The most amazing thing about religions is that everyone believes they're right

Religious people believe in the miraculous.

Atheist me finds a different sort of miracle embedded in religiosity: the fact that almost everyone who embraces a particular religion is highly confident, if not absolutely certain, that their particular faith is The True One. 

Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, and followers of many other creeds (including the Eastern mystical/spiritual teaching I followed for many years, Sant Mat) -- with just a few exceptions each devotee considers that somehow they've been fortunate enough to find the truth about an ultimate divine reality, while billions of people who believe otherwise are sadly deluded.

This  makes possible the atheist saying:

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

Now, religiously-minded people might point out that in science alternative theories may compete with each other. True enough. But there are ways to determine which scientific theory is most correct.

Such doesn't exist in religion, or we wouldn't have thousands of faiths (Wikipedia says about 4,200) competing with each other for thousands of years with no demonstrable evidence of which, if any, speak the truth most truly.

In "Religious believers, what if you're wrong?" I included some questions posed by James Lindsey in his book, God Doesn't, We Do. These are well worth pondering by religious believers.

-- What if you, believer, are right about there being a God but picked the wrong one? 

-- What if you're right about God but picked the wrong religion to worship Him, as Muslims, Jews, and Christians mutually claim about each other?

-- What if you're right about God and your religion but wrong about which denomination, sect, or church has it right?

-- What if no demomination or person has figured it out correctly yet?

-- Can you, in your little corner of faith, in your tiny denominational box, shaded by your own personal perception, interests, likes, and dislikes, really be so sure that all of these billions of others have it wrong and that you have it right?

-- What if you are wrong about God's existence?

-- What, then, are you doing with some or much of your life?

-- How much time and effort are you wasting chasing fairy tales out of a book that is ancient literature turned social-control manual?

-- What are you doing to yourself, to your psychological well-being, when you must constantly lie to yourself about your worldview, which does not match your view of the world anywhere you look without relying on rationalizations and contortions of facts?

-- What are you ignoring or failing to learn about the world or yourself because you think you already have answers or because you want them less than your cherished beliefs?

-- What are you doing when you support inhuman social policies, hold back education, suppress healthy expressions of sexuality, oppose beneficial measures in regards to sexual health, deny others their basic human rights, curse the names and lives of your enemies or go to war with them, vote for idiotic politicians because you like their beliefs, held without evidence, enough to act without regard of their backwards ideas on key matters of policy?

-- What are you asking from those of your friends, your family, and your community who do not believe and yet are currently all but forced to listen to and to pretend to respect your religious beliefs, delusional rambling, misplaced thanksgiving, and unflattering solipsism?

-- What actions and thoughts do you deny or attempt to deny yourself on the grounds of your faith, activities and mindsets that might bring enjoyment, pleasure, meaning, or fulfillment to your life?

-- Which of those do you do anyway, needlessly hating yourself for it even while you do it?

-- What do you do only because you hope for bonus points with your imagined creator, selfishly trying to improve the chances that you will get your reward?

Comments

[vinny]

Science would always make belief system uncomfortable . That's why , Himalayan Yogis advocated direct experience of etheric realm by yogic breathing.
That's why NASA validated Sun gazer who was living without food by tapping the energy of Sun by following yogic principles. That's why physicists are validating what yogis said thousands of years ago.

[OshoRobbins]

That realization was the beginning of my first wake up call.

I used to have complete faith in sant mat as the one and only truth.

I KNEW it, without a shadow of a doubt. I would bet my life on it.

I was just so lucky that I was born into the one true faith in the world.

I felt so special and so blessed.

Then one day..... something very strange happened.

There were a bunch of islamic scholars that came to see me.

I owned a snooker hall at the time and lots of muslims came there.

The scholars came to talk to them but started with me first.

I was shocked that they really believed they had the truth.

"How the fuck," I thought, "Can they have the truth, when sant mat is the truth?"

They said they KNEW that islam was the truth. I told them they were mistaken, but they said I was mistaken. They wanted me to covert.

I just laughed at the idea. I already had the truth.

Afterwards I started to think.

They REALLY believed they had the truth - just like I did.

"Yes, but.... I REALLY DO have the truth,"
I consoled myself.

but.....
What if I was wrong?"

Was it really possible? no. I KNEW I was right and I had sant mat books to prove it plus I had my own experience of light and sound and my body going numb in meditation and being pulled up by the sound and seeing the radiant form of my guru.

I had so much proof. What did they have? Nothing but blind belief in a stupid book.

This is how the mind works.

Whatever you believe (no matter how ridiculous)
BECOMES real and true to you.

You will defend it with your life.

the belief will taint your experience
so you remain convinced it is true

I had to really see that I was deluded before I could get free from the sant mat belief.

Delusion is very strange. It is very hard to see you are deluded and very easy to see that another is deluded.

watch this episode of Gordon Ramsay at exactly
11:00 - 13:00 (11 mins to 13 mins)

Delusion makes you believe the impossible in the face of strong evidence.

You will simply ignore all the evidence.

[OshoRobbins]

this is the link to the gordon ramsay episode I referred to in my previous
comment - I forgot to include it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2ak4Xgqios

Now watch it at 35 mins and 30 seconds into the video.

Gordon confronts the owner and he goes crazy

This is the same that happens on this site when one person tries to convince another that
I AM RIGHT
and
YOU ARE WRONG

[Jim Sutherland]

After reading all of OSHO’s recent posts, all that’s left to complete his Joy and Jubalarion of haven been so enlightnened we may as well all join hs Dance of OSHO Let It All Hang Outism and forget about being human. Grab your Partner in this Churchless Church and Screem out your frustraions at GURU Osho.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s7gzSsqMgCk

[Spencer Tepper]

Anytime one person spends time judging others, other cultures, other religions, as in this website, you have bigotry. Words like science and reason are meaningless labels when people judge others.

Brian, the one guy who always thinks he's right is that guy in the mirror.

[OshoRobbins]

Hi Spencer,

"Anytime one person spends time judging others, other cultures, other religions, as in this website, you have bigotry. Words like science and reason are meaningless labels when people judge others.

Brian, the one guy who always thinks he's right is that guy in the mirror."

This is a website where we DISCUSS various topics. If you think discussion is a BAD thing - then you are welcome to stay away.

Each person puts over their point of view.

There is a difference between "being Judgemental" which is what you are talking about, and observing and making relevant comments and discussing viewpoints.

If you think making a comment is bigotry - then you must observe silence for the rest of your life.

Science may not always be relevant to a discussion - but reason is essential and is used all the time.

It is mostly the religious and the faithful who are being judgemental because their feelings are hurt when someone simply makes a statement.

For example when I made the video about the teachings having changed, many, including Jim Sutherland, accused me of lying and having a hidden agenda.

Some asked me what I had against RSSB. The answer is that I did not say it was a BAD thing, in fact I made it clear that I LIKE the new teachings.

So why were the faithful so hurt? It is THEY who were being judgemental.

Most of them cannot distinguish between a comment and "being Judgemental"

Now Jim has seen with his own eyes, he is not just commenting about it but he is BEING JUDGEMENTAL because he is condemning Gurinder.

Gurinder has been joking around for a long time. Jim has only just noticed it now because only now has he witnessed it himself.

I wrote a response to Jim's comment which I am copying below
about being judgemental.

Jim wrote: (to manjit)
"No doubt, all will blow over, except here, and be covered up, and me labeled as a lyng Judas.
But surely, even my harshest Critics, surely know I would never lie about hearing such a statement with my own ears."

Nobody will accuse you of lying because this is normal for Gurinder. He likes to have a joke. You didn't think it was in good taste.

However, is it not obvious to you that the sangat do not have a problem with it. If they did - they would have abandoned him.

The sangat likes his humour so let them enjoy it.

You have the mistaken belief that there is something inherently wrong and sinful about telling a few jokes.

Osho used to make it a practise to tell many jokes. So many in fact that he had some sannyasins creating jokes for him to tell for each talk.

Most of them had a sexual theme. Nobody ever got offended. And if they did - there is a door to exit the satsang and the ashram. And he welcomed people to leave.

In fact he would encourage people to leave if they did not fit in.

Leaving did not mean that there was bad karma to deal with and the master will not come at death. They never taught that any master would come anyway.

Nobody ever called Osho a pervert because he told jokes. Telling jokes does not make a person a pervert. In fact most perverts are more likely to be quiet introverted people and would never tell a sexual joke.

You cannot limit how a master chooses to operate. It can be not to your taste, which is fine. Just like you don't like certain food that other might relish.

“God Himself, sir, does not propose to judge a man until his life is over. Why should you and I?”
― Samuel Johnson

Now you have to be clear what "Judgement" means.

You can call an apple an apple and a spade a spade.
That is not judgement in the sense we are using the word.

for some strange reason, religious believers are unable to distinguish between making a statement and being judgemental.

Being judgemental means to add an element of "good" or "bad"
and to condemn the bad.

if you say something is "Sinful" or "against a commandment" then it is being judgemental.

However, when I say "Gurinder has changed the teachings" there is no element of being judgemental. As a matter of fact I like the new teachings. There is no element of condemning him or calling him bad.

The other example is that I said "donation boxes are placed in haynes park at national satsangs." It is an observation. I can even say that the priorities have changed and donations appear to be a motivation now.

Even that is not being judgemental as I do not condemn.

Gurinder is the head of RSSB and therefore he makes the decisions.
I can like or dislike any decision he makes. It is not my business.

But if I condemn him by saying he is going to have to pay for all this and is going straight to hell, or is a whore master, that is being judgemental.

I re-iterated the story of Babani. My opinion is that the story is true. I could be wrong. It doesn't matter.

I don't agree with that treatment of Babani, if the story is true. However, I do not condemn Gurinder and think he is a little bastard and will pay for his sins (etc etc)

I let people live as they choose - it is their life. I don't have to agree, and I can have an opinion, as long as I am clear that the opinion is MINE and mine alone.

So I observe and I comment. But I don't condemn.

In the post about "Sevadars Egos gone wild at haynes park" I stated what happened. and my opinion about it. and I posed the question "What does seva mean?"

I don't condemn the sevadars. I am simply observing and commenting.

My conclusion is that seva in RSSB means to follow orders blindly.

Some people like to do that and they are most welcome to continue. I have nothing against it. My "ego" has not been hurt because I could not get to my car a little earlier. I was not wanting special treatment because I was a national speaker. Those two ideas are projections from the mind of one initiated. Once again I am not condemning one initiated for that. That also is his freedom.

I really didn't care what happened. It was an interesting event that happened. I was not hurt or offended. It was fun doing it and observing how different sevadars acted and reacted. Nothing personal.

In fact when the 5 sevadars came in the car to stop me, I said to them all
"I am going now - around and back into the tent as you have requested. However, this is not seva (in MY opinion only) as it is not about helping me or anyone else"

Subsequently Kamal made it clear to me by telling me that sevadars are not given the discretion to think. Their job is the follow orders only.

Which is also fine. It is the system that works for the organisation. If I don't like it personally, there is nobody forcing me to be a sevadar. If others enjoy it - they are most welcome.

Observing and making comments is not being judgemental. Only if there is clear hatred and venom and condemnation.

Religious people have that characteristic because it is inbred. Their God is judgemental. Therefore so are they.

"Judge not, that thou be not judged" - The bible (not sure where exactly)

This is impossible for christians because now they will judge someone for being judgemental and in the act - they themselves are judging.

A story.

Four disciples are commanded by their guru to observe total silence for four days. They go sit in a room and one of them notices it is getting dark.
He asks a passing servant to turn on the light.

The second disciple turns to him and points a finger.
"You idiot - in the first minute you have failed. You have spoken"

The third disciple turns to the second
"You imbecile - so have you failed"

The fourth and final disciple observes all this silently.
But the longer he observes the more his ego inflates.

Until finally he can resist no longer and says
"I am the only one who has not spoken"

[moon]

Hi Osho may i ask you what is your current sadhana. Do you stil meditate or else. If you are not willing to share ill understand.

[OshoRobbins]

Hi Moon-,
you asked

Hi Osho may i ask you what is your current sadhana. Do you stil meditate or else. If you are not willing to share ill understand.

There is not goal to attain, and nobody to attain it.
so what sadhana can I do? and for what reason?

It is like asking a billionaire, "Do you still work?"

The billionaire does not need any more money.
so he has not need to work

However, he is still alive, so he will play
he may enjoy making money.

So I can do anything. I still go to RSSB satsangs when Gurinder comes.
I quite enjoy going there.

I even go sometimes to the local satsang, but rarely.

I may even sit relaxed in meditation at times just for the pleasure of it.

But I am not trying to achieve or attain anything.

[moon]

Kind of like i do. I never tried to achieve something with meditation. I just enjoyed it. From what i saw how small i am i am glad i can enjoy of what already is.

[OshoRobbins]

Moon wrote

"Kind of like i do. I never tried to achieve something with meditation. I just enjoyed it. From what i saw how small i am i am glad i can enjoy of what already is."

Most people (maybe not you) in RSSB and sant mat meditate for a reason. The reason is that they want to see light, transcend the body and get to the radiant form of the master and traverse inner regions.

Before Gurinder came on the scene, this was very clearly the case. People were concerned about how long it will take to make progress.

The reason that disciples meditate is for the result.

Gurinder says that "meditation will not get you there" so he says just meditate and leave the results in the masters hands.

However, the disciple still wants to attain.

He just suppresses his desire -but it is still there. The primary motivation for most disciples to meditate is to attain.

Most have other activities that they will enjoy a lot more than sitting in meditation.

for most, meditation is a chore, not an enjoyment. If it was truly enjoyment then Gurinder would not have to continuously say "meditation"

Nobody has to be told to eat chocolate cake - you eat it because you enjoy it.

The mind is very clever - it is good at delusion.

It can convince itself of any belief

Taoist meditation and Tai chi is different. It is without a goal. a different way of living.

[Spencer Tepper]

Hi Osho

Clearly I hit a nerve.

Try asking yourself where your mind is.

On the RSSB you have constructed in your head?

On the Gurindar you have constructed in your head?

You can't blame that on this website.

Clean your mind. Attend to good things, usually beyond our limited thinking.

Otherwise it's just painting people into what you need. And your needs are probably not served by what you are doing.

[OshoRobbins]

Spencer,
you wrote this

Anytime one person spends time judging others, other cultures, other religions, as in this website, you have bigotry. Words like science and reason are meaningless labels when people judge others.

Brian, the one guy who always thinks he's right is that guy in the mirror.

I just explained about judgement in a lengthy reply.

you reply

Hi Osho
Clearly I hit a nerve.
Try asking yourself where your mind is.
On the RSSB you have constructed in your head?

I really don't understand your comment.

You hit a nerve?

How do you figure that out?

the you write about an RSSB path I made up in my head?

Seriously, I actually don't understand what you are getting at.

Please explain

you then write

On the Gurindar you have constructed in your head?
You can't blame that on this website.
Clean your mind. Attend to good things, usually beyond our limited thinking.

I have no idea what you are referring to

What am I blaming on this website?

[Spencer Tepper]

Hi Osho

You wrote

"Seriously, I actually don't understand what you are getting at."

That's actually very encouraging!

Good, Osho!

Very good!

[Appreciative Reader]

About all religious people believing that their particular faith is right :

That's true in some cases, but I'd say that in most cases people only half-believe. They have lots of doubts, and indeed blame themselves for those doubts. In times past people did not have access to knowledge about different religions (indeed they often did not have access to knowledge even about their own particular religion).

Even today, people do not generally have the time (or even, generally, the inclination) to explore this religion business properly, and yet few are wholly apatheistic. That is why (it seems to me) the world is so full of apparently religious people.

I'll bet that if all people spent time fully studying religion, their own and others', then the number of people who're in thrall to religious ideas will come down drastically.

Of course, that's just a personal opinion. I suppose it can be proved easily enough (or at least, perhaps not all that easily, but still) by carrying out studies where people, believers, are educated properly about their own religion and about other religions. I'm guessing that even without overtly atheistic or even rationalistic nudges, most of these people will, of their own, start questioning their native faith (not just wondering but actively questioning), questioning and ultimately rejecting the nonsensical parts of what they believe.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Appreciative Reader!
Great comments. Thank you for posting a moment of rational thought here.
I suggest that everyone, Atheist, blind adherant, "Faithful", or Mystic, has a built in psychological tendancy to believe they are generally right.

Who doesn't think they are right?
And if we are wrong, we want to get to the right, right away. Because error costs us personally, and others around us.

I work in organizational change, and the most difficult enemy to helping people see that there is indeed error or waste, is the status quo. The daily habits of people reinforce their entire system of belief, and disbelief, whatever that is.

A few very intelligent people can look at data showing a problem and respond constructively.

For most, the data has to be built and rebuilt. And if they can convince their collegues not to look at it, or if they do, to say "well, the timing isn't right."...any number of excuses, they won't make progress.

If this is how the world responds to hard data, obviously, the chances for "belief" are nearly non-existant.

People are often driven to a system of belief by great hardship, or by pure desire to do or be something other than what they are. They are pushed internally into it.

And that makes for an audeince ripe for exploitation.

But if we are built for some system of belief, and if, in some cases, like Meditation, it is clinically good for so many, then perhaps system of belief, system of faith isn't wrong at all. It just depends on what you choose to believe, what you choose to hold faith in.

A town of Pentacostal Christians I knew for many years held that faith was more important than evidence. Faith was a sign of character. Faith in the midst of doubt.

When a child died in a tragic auto accident, the desire to question "why" or to claim the world was not worth living in, arbitrary and cruel, to stop functioning, stop living is strong. The capacity to have faith that somehow life was worth continuing, that we should all be kind to one another and move forward, that there was a greater power watching over even the child who died, their soul, were powerful psychological tools that kept these people moving forward in difficult, horrific circumstances.

That was when I stopped criticizing them for being ignorant.

[7]

Enjoy the concert - no questions asked

Pity we have no Sound output plug to convince
although a Master has
It's called Thristy

But any rssb initiated can make the people on Broadway
just somewhat more happier by radiation

make Wallstreet a little bit more decent

Nobody will ask justifications
or offer scriptures

RssB Santmat is so natural, sweet; easy, impressive, free non-ascetic,
yet the intuition beats the nasty intellect

And look, . . . it's also hard as steel

777

[Appreciative Reader]

Hello, Spencer.

I too have come across that particular argument IRL. That faith is an end in itself, and that faith in the face of situations where faith appears insupportable and fantastic, is an even greater virtue than when faith is ‘easy’. Which, when you stop a minute to think about it, is a fascinating piece of sophistry (or rationalization, depending on who is making the argument, the exploiter or the exploited, the priest or the “flock”).

I realize that you made that point in a specific context, one particular example of how one does one’s best to bear with situations and circumstances that appear to be unbearable. Specifically, the death of one’s child. And perhaps no one who has not actually experienced that is really qualified to speak of it! I myself haven’t, so perhaps I amn’t qualified either, but still, to complete what I was saying :

You know, it occurs to me that to use faith to tide over such difficult times is exactly akin to using drink or even stronger narcotics to get over some difficult situation. Using narcotics works in the short run, no doubt about it. And when nothing else seems to work, using narcotics may seem like a good idea. Especially when the use of narcotics is already accepted by society. (Here’s what I meant to convey by that last sentence : When someone is faced with some tragedy, we would probably still not support their use of hard drugs in order to cope, because the use of such drugs is not sanctioned by our society ; however, since the use of one particular narcotic, alcohol, happens to be freely accepted by our society, therefore we would probably ‘understand’ if someone who’s received difficult news turned to hard drink in order to cope.) Thus, perhaps, with faith? (That is, perhaps we’re pre-programmed to look at conventional faith with a benign eye, much as we do with alcohol, simply because faith in established religions is so ubiquitous, so “accepted”? We may not have been as supportive if they had turned to, say, a faith healer who took their money to perform rituals under a full moon, while assuring them that their child would be benefited and even happy in some other world as a result, or pretended to speak with their dead child’s soul in exchange for money paid, yet the solace offered and received might have been just as real, given faith.)

Using faith (faith in things that don’t exist) in order to cope, which is what you’re referring to, appears to me exactly similar to using narcotics. Sure, it works in the short run. But, just like narcotics, it soon becomes the proverbial monkey on one’s back. For one thing, it is addictive. For another, it eventually shows negative effects that cumulatively end up far exceeding the effects of the original ill that one believed it would help assuage.

Of course, when something truly horrific, like losing one’s child, befalls someone, then if they decide to turn to hard drink or to hard drugs in order to cope, perhaps we have no right to judge them. (Not that one is ever really justified in presuming to “judge” someone else, ever, but you know what I mean.) And who knows, perhaps some strong-willed individual may indeed end up using narcotics wisely, using it to dull the edge of their anguish in the face of unspeakable tragedy, and then after a while weaning themselves off it. If used thus, one can hardly fault them. But how many are actually that ‘wise’, and how many are able to use their particular poison (drink, or narcotics, or faith) as judiciously? (And also : if someone were indeed that strong-willed and wise and self-controlled, might they not perhaps be able to try to cope with their misfortune without the use of narcotics in the first place?)

I realize even as I type this, now, that I’m not saying anything at all new. Still, the fact that this equating of religious faith with opiates is a cliché fully a century old, does not take away from the aptness of the comparison. Faith and religion are exactly like opiates and narcotics. Like narcotics, they do soothe and offer comfort, and that comfort may seem welcome when times are trying. But they carry their own cost. Cost to the individual, as well as cost to society as a whole.

From your many comments on this site, I do know your own personal ideas about faith (as it applies to yourself). You use faith as an instrument to aid you to “go inside” and explore, yourself, what there is to explore. I am in full agreement with that approach. That isn’t blind faith, that is only conditional trust, in fact not even that, it is merely, well, using a crutch in order to see if the crutch does help one walk better, carefully and gingerly at first, and with greater confidence as you find, first-hand, that the crutch does help to hold you up. (And I suppose that, if you found from your personal first-hand subjective experiments that the crutch did not in fact hold you up, you’d then be open to giving it up.) I wouldn’t argue with that kind of a watered-down version of faith (as long as that faith did not lead you to do things that are, in themselves, objectionable). As you’ve often pointed out on this site, that kind of thing is very similar to the methods of science. But I’d say that your kind of faith is very very rare : perhaps one in a thousand … no, one in ten thousand … not even that, probably an even smaller fraction of those who have faith, actually see faith in that light, the way you see it. For most others (including, probably, the Pentecostal Christians in your particular example, so bravely battling their horrific situation), faith equals blind faith, and is no better than some deadly narcotic that momentarily dulls the pain but can -- and often does -- end up consuming their whole life.

.

(Sorry, that turned out to be a very long-winded comment. Thing is, you’d made an excellent point, and my first reaction was to agree with what you’d said, about faith being ‘acceptable’ in the particular situation you spoke of. But then I thought I could see what appeared to me to be the flaw in your reasoning. Not that I’d ever presume to judge someone who tried to cope with the loss of their child in whatever way they saw fit, with drink or drugs or faith, but I’m afraid this does not really work as an argument in favor of faith per se. And I wanted to present my thoughts here, for what they’re worth, without sacrificing nuance for brevity.)

[D.r]

Nobody has time to read a wall of text like that.

[Master]

Reader, I did

I was never tested like that
but on minor than that occasions
I think we have to add Hope and Love
to overcome without drugs

I have witnessed a mother who lost her child
Initiation helped her a lot
plus the faith that she would meet again
Specially Simran did her good

Sorry I have no other consolation
than what's my usual
It is also a édrugé but harmless

Bon Courage

7777

[777]

This word Master is a serendipity
I didn"t do it consciously

I had a line about the Sound and while writing
I lost it -----> i deleted that
Strange path

[Jen]

mindlessly serendipitydooing along pathway winding
inadvertently soundless experience

luxuriating in nothingness
freedom of speechlessness
emptiness revolving

[777]

Thank You Jen - I got it !

7

[Appreciative Reader]

Hello, D.r.

You’re right, Brian’s editing of my comment in his post, where he breaks up “the wall” that you came up against into many smaller paragraphs, did end up making what I’d written far more easy to read.

You know, I have mixed feelings about this.

On the one hand, I don’t think I’m necessarily interested in making what I say palatable to the lowest common multiple by dumbing down my comments, in terms of either content or language, or of formatting.

On the other hand, one of the reasons why one writes is that one expects to be read, that is, in order to communicate.

(The other -- and equally important -- reason for writing is to help one sort out one’s own thinking. That reason requires no concessions for the reader’s sensibilities or capacity to tackle larger than byte-sized texts.)

To the extent that one writes in order to be read, to that extent it makes sense to take some pains, within reason of course, to make oneself (more) intelligible. The lesson here is that it’s a good idea to take the time to quickly re-read what one’s written before one presses the “Post” button. I don’t always do that, but I think I will, henceforth.

Thank you for that feedback, D.r.

.

While I do welcome your feedback, D.r, please permit me to send some feedback your way as well. Your short comment, saying “Nobody has time to read a wall of text like that” was unnecessarily rude, don’t you think? I can understand your not wanting to read what I’d written. In that case, might it not have been simpler to simply pass it by, unread, without comment? And if perchance you were very eager to know my thoughts, and were prevented from accessing it by nothing more than just my manner of expressing myself, then surely you could have requested for simpler presentation in somewhat more polite terms? I don’t remember ever having interacted with you, and cannot imagine why you would want to go out of your way to be rude to me. Is that how you behave in real life as well? If you do, no doubt both your face and your knuckles bear evidence of your conduct? And if you don’t, if you reserve your rudeness only for your online interactions, then I’m sure your realize you’re acting like the classic internet troll. May I request you to stop doing that?

[Appreciative Reader]

To @777 :

Dear 777, your heart and your words are kind. But I’m afraid you misunderstood what I was trying to say there!

But irrespective, I do appreciate, very much, the spirit behind your comment. Nor do I doubt your words : someone who is already established in some particular spiritual practice (indeed, in any deep meaningful practice, spiritual or otherwise) will no doubt draw great solace from it when confronted with adversity.

My best wishes to you!

[D.r]

If what you say is true, then I am a troll trying to do you a favor.

[Appreciative Reader]

Quote D.r : “If what you say is true, then I am a troll trying to do you a favor.”

If what is true, D.r? What part of what I’d said is unclear to you?

[Joe]

Taoism clearly has a goal, two actually. It is union with the Tao and becoming an immortal.