fact there is no real counter to the points I've raised - but it isn't, and he knows it. Avoid that which exposes the huge flaws and inconsistencies in your ideology.
Finally, in regards your asking me for evidence in support of consciousness being "non-physical" - there is huge mountains of such evidence, and profoundly undeniable philosophical arguments supporting this too.
But, I have already linked up here (years ago) during an almost identical conversation a whole list of resources that provide ample "evidence" of this. Without a doubt the evidence for this far, far outweighs any evidence suggesting the brain creates consciousness as a "by-product" (an unfair comparison, as there is precisely NO evidence for that).
You appear to have completely disregarded that mountain of evidence. Fair enough.
But, when I ask you for evidence, you suggest reading a book by Damasio (who I've known about & his theory for several years btw, but thanks for the suggestion) and then finished with "there's plenty of evidence".
Can I please ask that you clearly & specifically list the research data which suggests, even remotely, that the brain "creates" consciousness? Can you specify, clearly, even a THEORY of how the brain "generates" consciousness? I'm not talking about wishful, wishy-washy woo-woo thinking that "several parts of the brain" generate consciousness - I'm talking about actual scientific research which backs that speculative thinking up?
Better go, I'm on my lunch break, but I look forward to reading more about this scientific data which backs up your rather spectacular claims (no less spectacular just because the intelligentsia all consider this common sense - history shows that intellentsia has proven to be absurdly wrong on many occassions). Just the name of the scientist and institution will be great, I'll follow up on it myself.
Hi Moon brother - I had to check out what "sandbagging" means! :) It wasn't my intention to "sandbag" anyone, but I did think it highlights the sheer level of unsophistication in Dave & Brian's arguments for them to focus on such irrelevancies!
Posted by: manjit | September 22, 2015 at 05:49 AM
manjit, in your lengthy comment you gave zero, ZERO, reasons to believe in the "receiver" theory of consciousness. Meaning, the brain is just the receiver of conscious information, like a television set is the receiver of video/audio information.
For one thing, the transmitter of electromagnetic waves at a broadcasting station is as physical/material and evident as the television set. So are the electromagnetic waves themselves.
But where is there evidence of non-physical "consciousness waves"? And how do they somehow become able to interact with and affect the physical brain? Meaning, how does something non-physical interact with something physical?
As I noted in one of my books, taking this analogy from someone else, your theory of consciousness is akin to an ethereal immaterial ghost who can also knock over lamps and scare people with its physical vision.
So actually it is your "theory" of consciousness that doesn't make sense.
Posted by: Brian Hines | September 22, 2015 at 08:40 AM
Hi Brian. First of all, thanks for the civil discussion - this has been a lot politer and rational than the last time we discussed this.
I absolutely loved your post - it shows how close you are to understanding the absurdity of materialist reductionism when it comes to consciousness.....so close, yet alas so far.....let's see if we can untangle the cognitive errors here.
First of all, you will notice in my 2nd post the other day I highlighted 3 theories of the brain's relationship to consciousness, which included the "receiver" theory. You will note I wrote directly after that sentence "I have no faith" in that theory (or the other 2), and that it "may become clear" why I didn't "believe" in that theory. It obviously never did become clear, to you.
You are ABSOLUTELY right, there is no "evidence" of "non-physical "consciousness" waves". Absolutely none. What you haven't understood is, there is absolutely no scientific "evidence" consciousness exists AT ALL.
It is JUST as absurd to say the brain "generates" consciousness as it "receives" consciousness - because consciousness ITSELF hasn't been detected scientifically - as I said, blind men searching for phantoms using fishing nets; absurdity upon absurdity! Actually, way more absurd - because at least the receiver theory explains a variety of phenomena that reductionists have gone to absurd lengths to dismiss - even if there is zero (equal to the generator theory) proof of it!
Yes, how does something non-physical interact with the physical? And, as we absolutely cannot detect consciousness in a laboratory, it is beyond obvious it is NON-physical, right? Oops, this way mystery & the occult lies....better to pretend "various parts of the brain generate consciousness as a by-product" - despite there being ZERO proof of this even being a plausible reality.
The point is, I personally don't believe in a filter/transducer, receiver or generator theory - I think all of these are laughably primitive in the face of the reality we are in in.
it is YOU, and Dave, who believe you know the "generator" theory to be true, who write books, blogs, articles & youtube videos about it.
I am simply asking for a SINGLE scientific source (meaning actual research, not ideological wishful thinking - damn, I used to think a variety of brain functions created the illusion of consciousness as a youngster, nothing so special about that speculative theory - I'm requesting ACTUAL scientific data or proof regarding it?
And I know implicitly you will be fundamentally unable to provide anything of the sort. Leaving your materialistic reductionism no more scientific or proven a theory than the flying spaghetti monster pisses consciousness into our ears whilst in the womb - but hey, we all need our beliefs and dogmas, to give us a sense of security in the world.
But some of us are REALLY "churchless", and truely "without beliefs".
Posted by: manjit | September 22, 2015 at 09:21 AM
manjit, it sounds like you are trending toward a theory of consciousness that I also like, along with other materialists. This basically denies that the "hard problem" of consciousness exists.
I've expressed this before using an ocean analogy. Waves are just what the ocean does. Likewise, "consciousness" is just what the physical brain does when it reaches a certain level of complexity and interactivity.
So if you are indeed saying that "consciousness" is an illusion in the same way that waves are temporary aspects of the ocean, not anything substantial in themselves, then I think you are on the right track.
There is no need to posit anything mysterious, other-worldly, or unexplainable. The more we learn about the brain, the more we learn about consciousness, since consciousness is an aspect of the brain being in action.
Posted by: Brian Hines | September 22, 2015 at 09:33 AM
No, after a thorough study of a wide variety of philosophical ideas regarding consciousness, I think the "there is no hard problem" school of materialism ridiculous and absurd, kind of like a child putting a hand in front of their face and believing noone can see them.
But, at least you're moving forward from the scientific angle and admitting it is all philosophy, not science (for there is no "consciousness", right, if we can't measure it in a lab? "hard-problem disappeared! :). It is good you, apparently, have realised there is ZERO scientific proof of your reductionist theories.
I will leave it to the sagacity of the readers to decide who's "philosophy" is better. Those that aren't hypnotised by academic titles, books, blogs etc......
Cheers and all the best!
Posted by: manjit | September 22, 2015 at 09:41 AM
Hi bro he he i took sandbagged stuff from Alex Tsakiris about Patricia and David interview.
Did you get my email back...
Posted by: moongoes | September 22, 2015 at 02:26 PM
You are mistaken when you write, "You will notice David didn't bother responding. You can pretend this is due to any other reason than the fact there is no real counter to the points I've raised - but it isn't, and he knows it. Avoid that which exposes the huge flaws and inconsistencies in your ideology."
No, I didn't respond simply because I have other things to attend to (currently teaching 8 classes and the kids just started school again.... and, most importantly, the surf has been good with super warm water).
I realize that we have differing views and it seems highly unlikely that more words (evidential or otherwise) is going to nudge this discussion).
I do think we will eventually get beyond this impasse about how to generate consciousness (or not) when several things are accomplished: a more complete understanding of the brain and whether or not we can reproduce self-reflective awareness (or its appearance) in substrate neutral components, as has been proposed across numerous fields interested in A.I.
Simply put, I think the issue of consciousness may be a technical issue and not a philosophical one.
In any case, this discussion deserves a deeper and more prolonged elaboration..... and I am in the process of attempting such..... so this is just a note to say that you were not ignored or avoided because of your points....
Rather, when surf calls..... I tend to put things on hold.
Thanks for your patience.
Posted by: David Lane | September 22, 2015 at 03:31 PM
dear david and manjit --
first David -- quote: "whether or not we can reproduce self-reflective awareness (or its appearance) in substrate neutral components, as has been proposed across numerous fields interested in A.I."
How do humans determine their "awareness"---enough that we could insure replication is?
What does a ghost taste like?
Do we define awareness as primarily "self-reflective"? Hummmm....very flattering. Awareness is also instinct, desire...and willfulness, and if it is a male A.I. they will have to make a second brain attached to the artificial penis.
Manjit. I agree with you.
Posted by: Yawn big and loud | September 22, 2015 at 07:16 PM
Hi Yawn big and loud,
Well, there is a very simple way to "grow" consciousness physically since we have already done it billions of times.
Attaching a sperm to an egg and letting it grow within the womb.
The argument about whether consciousness is physical or something else is a vital one. And, of course, there is much discussion on it.
I am working on a new essay (inspired by Manjit's posts which I always enjoy) entitled "The Physics of "I" --How to Grow Consciousness in a Petri Dish."
But in the meantime, I think readers here might enjoy these various interviews (to and fro) on the subject:
As for A.I., it is a question and an issue that I believe will be resolved (pro or con) much earlier than we might suspect.
Posted by: David Lane | September 22, 2015 at 09:30 PM
There is some deep truth in this picture. Brake the rules.
Posted by: Nietzsche | September 25, 2015 at 02:49 AM
Hehehe Nietzche ... Glad you liked my artwork.
I think I have designed that back in the days I was cremating the Rajinder figurine.
"I don't know a shit"
"I know than I know nothing. That's why I know everything."
--> Everything is nothing.
So, chill out, bro.
Embrace the void and dance like a god as Friedrich has said.
Dance like a crazy and don't give a shit.
Posted by: Pythagoras | October 12, 2015 at 02:18 AM
You know it's funny. I found David Lane's
wife, called ratnagarro on his old club, to
have said something that has stuck with
me to this day. I actually quoted her in my book.
She quoted Swami Rama (sp?)
He was a kundalini master of renown. He said
basically that at the end of his kundalini
drama, he ended up with just plain ordinary
consciousness of the guy on the street.
Kundalini yoga is surat shabda of course.
That's exactly what you will end up with
at the 1000 palated lotus if you get there.
You will end up empty handed without even the
neophyte stage of enlightenment.
Kundalini is Satan's playground. And, anyone
practising it, will have wasted their life
and even seen the Devil's radiant form,
which constantly gives bad info to his disciples.
You will get no where.
Posted by: Mike Williams | October 15, 2015 at 06:58 PM
Mike poor guy you mixed everything up.
How are your lies and manipulations these days. Did you manage to put them under control?
You were caught so many times on lies and you never admit it. You just hide and after time you manipulate further. That is called weakness. I liked you for a long time but you disappointed me with these lies... Why did you choose weasel approach and not like open honest man. I hope in the future you will win over your lies and especially over your manipulations these are even harder in your case.
Posted by: mooko | October 16, 2015 at 01:14 AM
Mike Williams has been initiated by so many Gurus who planted their Astral Clones in his Third Eye when they initated him, that his Third Eye now appears to also even include a Rat Clone! The Good News is, Anami Purish is always Open to recieve Repenters, especially Exers like Mike Williams. I think Mike mght consider begging forgiveness from Anami Purish, then seeking final Initiation from Dr. Ishwar Puri, to add his Astral Clone to Mike's Third Eye, so he has accurate udates for his Radhasoami Propaganda site. Its never too late to repent,.......when above ground.
Posted by: Jim Sutherland | October 16, 2015 at 04:16 PM
I didn't know I was married to "Rat" (a witty poster on Radhasoamistudies). Must have been a shotgun wedding!
Posted by: David Lane | October 16, 2015 at 04:38 PM
I love the way Brian runs this blog. Lets everyone's opinions through as long as they are not too abusive. Always an interesting read. I usually get annoyed with the love and light brigade but at the moment I feel like saying thanks, love to all of you wonderful crazy mixed up people (myself included :)
Posted by: Jen | October 16, 2015 at 04:54 PM
It wasn't a shotgun wedding. She got drunk at the beach and you seduced her. How else could a surfer find a wife ? Not to mention she posted within minutes of you for years as was recorded and noted on your site many many times over the years in great detail with times and dates..
Everyone though she was you. I never blew her cover because I liked her.
Mathematically impossible. Can you deny I got an A in calculus at the very college you teach at now ?
Your one saving grace was she found you the "most handsome man she's ever seen."
Of course your advertisement said , No attitude.
The truth is she likes your body ... not your mind.
Posted by: Mike Williams | October 16, 2015 at 07:29 PM
Yes, Ratnagarro is Dave's wife. I actually knew it from the
beginning without her hundreds of posts
directly after his. She would indeed make a great hot Russian spy and
I enjoyed her. She is great fun.
The only thing said about me during this time that was true
was that I am a savant idiot.
Someone nailed me on that.
Yes, I have been initiated by more masters than
then you can shake a stick at. Or, at least I would make the top ten.
But, there is no astral plane and no radiant form. My experience in very many groups whom see a radiant form is this.
The radiant form gives bad advice. It lies.
I can't tell you how many very nice people
have lost their jobs, their wives, destroyed their household and even gone literally insane
from advice from the radiant form.
The Buddhists are the only ones I have seen warning against this form. (forms)
Good day mate
Posted by: Mike Williams | October 16, 2015 at 08:29 PM
I must say I like your sense of humor. Sorry to disappoint you but my wife doesn't post on R.S. Studies or here or, for that matter, on any online forum.
She is too busy raising our two boys to fret about these things.
Posted by: David Lane | October 17, 2015 at 12:03 AM
Mike Williams is top of the top manipulators.
Posted by: stu | October 17, 2015 at 12:30 AM
Funny that old Monikers like "Zakk Zakk, Swamianami and tAo" all sound like Mike Williams. But perhaps they also are only Astral Clones planted in Mke's Third Eye! That Third Eye must be so cluttered with Astral Clones by now, that even Michael Martin with his personal Brigade of Beings of Light from The Anami Puresh Spiritual Plane would need to pray for Jesus to help them qualify the real Master from the false illusions. The Book of The Dead's Bardo mist be less cluttered with false illusions than Mike Willim's Third Eye. I think, ( personal opnion, only...) that Mike's only Real Astral Master Clone that is Mike's favorate is,...Master Darshan Singh. He is the Mole of Moles.
Posted by: Jim Sutherland | October 17, 2015 at 02:48 AM
False line :
"" The Buddhists are the only ones I have seen warning against this form. (forms) - ""
All RSSB Masters warn that only the 5 words ,
RECEIVED FROM A REAL SAINT and not as read somewhere
will destroy false appearances and statements in an instant
They are The Real Excalibur
Posted by: 777 | October 17, 2015 at 04:53 AM
It's OK, she can have her privacy. But while your here there is a video you might want to watch.
Bill Cooper predicted he would be shot dead on his front doorstep and shortly after was shot dead on his doorstep. He exposed the Freemasons.
I am convinced Salig Ram was either a Freemason
(or Rosicrucian). Salig Ram had the complete set
of Emanuel Swedenborg, the Freemasons bible at the time.
Salig Ram also held postmaster general. He could not have held such a high post unless he was a
Freemason member in British controlled India.
Theosophy from Blavatsky to Besant on was actually formally a branch of Freemasonry.
It was named the Lucifer Trust at the beginning
and became Lucis Trust. Theosophy was Freemasonry and comes from the ancient Babylon
It is quite literally the worship of Lucifer.
Manly P. Hall was a 33rd degree Mason. Krishnamurti was supposed to be the Maitreya
returned. But, he rejected the whole thing
and denounced it.
The majority of the USA fathers were Freemasons
including Washington, Franklin, Paul Revere
(leader of Boston teaparty).
Hitler kept a copy of The Secret Doctrine on
his nightstand. Both Hitler and Stalin were
followers of G. I. Gurjieff. Stalin was also a Freemason.
Theosophy is indeed Luciferian to its very core
by its own admission. Kundalini has always been
Posted by: Mike Williams | October 17, 2015 at 07:21 AM
To refute comments made by "Mike Williams," which replicate those he made several years ago on Radhasoami Studies: I am not Dave's wife. I am a heterosexual male. There is no evidence to the contrary. This person's claims are delusional.
Additionally, I cited Gopi Krishna, not Swami Rama, and the quote says nothing remotely like what this person claims it does. In fact, Gopi Krishna's work indicates the very opposite.
Posted by: Ratnagar Rao | October 17, 2015 at 11:59 AM
You indeed live with Dave. Mathematics doesn't lie.
And, the evidence is overwhelming. So, unless your mother in law lives with you, or grandmother, etc. your the only person it can be. I assume your children were too small to post.
Again, the mathematics of you posting behind Dave within minutes, over a period of years, is not possible unless you live with him. I documented this.
The quote was from Gopi and it has been on my site for a decade. That's why I put a question mark next to Rama when I quoted it here, didn't want to take the time to search for author.
They could have gone to my site and found it
easily. I noted it was there.
Here is the exact quote
From Gopi Krishna's book Higher Consciousness (no page references available). Note the references to inner light and sound:
"But it is important to remember that all these visionary experiences with shape, form, place, or time are but the figments of one's own imagination, rendered vivid and realistic by the radiant stream of kundalini. The gods and goddesses, angels and devils, heavens and hells, superhuman and subhuman beings, strange unearthly creatures, astral and mental planes, conditioned by earthly time, space, name, form, or figure, have no real significance, but are merely the creations of the subjects themselves through their active and glowing imagination.
"The higher state of consciousness, despite its enrapturing radiancy and the alluring sounds in the ears, is as void of visions and hallucinatory figments as the consciousness of a healthy, wise, and clear-thinking human being, who calls a spade a spade, and who views everything he comes across in sane perspective and proportion, always ready to distinguish reality from a dream or a hallucination."
Posted by: Mike Williams | October 17, 2015 at 03:25 PM
You may want to pay attention to the following portion of the quote:
"a healthy, wise, and clear-thinking human being, who calls a spade a spade, and who views everything he comes across in sane perspective and proportion, always ready to distinguish reality from a dream or a hallucination."
Posted by: Ratnagar Rao | October 17, 2015 at 03:48 PM
Your hypothesis is that what you perceive as correlation between the timing of my posts and those of Dave proves that I am his wife.
There are numerous problems with this. Here are some:
1. If Dave or I reply to posts by each other, or in the same thread, and happen to be online around the same time, then yes, the posts will be close in time, but this is the case for other forum users as well. You have not established any differentiation between this and other such cases.
2. You have, in fact, not collected a statistically significant sampling of data that could establish this. To accomplish this, you would need to somehow download all or many of the posts from the forum, and analyze the data. Do you possess the means to do this, or even understand what this entails?
3. Even if you were to establish a statistically significantly higher correlation in time between the posts of Dave and myself then between any other 2 users, which I suspect is impossible because there is to my knowledge no such correlation, it would in no way prove that we live together, and the thought that it would seems patently absurd for numerous reasons. You have seen repeated denials by both of us, and there is no apparent reason to hide such a relationship if it existed. I cannot imagine why a husband and wife would tend to post around the same time in any case.
This is reminiscent of the discussion that immediately preceded your previous foray into this delusion in 2012. You touted a website by one John Williams claiming that the official inflation numbers are understated, and through numerous examples I proved beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt that he is grossly wrong. Your repeated irrelevant, illogical and ad hominem responses culminated in your present bizzare claim.
Posted by: Ratnagar Rao | October 17, 2015 at 04:42 PM
Attn. Dr. David Lane: Why don't you lead Tours to visit all the various Radhasoami Satsangs in India with private meetings with each Guru of each Lineage? You should be able to get all the invitations from each Guru, at least from all you have visted. I'll bet you would get many interested in taking such a Tour, me included! You could even include other attractions like the Taj, and Sikh Golden site. You could ask Brian Hines and Mike Williams to help you run the Tours. The Rosicrucians ( AMORC) offer a yearly Tour to Egypt for their members that is very successful. You would be very successful as the leading Tour Gude for Radhasoami and India Guru Ashrams.
Posted by: Jim Sutherland | October 19, 2015 at 05:57 PM
Thanks for your post. I enjoyed my last trip to India last November very much with my wife and two kids, but that is a big enough crowd for me.
I could conduct a surfing tour, but it seems wherever and whenever I go surfing these days sharks are in the water.
Could John-Roger Hinkins be sending a message from beyond the grave?
Posted by: David Lane | October 20, 2015 at 12:01 AM
Dave, regarding http://www.integralworld.net/lane10.html, where is the ACTUAL EVIDENCE (not someone's literary or psychoanalytic interpretation) that "....Ramakrishna was sexually abused as a child...." ????
Posted by: Todd Rush Chambers | October 22, 2015 at 08:27 AM
Mike Williams is Zakk Zakk
Posted by: Todd Rush Chambers | October 22, 2015 at 12:39 PM
The allegation about Ramakrishna's being sexually abused as child comes, as you know, from Jeffrey Kripal's controversial book, KALI'S CHILD which has generated tremendous controversy (both pro and con).
That is why I prefaced my inclusion of his text with "arguable" and "apparently". I used to include Kripal's book in my World Religions class right when it came out and wrote the article on the Elevated Podium not too many years after Kali's Child book came out. However, the Vedanta Society contacted me and presented me with a long critique of Kripal's. In the past 15 years there has been a heated discussion about Kripal's methodology, though there are certainly peculiar oddities about when, why, and what would trigger Ramakrishna's samadhis....
I have become highly critical of Kripal the more I read of him, especially of late. You can see my changing view of Kripal here (particularly in the commentary section): http://www.integralworld.net/lane71.html
Posted by: David Lane | October 22, 2015 at 09:06 PM
Does Kripal specifically allege that Ramakrishna was really sexually abused as a child (as in, actual incidents that can be identified)? Abused by whom, actually?
Posted by: Todd Rush Chambers | October 23, 2015 at 06:57 AM
As the whole universe is created
to produce kindness, . .
and learn that
Posted by: 777 | October 23, 2015 at 02:01 PM
Yes, but I don't have the book right now so I cannot give you his spin.
Posted by: David Lane | October 23, 2015 at 03:26 PM
I have a copy of his book, cannot recall Kripal making any specific accusations/allegations.
Posted by: Todd Rush Chambers | October 26, 2015 at 09:14 AM
Check Page 298 where it talks about Sil's argument about Ramakrishna being sexually abused ...... speculative no doubt, but Kripal thinks it is central.....
Posted by: David Lane | October 29, 2015 at 08:19 PM