Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)

It's been a while, but Open Thread has been resurrected. This blog has been getting comments that don't fit with the topic of the post in which the comment was made.

So here's another Open Thread (previous OTs are still open, of course). Leave a comment about anything you want to talk about. I'll try to remember to always have an Open Thread showing in the Recent Posts section in the right sidebar.

Comments on other posts need to be related to the subject of the post, or they will be candidates for deletion. So an Open Thread is the place for pro-religion remarks and whatever. 

Back in 2015 I wrote "No preachiness" reminder for commenters. Click on that link to learn what is acceptable as a comment on a post other than an Open Thread. I'll also copy in that post below for easy reading.

 

 

Ah, how soon they forget. Some preachy-prone commenters on this blog have been asking, "Dude, where's my comment?"

Unpublished, guy or gal. Guess you've forgotten my post of a few months ago about a new commenting policy.

Starting today, I'm going to be less accepting of publishing comments that include a lot of preachy religious dogma.

Some people have been using comments on my "churchless" posts as an opportunity to share their irrelevant (to the post) religious beliefs. 

They might make a passing brief reference to something I said in the post, then launch into a lengthy description of how great this-or-that religious belief system is.

From now on, I'd like those commenters to do the reverse: use your personal critical/logical thinking skills to make some cogent observations about the content of the post, with maybe a brief reference to their religious beliefs.

I mean, it's fine to say "I'm a Christian" or "I'm a follower of Sant Mat."

But this is a freaking churchless blog! I don't want to publish comments filled with Christian or Sant Mat dogma. There's plenty of other blogs and web sites where religious true believers can share that stuff.

For example, I just wrote about the mystery of existence. Comment away on this post if you want.

But say something about the freaking mystery of existence -- not something like, "God created everything" or "Just meditate at the eye center and you'll know."

I look upon blogging as much more of a conversation, than as a free speech forum. If a group of people is talking about some topic, it is discourteous and disruptive to burst into the conversation by saying something completely irrelevant.

Though this happens on the Internet all the time, I don't want it to happen here.

Sharing fresh, creative ideas is great. Just make them at least somewhat relevant to the topic at hand -- what's been written about in a blog post.

Comments

[vinny]

Sant-mat / Yogic system may look innocuous , peaceful way but it is not , actually it is brutal war / Jehad against carnal self also known as " Jehad-al-Nafs". This war is so brutal it can kill the disciple before attaining Samadhi/ Trance/ Fana. Conversely , after attaining Samadhi / Trance effect of time on the body & psyche of disciple may well be zero. See the example of Tat Wale Baba who stopped ageing after 35yrs.

[D.r]

I suppose Tat Wale Baba is dead now. Or is he perpetually 35?

What I want to say is merry Christmas to Brian and all the people that comment on his blog.

Blessed are the cheesemakers.

[Jen]

Hi guys, this is like a chat room! Thanks Brian.

I watch these types of videos every now and then, very uplifting to see love and connectedness. Just wanted to share...

Animal Reunions - 7 Most Heartwarming Animal Reunions With Owners (10:24)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEmMW62StO8&t=305s

[vinny]

hello D.r , Tat Wale Baba didn't die by ageing , he was shot dead by jealous rogue.

[manjit]

Recently a strange thought occurred to me; for the past few years posting here and over at the RSS forum, I realise I very rarely, if ever, discuss my own realisations and experiences (and when I do it's with very little "passion" as they're ideas I've already expressed in the past, perhaps such as my experiences with RS or kundalini etc). Instead, I engage with the ideas and beliefs of the participants on these forums. So, as it's a new year, I thought I would do something different and write out my own current experience and understanding without any self-censorship. This is a daunting task; imo, normally on these forums what we do is merely express concepts and beliefs, as if moving around chess pieces on a board, trying to win the game of which concept or belief is the intellectual/rational victor. One may notice that there is very little actual experience of any sort which even remotely confirms the "reality" of these concepts & beliefs - if any experience at all. I know a lot of RS satsangis will dispute that, but to understand what I mean, one must understand that seeing the radiant form of a guru, experiencing synchronicities or miracles, feeling ecstasy in their presence etc does not prove the reality of reincarnation or "chaurasi" or needing a "perfect living master" to escape it, for example. That adding 2 plus 2 and getting 3,274,956.

Anyway, this post is an attempt at something else. It is attempting to describe actual experience, profound, infinite and beyond concept (ie. non-linear, non-rational etc), into as simple words and concepts as I can possibly manage.

This is the experience/realisation which unmistakably consumes all the gurus and paths, all the religions and teachings, and leaves you at total peace, without fear of death or grief or loneliness or incompleteness etc It cannot be disproven by any subsequent experience, philosophy or science...indeed, at their pinnacle, they all point to this truth. This is also a very simple and self-evident truth. It is a grand mystery - once realised - how astonishing it is that we are able to hypnotise ourselves into not realising this self-evident truth and reality. It is absolute perfection, nothing to do, nothing to worry about. It is without boundaries or gatekeepers, no gurus or spiritual paths which can connect you to it, or withhold it from you. It is merely the illusory construct of ego which prevents it's realisation and insists upon the "need" to do something to attain "it". But that is fine, there is no real need for "realisation" of it, as it's just perfect as it is, and our very seeming "forgetfulness" of it is as much a part of the "point" as is it's "realisation" of it, there is no higher or lower here, no chosen ones or forgotten ones!

What is the experience? it is that the entire creation of dualistic experience, from heavens to earths to hells, all the living organisms contained therein and their experiences, are manifestations of one undivided consciousness that we call God, dividing Itself endlessly to create infinite worlds, beings and experiences. The ego is a necessary construct, a tool of forgetfulness. Once it disappears, the universe disappears - and if Consciousness didn't want all this wonderous display, why did it create it in the first place? This One consciousness did this because - and here words are a mere echo of the experiential reality - when it remains as Oneness knowing it's Oneness, it is "lonely".....the universe, all it's infinite dimensions and experiences, is a kind of gift to Itself. But this can only be understood through direct experience, words are too limited to describe that which is meta-lingual.

What we call our selves, our egos, are actually merely "masks" worn by this singular consciousness. It is both woman and man, simultaneously, making love together, wearing masks to create the illusion of separation. It is both guru and seeker, consciousness has created this wonderful game of hide and seek! But do not think the consciousness in the guru is any different than that of the seeker. Neither is liberated at "death". Consciousness is ever-liberated, ever-free. It is merely the mask which is shed....of what sense does it make to speak of the reincarnation or liberation of masks? Once a bubble bursts, it has gone forever, and air returns to air. it is it is only the ego which clings to these narratives of bondage & liberation and feels fear pondering it's demise, the more puffed up it becomes, the more elaborate the eternal heavens and sach khands it creates for itself.. Death is an illusion, but not because when one dies their soul carries on. It is an illusion because this entire existence, along with all others, is contained within Consciousness as an appearance only (that we, mistakenly, identify with and take to be "real"). A mask is shed and that is all. This is experienced directly, immediately, and without any ambiguity or doubt possible, in deep spiritual experience.

As limited, embodied, conscious beings, as egos, we forget, due to the mechanics of embodiment, that we ARE THAT (One Consciousnes, infinitely dividing itself). This is essential, otherwise duality hence creation and experience, would not be possible. Once the ego is unravelled (either through death or deep spiritual experience), one returns to this natural state, there is nowhere else one could possibly go. All else are fantasies, desires and wishes of the illusory egotistical self, projecting itself into eternity. Actually, this should be obvious if one has the courage to face these beliefs and where/to whom they originate.

So what is the purpose of gurus, spiritual paths and religions etc? Nothing at all like what most people believe. These are structures created within Consciousness to diversify experience, there is no real or right "path", as they're all plays or illusions within consciousness, and there is no path from consciousness to consciousness. Indeed, and I can understand why the ego of many will struggle to accept this, but there is no difference from the perspective of Consciousness (or God etc) between the crack addict dying for a hit, and a Satguru giving darshan, no difference whatsoever, they are both illusions, both are manifestations of One Consciousness forgetting itself and experiencing itself as "other", the "quality" of consciousness remains the same in both experiences.....

There does exist varying degrees of "realisation" of this, though. Somewhat paradoxically, though, the greater the degree of "realisation", the less "neccessary" it seems "realisation" of this becomes imo...because one realises nothing is gained or lost to consciousness. Everything is perfect as it is, self-fulfilling it's purpose. Beware those who threaten you with hell or eternal transmigration, they are trying to sell you something foreign and hook you in by fear. This realisation cannot be had via paths of fear, initiation, rules, dogmas, vows etc, as it transcends them all. "Realisation" is had for it's own sake, because one cannot breathe without it, not because one is scared of incarnation or hells, or desires eternal bliss in eternal heavens. Only follow a spiritual path if it is one's innate nature or tendency to the core, otherwise you are born a sheep who is trying to be a racehorse, and that can surely only lead to an unhappy life. And it IS one's innate nature or tendency which defines how "far" one goes on these "paths", not the path or guru or religion itself......they are all masks, pretences. Indeed, there is no limit or barrier to how one can access this realisation, there is not even any need for any outer "path" or guru at all, it can be attained just as easily by spontaneous chance, observing the flight of birds, an entheogen, a long run, a hike up a mountain etc.

So, Consciousness is everything, dividing itself infinitely to create infinite regions and realms of experience, each with their own limits, laws and boundaries, and infinite egos with an illusory sense of individuality to inhabit and experience them. One can actually experience these realms, as well as identifying completely with the unitary Consciousness behind them all, experiencing all these infinite realities simultaneously, sensing how everything is connected to everything else, through little openings unfolding in consciousness etc. It's a grand Divine Play, purely for entertainment! There is no limit to the worlds or experiences that can be experienced in consciousness, this cannot be over-emphasised. Every possible thing you can imagine to the power of infinity, and with infinite inter-connections, endlessly......

Love? Love is the energy Consciousness feels for itself when it believes itself to be a separate being, to drive itself back to unity, it's natural state. We are all loved because we are all conscious beings who believe ourselves (nost of the time!) to be separate....the universe can manifest this love in many ways, but we, in our own consciousness, must be open & receptive to it, not keep it out with walls of belief and thought (particularly materialistic and atheistic). What we believe in our consciousness becomes our reality, as reality is constructed by consciousness. However, in deepest identification with God/Consciousness, even love is absent, in my experience. There, the idea of "love" makes no sense at all, as there is only One being, contained within itself, with no "other" to love. That said, in dualistic "realms", "love" is the supreme driving force for most experience.

Science? Having spent decades deeply studying the science related to consciousness and reality, I am struck by how profoundly indicative they are of the reality of the experiential "truth" I state above. And we should not mistake pseudo-science or the philosophy of materialism (based on 18th century science) to distract us from that. From quantum physics to science's abject lack of comprehension of consciousness, everything points to the inexplicable, mysterious yet fundamentally important role of consciousness in creation & reality. We are literally unable, scientifically, to disentangle consciousness from matter. And the experience I speak of makes this abundantly clear in incredibly complex & clear ways....but ways so outside of our linguistic structures that it would be impossible to express. All the seeming randomness, "determinism", materialism etc is shown, clearly, to be an illusion/appearance within Consciousness, seemingly "random" and without meaning because we have lost touch with Consciousness and instead identify with a ego-mind with all it's intellectual & belief limitations; we lose sight of the bigger "Consciousness" picture. But, there is no need for grand spiritual visions to understand this. It's simple, are any of you able to describe an experience, a law of science, a physical observation etc that exists OUTSIDE of someone's conscious? Scientism & materialism, incredibly, seek to eliminate consciousness from our observations of the universe "out there"......pretending, magically, as if they are observing through something other than consciousness! It really is cognitive dissonance par excellance. It is one of the our current culture's grand delusions, that everything can be explained in materialistic terms, despite stating this from a position of pure non-materiality; consciousness itself! This I have understood directly and experientially in so-called "spiritual experience". It remains obvious to my mundane intellect, too. I really don't think this can be argued against, and it is deeply held beliefs that prevent materialists from understanding this.

Okay, this has gone on much longer than I expected! Finally I just wanted to add, what I write above is the REAL "perennial" mystical vision, encountered as the highest spiritual understanding, amongst many well-known religious founders such as Buddha. However, beyond that it is encountered by millions of other lesser known people, spontaneously, through a variety of means and contexts, by gurus, shamans, monks, during NDEs, entheogen use, spontaneously etc. The doctrine of cults, gurus and religions which disconnect you from what is more intimate to you than your breath - consciousness - who impose locks, keys, rules, initiations, vows etc, who tempt with bliss and heavens, who scare with hells and transmigration etc......these are traps, self-imposed prisons. Doctrines and dogmas which have evolved in and through time....they are not the timeless which can be grasped by anyone anywhere, without mediation! Think, who can come between you and you God/Consciousness?! They merely impose further limitations on consciousness and what it can experience. No doubt radiant forms and 5 regions exist - what can't Consciousness conjure up!

Ultimately, we are all loved, and there is nothing to fear or worry about. Except perhaps that we are all drowning in an Ocean of Self, of Love. Surrender!

Happy New Year to all!

[Spencer Tepper]

Hi Manjit

There is a lot I agree with in what you wrote. A LOT.

Thank you.

[pooh bear]

A really interesting post Manjit - I shall read it again later today. You have conveyed my own experience of existence in different words from those that I would use, but the essence is very similar. I began having out of body experiences as young as 7 years old. They were both wonderful and terrifying. However they were the genesis of my search for meaning although I didn't realise it at the time. I will soon be 71 so there has been a lot of water under the bridge since those early beginnings.

Everywhere there is the story of spirituality and our origins - informally in life and formally in the religions and spiritual doctrines. But it is simply a story to convey that there exists a different essence than mind and matter. When I speak to initiates of Masters they tend to revert to the story in a doctrinaire fashion. That is why I found your piece refreshing - it also hints at what lies beyond the story.

Have a very good year.

[tucson]

Well put, Manjit.

Here is how author Wei Wu Wei said it (adjusted to suit my understanding):

Birth:
I (Consciousness) move
Space becomes
The universe appears
Time is born
I have objects
Dualism is established
I identify myself with my objects as illusory egos and things
I experience myself as these objects and things and as the joy and suffering they bring

Death:
I (Consciousness) rest
Space vanishes
Time ceases
There are no objects
Dualism is no more
The universe disappears
There are no illusory egos or objects
There is no joy or suffering
Only equanimity remains
I am, but there is no me.

Infinitely in a circle. Round and round it goes. When it stops? Who knows?

[D.r]

So here's my rant.

Meditation is completely selfish behaviour.

No matter which way you look at it, it is completely anti social. It has nothing to do with real "religion", certainly nothing to do with Christianity and Judaism and Islam, which is most people in this world, hence social, but it is extremely anti social and selfish behaviour that appears to cause hallucinations and all kinds of delusions.

It's something to be avoided like hell.

[Spencer Tepper]

Hi D. r.

Those Christian monks who spent their life in prayer might disagree with you.

From the perspective of someone who has not engaged in continuous prayer, continuous worship in Spirit of the father (real Christianity as taught by Jesus), who have not followed Christ directly into death daily, for them this makes no sense.

[Jen]

Trying to make sense about life whilst living in the duality of this world is confusing. When my brain goes into a kind of spin from thinking too much I tend to look up quotes till I find something that resonates with me:

Eckhart Tolle - "When you live in surrender, something comes through you into the world of duality that is not of this world."

Cheers folks

[One Initiated]

hi D.r,

I would quite agree with you on the notion of the statement:
"Meditation is completely selfish behaviour"

If I am getting the meaning correct. I hope I am.
Basically you meant to say "Meditation is a completely selfish practise"

That appeared to me as more true than rant.

Of course it is, as it aims towards realising the self
Also, it's not as easy as to socialise on the forums,
in the religious meetings in temples, gurudwaras, mosques.

All those who socialise more are selfless.
And why not ? because they are socialising and are not aware of the self thus selfless.

And in that sense really,
Meditation is the best of all the selfish practices.

[Bin]

Quote Dr.
Meditation is completely selfish behaviour.

__ its just your oppinion nothing more.
Its like saying runnjng is selfish behaviour.

[manjit]

Hi SPencer - thank you :)

Hi Tucson - long time no read, hope you are well! And agreed!

Hi Pooh Bear - thanks for your comment! Can I please ask, have you shared your story and or experiences anywhere? I think I would dearly love to hear them?!

Thanks,

Manjit

[D.r]

Bin, it appears you missed the purpose of meditation, which is to try to find God. It is not to promote health. And running is good for your body and keeps you healthy and alive, which is good for your family and friends. Not selfish at all.

By the way, who doesn't have opinions? Perhaps you are a robot that speaks nothing but facts all day long. Sigh.

[Jim Sutherland]

The way to avoid Hell, is to deny it exists, and smoke a Joint.

Kabir Sahib says that those people who consume intoxicants like cannabis, tobacco etc. are destined to hell irrespective of whether they do yog, recitation of God's name, meditation or not.

Jim Sutherland

[Bin]

Dr. you can sigh all day if you want. Do you have problem with robots? Yes i am a robot.

[Bin]

aDr.........the purpose of meditation, which is to try to find God

Dogma

[D.r]

Bin (it), God is not dogma. God is a word that signifies the purpose and meaning of life. Hardly a dogma...

[Turan]

Hi Manjit. A lot of what you say rings true regarding selves, ego's etc. - in my experience. It's just the concept of consciousness (not being conscious itself) that I feel can be misleading. Of course all that we experience we are conscious of; what we are not conscious of is not experienced. We are creatures who have the ability to be conscious, but to infer it is a quality (conscious 'ness') is to turn it into an attribute that we have rather than what we are. What we are is just this - done and dusted - but what we 'have' (consciousness) is just another quality amongst many others to unconsciously maintain the ego/mind.

How our brain/bodies produce the conscious experience is something that science will someday be able to explain and demonstrate - as they can with NDE's, OBE's, experiences of oneness and prescence so will undoubtedly be something to argue about – probably being the last bastion of a spiritual view of the universe.

I have long ago 'ditched' words (concepts) such as spiritual and consciousness to describe 'this', favouring instead to just experience this 'life', this being that we are. It gives one nothing to hang on to, nothing to sustain the 'me' (ego) that has answers. Of course, it is the ego/mind that is writing here, explaining and so on, though that does not detract from being.

We don't even have to come up with any answers to account for 'this', it is merely our peculiar human way of doing things – the rest of the universe doesn't come up with answers, it just is. There is totally nothing to do – except get up, work, eat, go to bed etc.

Perhaps when this amazing 'life' with all its pain and sorrow, its joy and wonder is totally experienced - without being experienced through beliefs and concepts - then the possibility of we humans can live together inteligently.

[D.r]

Science cannot explain consciousness now, in the past, and never will, because consciousness or mind is non-material, whereas the brain is made of matter. Attempts to correlate the brain with the mind has so far failed and it is indefinitely true that they will never fully succeed. Consciousness is different to language, which is abstract thought versus literal rational thinking. Consciousness contains emotion or feeling as well as mental rationalistic content.

If you want facts, science has not explained consciousness yet. That is a fact. And you cannot refute that.

People living together has almost nothing to do with deep thinking and concepts - it has to do with assholes and normal people not getting along. So long as the assholes, the stupid assholes, are mentally deranged by deeply thought-out hubristic ideologies, peace is impossible.

[Brian Hines]

D.r, actually attempts to correlate consciousness with the mind have been spectacularly successful. Whenever anesthesia is given, for example. Bingo! A drug is given and consciousness goes away. Same applies with concussions, caffeine, alcohol, other drugs. These material substances affect consciousness. Brain injuries also, plus Alzheimer's.

There's lot of evidence that the mind is the brain in action. There's zero persuasive evidence that consciousness is separate from the brain. And theories seem to be homing in on the nature of consciousness, such as that favored by Tononi:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-fundamental-nature-consciousness-giulio-tononi-excerpt/

[Jen]

Intellectuals use words. Lots and lots of words. Words cannot explain the inexplicable. Mathematicians and scientists use numbers and symbols. Mathematics is just another language. How can mathematical symbols explain the inexplicable. Its all mind boggling.

The word Consciousness has all sorts of meanings (dictionary): state of awareness; perception of something; emerges from the operations of the brain. We can't help trying to understand this life and we can't even find a word that describes What Is? accurately.

Turan is correct "It just is".

[Spencer Tepper]

Sorry Brian, it's not so simple as that. People report very detailed experiences when the brain is measured as inactive, even dead. And as you know correlation and causality are also two different things.

"George Mashour, a professor of anesthesiology at the University of Michigan Medical School. There are two intertwined mysteries at work, Mashour told me: First, we don’t totally understand how anesthetics work, at least not on a neurological basis. Second, we really don’t understand consciousness — how the brain creates it, or even what, exactly, it is."

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/magazine/what-anesthesia-can-teach-us-about-consciousness.html?referer=https://www.google.com/

[Brian Hines]

Spencer, you're welcome to your own fantasies, but not your own facts. Send me some links to peer-reviewed studies that shows solid evidence of people reporting very detailed experiences when the brain is inactive or dead. I'm pretty sure you won't be able to do this, because it would be front page news if it were true. Which, it isn't.

Sure, after they've recovered they can talk about their condition. But this is very different from someone being conscious when their brain is dead. Such has never happened, and it never will, because consciousness requires a brain.

[Spencer Tepper]

Hi Brian
You wrote

"you're welcome to your own fantasies, but not your own facts. Send me some links to peer-reviewed studies that shows solid evidence of people reporting very detailed experiences when the brain is inactive or dead. I'm pretty sure you won't be able to do this, because it would be front page news if it were true. Which, it isn't.

Sure, after they've recovered they can talk about their condition. But this is very different from someone being conscious when their brain is dead. Such has never happened, and it never will, because consciousness requires a brain."

Brian, you are welcome to meet your own criteria and provide peer reviewed studies of consciousness. You can't.

The scientists, an example of whom I cited above, acknowledge that they cannot prove or disprove a perfect link between your experience and your brain's activity. In fact the New York Times article details the dilemma of Anesthesiologists who cannot be sure their induced patient is actually unconscious, and in some cases the patient is fully aware of the surgery, even if pain receptors have been effectively shut down by drugs.

The awareness of deep meditators when their brain is largely shut down is often reported as heightened. Ie; mindfulness. You should have long ago discovered this for yourself.

As for near death reports, these anecdotal accounts report a very active scenario even when there had been no rem activity.

As for whether someone is conscious when their brain is dead, that is reported. Whether it actually happened as they reported or was a fantasy we may never know. But the reported experience is vivid during a time when little or no detectable brain activity was taking place.

I get the heat in your argument. But you are welcome to provide some actual light.

The materialist perspective is honorable, but by no means established scientific fact. When it becomes fact the known physical world will be a lot larger and somewhat different than we understand today.

[tucson]

Brian said: "Send me some links to peer-reviewed studies that shows solid evidence of people reporting very detailed experiences when the brain is inactive or dead."

Well, of course, if a person is actually "dead" (like the brain was consumed by six hyenas) I think a "report" by such a person to those who would peer review it is unlikely notwithstanding Ouija boards and the like. And if the brain was just inactive or kinda dead temporarily for some reason, any report by said brain ("I saw God") would be subjective and impossible to verify by various "peers" anyway.

So it comes down to the old chicken vs the egg question. Does consciousness manifest out of materiality or does materiality appear as a result of consciousness. I think they are the same thing. I defer to Manjit's explanation above on January 2... 10th paragraph. (long comment, whew!)

[Brian Hines]

Spencer, I predicted that you couldn't come up with any peer-reviewed studies, and I was right! Of course, that was a pretty safe bet, since demonstrable evidence of consciousness in a person who doesn't have at least a minimally functioning brain would have been known to everyone by now if it existed.

[777]

How can one person on this planet insist on

that when you multiply zero ( nothing )
the result is this a garden in Salem,
with people

777

[Spencer Tepper]

Hi Brian

You wrote

"Spencer, I predicted that you couldn't come up with any peer-reviewed studies, and I was right! Of course, that was a pretty safe bet, since demonstrable evidence of consciousness in a person who doesn't have at least a minimally functioning brain would have been known to everyone by now if it existed."

Yeah, I like the criteria for hard fact, but you haven't met it, either in your claim physical brain activity causes consciences. No literature proves that.

And the reason was well described by Manjit, that if you are dead you can't give a report.

And this brings up the false basis of your rhetoric Brian, that if rigorous scientific investigation hasn't yet established something as scientific fact, it must there be false.

That argument is false.

All science proceeds actively where that evidence doesn't exist yet. Science never dismisses what has not yet been explored or measured, nor claims that lack of scientific evidence is proof something doesn't exist. That's not actually the scientific method.

My earlier point, which was in the spirit of actual dialogue, is that there are three sources of evidence against your claim that brain activity is directly causal to consciousness. One is the anecdotal accounts of near death experiences. The brain was inactive for a period,but the individual,
Now restored to life, claims vivid out of body, or deeply internal experiences. Obviously consciousness, even heightened levels of consciousness, existed (or at least was reported) to have happened during a period of nil brain activity.

The second source of evidence is the self reports of deep meditators of their experiences of greater awareness, greater insight during meditation : heightened consciousness during a period where brain activity is minimal, and several brain centers have actually been switched off.

Third is the exhaustive hard research on the physiological effects of meditation, including strengthening and thickening of the cortex, basically keeping brain health for decades longer. It's as if meditation were a brain exercise, like physical exercise. Yet this happens but by heightened activity, but the opposite, purposeful reduced brain activity. Conscious awareness has been expanded, even while brain activity has been reduced.

Finally, your presumption that brain activity causes consciousness is not proven. All that can be proven is that brain activity is highly correlated to reports of varying levels of consciousness. And in some cases, as mentioned above, that hard evidence is the opposite correlation : lower brain activity under specific circumstances leads to reports of higher consciousness, and results in healthier brain tissue.

[Turan]

D.r “People living together has almost nothing to do with deep thinking and concepts - it has to do with assholes and normal people not getting along.”

Just a cursory look at history or the news today shows how thinking is largely influenced by concepts and beliefs. Wars and terrorism are fuelled by religious beliefs, nationalistic beliefs, cultural beliefs, racial beliefs, political beliefs etc., etc.

All these beliefs boil down to mainly one fact; the fear of loosing ones identity, an identity that has been formed to protect and maintain an insecure mind/self structure – the seat of our concepts and beliefs. The mind being accrued information 'stored in the brain' and the self structure being the assumption of who I am derived from this information. These are on-going mental activities that the brain is constantly processing.

Both the mind and self are necessary for day-to-day living but when they are believed to be 'me' they automatically demand that this 'me' has to be protected as much as the protection of the body. This protection of the mind/self (protecting its beliefs) can only result in conflict with other mind/self structures.

These processes can be verified by simply watching them in action most of our waking lives - a sort of meditation. Admittedly, it sounds scary to question what we believe to be 'me' but in reality there is nothing to loose, only an illusion.

[Turan]

I've run out of time at the moment but would like at some later time to talk about how NDE's, OBE's, consciousness, oneness and free will are among some of the activities that proceed from the brain.

[Spencer Tepper]

Hi Turan

You wrote
"Both the mind and self are necessary for day-to-day living but when they are believed to be 'me' they automatically demand that this 'me' has to be protected as much as the protection of the body. This protection of the mind/self (protecting its beliefs) can only result in conflict with other mind/self structures.

These processes can be verified by simply watching them in action most of our waking lives - a sort of meditation. Admittedly, it sounds scary to question what we believe to be 'me' but in reality there is nothing to loose, only an illusion."

So eloquently stated. So true.
When " we" see ourselves this way, it is easy to let go of our own opinions, in favor of agape.

[manjit]

Brian wrote: "D.r, actually attempts to correlate consciousness with the mind have been spectacularly successful."

This is a spectacularly revealing comment!

It demonstrates a lack of understanding or awareness of the difference between the contents of consciousness, and consciousness itself. If such a simple and basic distinction is failed to be made, it demonstrates how utterly clueless science and rationality is when it comes to consciousness.

It also reveals a mind clouded by dogmatic beliefs and ideologies. It takes quite some level of belief based delusion to believe that science has correlated any aspects of consciousness - even merely its contents - to our brain "spectacularly successfully". Believers of religious & ideological beliefs often disconnect from reality entirely trying to defend their beliefs. I wonder if there are any belief-based statements more disconnected from actual reality by any believer of any religion on this blog than this comment by Brian? I suspect one would be hard pushed to locate it if there is.

Brian wrote: "Whenever anesthesia is given, for example. Bingo! A drug is given and consciousness goes away. Same applies with concussions, caffeine, alcohol, other drugs. These material substances affect consciousness. Brain injuries also, plus Alzheimer's."

Again, Brian provides us with cliched, unexamined & incoherent arguments in support of his dogma & ideology. These are profoundly weak arguments that are very, very easily shown to based on circular thinking akin to "it must be true because the bible says it is true". But to expand on that fact we need to bring in a subsequent & equally incoherent comment from Brian: "

Brian: "since demonstrable evidence of consciousness in a person who doesn't have at least a minimally functioning brain would have been known to everyone by now if it existed."

The inherent unintentional absurdity of this comment is simple; there is no "demonstrable evidence" consciousness exists anywhere. Period. Whether outside or inside the brain, there simply is no scientific evidence it exists, anywhere. It is misleading and dishonest to shift this fact to somehow suggest it is only consciousness "outside" of the brain we have no evidence or proof for. We have no scientific proof of consciousness, period. That does not, however - obviously some of us may notice - prove there is no such thing as consciousness (the lack of scientific evidence for this self-evident fact of our existence) at all.

Further, intelliegent readers may notice Brian's use of the cliched argument about how our consciousness changes (contents) or ceases to "be" when our head is hit by a hammer, or we are given drugs such as anesthesia. Please note here the sceptic and materialist readily retreats into the subjective and anecdotal to "prove" the reality of their contention. This is because we ONLY have subjective and anecdotal evidence for the existence or reality of consciousness in the first place, there is absolutely no objective measurable indicators or measurments to show such a "thing" as consciousness even exists.

Please also note that whilst the materialist readily accepts the subjective and anecdotal testimony of somebody who is hit over the head with a hammer or is given anesthesia and recalls nothing but unconsciousness, they do not accept, at all, the testimony of those who have been hit over the head, given anesthesia etc, but DO recall consciousness - and such evidence is vast, copius and existed for thousands of years. (the reason for such a lack of integrity is obvious, this is the normal reaction when one's beliefs and ideologies are challenged - ignore-ance of contradictory information).

Further, we know the vast majority of us dream at night, yet the majority of us do not remember these dreams. It is utterly simplistic and naive for somebody to say upon awakening, "I do not remember a dream, therefore I did not dream last night". The error here is obvious. The same flaw in logic applies to those who say consciousness doesn't exist when one is hit over the head with a hammer or given a chemical specifically to eliminate conscious awareness because they could not remember it.

Even further, here is a recent article from the New Yorker which highlights the fatal flaws in Brian's arguments. It is well worth a read, but here's a pertinent quote from it which really does get to the heart of Brian's dogma & ideology:

https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/are-we-all-awake-during-anesthesia

“Obviously we give anesthetics and we’ve got very good control over it,” one doctor tells Cole-Adams, “but in real philosophical and physiological terms we don’t know how anesthesia works.” The root of the problem is that no one understands why we are conscious. If you don’t know why the sun comes up, it’s hard to say why it goes down."

So a professional doctor who deals specifically with trying to "knock out" consciousness by chemical means says they don't really understand what consciousness is, but Brian thinks he does. Good for him!!

As for Tononi's integrated systems theory of consciousness - this is as absurd an explanation for consciousness as the previous decades believing there was just one site in the brain for the location of consciousness. Having been proved an absurd and ridiculous notion, the natural extension of this materialist approach to consciousness is to say, therefore, it must be different groups or systems of matter combining together to generate consciousness.

This will be proved, without doubt, wrong. (there is currently zero scientific proof to this idea - how can there be, we still only have zero proof consciousness even exists, let alone it's physical "causes"!!).

Etc etc.

[pooh bear]

Good post Manjit - I think one of the problems with this whole debate is the use of the single word, 'consciousness' to describe quite different things. The physical sciences use the word to describe brain impulses etc. while those people who have practice and experience of the 'inner' sciences use the word to describe the life essence that permeates sentient beings.

The examples that Brian has used indicate that a person can lose consciousness from anaesthesia. Yes, they have become unconscious. Similarly in sleep etc we are unconscious. This is the use of the word from a purely physical perspective. The 'inner' sciences utilise the word synonymously with soul or spirit.

So one conversation is about flowers and the other about pastry.

[moon]

Brian wrote: "Whenever anesthesia is given, for example. Bingo! A drug is given and consciousness goes away. Same applies with concussions, caffeine, alcohol, other drugs. These material substances affect consciousness. Brain injuries also, plus Alzheimer's."

.....
My friend had Caesarean section...however she was under a drug like you say Brian and no "bingo" ...she awkened she felt all cuts fully awake but could not tell doctors so she was totally aware of operation and felt all the pain.

[Karim W. Rahmaan]

Originally posted by Blogger Brian:

Spencer, you're welcome to yourown fantasies, but not your ownfacts. Send me some links topeer-reviewed studies that showssolid evidence of people reporting very detailed experiences when the brainis inactive or dead. I'm prettysure you won't be able to dothis, because it would be frontpage news if it were true. Which,it isn't.

Brian, you made a good argument. But with a flaw because you left Spence no fair grounds for any peer-reviewed study in which to supply the facts you hold in question.

The grounds you left out regarding NDEs was that they have only been recorded by 'Clinical Deaths':

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_death#Clinical_death_and_the_determination_of_death

Not the newly defined clinical term; 'Brain Death' which wasn't presented until around 1968 by the Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to Examine the Definition of Brain Death:

https://hods.org/English/h-issues/documents/ADefinitionofIrreversibleComa-JAMA1968.pdf

But there have been and are peer-reviewed research studies on NDEs, one in fact found in the Princeton catalog:

https://pulsearch.princeton.edu/catalog/10434024

Another I was able to pull up at the Harvard Book Store Website -which has both brief 'Contents', and 'Look Inside' book tabs:

http://www.harvard.com/book/near-death_experiences_understanding_visions_of_the_afterlife/

And yet another, which is a scholarly article on NDEs (similar to the inner experiences derived or theoretically reached by ardent practitioners of RSSB meditation, or other yogic systems) found here at Yale Scientific:

http://www.yalescientific.org/2013/12/the-brink-of-death-a-new-perspective/

[Appreciative Reader]

Dear Manjit,

Hello, once again! Long time!

I’m afraid I’m late to this party! So late, that it is likely that you may not even get to see this comment at all, but no matter, more words “sent up to the sky” in that case. But if you do happen to see this, I wanted to say this to you :

I absolutely loved reading the comment that you posted on 2nd January. Where you talk of your experience of oneness, and how it all links up, all that.

Without in any way detracting from the beauty of that post, I have to ask :

1) How do you know you aren’t carrying out some quantum addition here and ending up with 2 + 2 = 3274956 yourself? (Not a rhetorical question, nor a challenge ; just a simple, sincere question. How do you know your “feelings” have any correlation with the actual reality “out there”? How do you know this isn’t simply a figment of your imagination? Imagination as in simply whimsy, or perhaps as in some strongly held idea, or even, perhaps, as in some kind of psychosis?) (Absolutely no snark or ridicule intended! I emphasize this because I included that last possibility there, the psychosis bit. But you do see that all three possibilities I outlined there are, well, possible, don’t you? How are you sure that your own explanation is the correct one, as opposed to one of those three?)

2) If the scheme of things is indeed as you describe it to be, then how is it, do you think, that a few (like you) manage to slip out of this grand all-encompassing net of make-believe and stumble on to knowledge of the actual state of affairs? You seem to not only have found out the actual reality, but are even able to publically speak out about it! Wouldn’t that sort of thing put to risk the whole grand edifice of make-believe that the One has built up so carefully?

3) This third (and last) question of mine is a purely personal take on what you say, basis my purely personal predilections. So I’ll ask you to bear with me as I try to explain clearly what I mean here. I find that I myself am able to spend very long periods of time wholly absorbed within myself. While I do participate fully in an active life, I am not compulsively driven to it. If I happen to find a couple of hours that are fully free, say when some flight is delayed by a couple hours (or even when I find myself with a full day that is wholly free of any kind of engagement, although that seldom happens), then I’m perfectly happy to be by myself, and am not forced to seek out diversions in the form of books or movies or the Internet or the company of other people, not that is unless I particularly want to engage with those things for themselves. That is, I am under no compulsion to seek out “entertainment” simply to escape my own solitude. I’m afraid your “One Consciousness” appears unable to do this! Like some ADHD-afflicted child unable to sit still, like some crack addict unable to let go of the diversion that they derive from their poison, or like some compulsively driven excitement-junkie, the One seems to be compulsively seeking out more and more extreme forms of entertainment! Doesn’t that appear somewhat incongruous to you? That something that I am able to do, the One seems unable to? (Again, no snark intended. This isn’t intended as some smarty-pants “gotcha” argument. I may or may not have been able to express this well, but I’m hoping you’ll be able to understand my point, and my underlying question, and be able to answer it.)

4) You’ve already (in terms that I myself found beautiful) said that there’s no way to seek this experience out, and also that there’s no point, really, to these experiences. So I won’t revisit those two particular questions that I’d asked you once on this blog, some months ago. I won’t ask you how to bring this experience about, since you say nothing one does or doesn’t to can really take one towards it or away from it ; I won’t ask you the point of all this, since you say clearly that there is no point ; and I won’t again ask you if you’ll be any more (or less) dead when you die than any other random person, since although you don’t spell it out in so many words, I think you do imply that your post-death experience won’t be any different on account of this experience and this understanding of yours. (But please do correct me if I’ve got anything at all wrong here in this last point/paragraph.)

Very happy new year to you, Manjit. And should you happen to read this, and, having read this, should you feel able to respond, I’ll look forward to hearing back from you.

My best wishes,
--Appreciative Reader.

[Appreciative Reader]

Karim, how do you do that box thing there?

Thanks!

[Karim W. Rahmaan]

Originally posted by Appreciative Reader:

how do you do that box thing there?
Thanks!

Just a little HTML miracle -I mean magic. I have faith you can figure it out thyself.

[Jim Sutherland]

To Karim,......

Jim prefers to think outside of the Box. 😇

[Karim W. Rahmaan]

Originally posted by Jim:

Jim prefers to think outside of theBox. 😇

"No aim can be greater than the wish to be changed from the limitations and miseries of a transient human being into the eternal joy of the Perfect One."
-Maharaj Charan Singh

[777]

Dear Appreciative Reader

For an rssb satsangi it should be , just before physical death, just jump in the SoundStream

Of course easy when you practiced with great fun many times.
With fun I mean great ecstase once in a while

With rssb just ask for it - You don't need to be a successful meditator - I would almost say : ON THE CONTRARY :-)

A little bit less Ego is a pro

Ramana said :

To know God You must be absorbed in HIM

Can it be sweeter than sweet
Thousands low IQ do it faster than the high IQ here

Wow lucky this is the free chapter : No Preaching I did

777

[Appreciative Reader]

Hello, Karim.

Yes, that is what I was requesting you to do, share with me the HTML mantras that activate that particular miracle.

I do not have a background in computer programming. I do use computers a lot, in my work as well as otherwise -- as who doesn’t, these days? -- but only as ‘user’, as ‘consumer’. Although I did learn something of the elements of coding, back in college long ago, that knowledge was sketchy to begin with and is in any case mostly forgotten by now. I suppose if I really wanted to, I could certainly figure out how to do that box thing. If nothing else, I could ask my friends and colleagues who actually do have a background in programming. Or I could take quick leads from the ever-helpful Google. On the other hand, I’m only casually and trivially interested in this whole thing, and will probably not take this any further than this brief exchange of comments here. I saw you do it up there, and thought it was cool, and so asked you if you would show me how.

If for whatever reason you do not wish to share that mantra here, that’s cool too, brother*! No issues at all!

Cheers to you!

* You don’t mind my addressing you as “brother”, do you, Karim, despite my never having interacted with you before? We may not share the same religious faith and Guru (RSSB and Gurinder Singh, as I gather from your comments here), but we do, evidently, share an interest in things ‘spiritual’. That does make us brethren after a fashion, doesn’t it?

[Appreciative Reader]

Dear 777,

Thank you for your words. You know, I derive a great deal of inspiration from the first-hand accounts of successful 'practice', yours for instance, as well as those of other commenters here.

The sentiment you express gels perfectly with many other traditions. In many of these (as you no doubt know), one key point of regular practice is that it will help one switch to this same practice (Shabd, Naam, Visualizations, Chakras, whatever) at the time of death. They say that's all important.

I'm afraid I find it impossible to simply believe! Nevertheless, I expect that belief per se is probably irrelevant, as long as one's practice is as impeccable as one can make it, and one's heart clear. And meanwhile, like you say, it's fun, I agree.

[Appreciative Reader]

Quote Jim : "Jim prefers to think outside of the Box."

It is when one's thinking is largely confined within box(es) that one revels in the occasional outside-the-box thought.

(Don't take that seriously, just kidding!)

If you'll permit me, Jim, here's wishing you a happy new year!

[Karim W. Rahmaan]

Originally posted by AppreciativeReader:

We may not share the same religious faith and Guru (RSSBand Gurinder Singh, as I gatherfrom your comments here), but wedo, evidently, share an interest inthings ‘spiritual’.

Thank you for not taking my reluctance to share that code too personally. Because if I did share it with you -then I'd have to Kharge you. (wink)

As for us sharing things 'spiritual' that all depends on what you see as Spiritual.

Someone could see something simple as the falling of snowflakes, then catching a unique formation as 'spiritual'. While another could look up to see a shooting star and aslo feel that to be 'spiritual'.

But what Spiritual is as I've recently been trying to learn from the pros e.g. Baba Jaimal Singh Ji, Hazur Sawan Singh Ji Maharaj, Sardar Bahadur Jagat Singh, Maharaj Ji Charan Singh, & Sri Gurinder Singh Ji Dhillon. Is that true 'spirituality' comes from a lifelong practice of not only doing pious acts, vegetarianism, abstaining from intoxicants, but more particularly from it being bestowed from the Over-Spirit itself. Hence, the need to thoroughly investigate a one (True Master) who indeed knows that Way or Path. And is also willing to show us/others how to become One or United with that Spirit invoking its grace.

Luckily for me who comes from a very unspiritual soil i.e. 'Tha Hood' 'Tha Ghetto' 'Tha Bottom of the Barrel'. Baba Ji (Sri Gurinder Singh Ji Dhillon) has yet to Kharge me.

Good luck in your searches!

[Spencer Tepper]

Hi Karim!

You wrote

"Is that true 'spirituality' comes from a lifelong practice of not only doing pious acts, vegetarianism, abstaining from intoxicants, but more particularly from it being bestowed from the Over-Spirit itself. Hence, the need to thoroughly investigate a one (True Master) who indeed knows that Way or Path. And is also willing to show us/others how to become One or United with that Spirit invoking its grace."

All that.

And yet, there is the understanding in an instant, 'it's all there now, in me, and I am a tiny, tiny part of It /Him.'

This is what brings people to the Path, and when they realize it comes from that place above our issues, beyond our struggles, and has been handed to us, can there be anything more?

Aren't we just place holding that? Like a placeholder card at a banquet, we are keeping that space open for ourselves.

And occasionally get served that meal.

If you perceive it, then did you make that? Was it given to you?

Brian wrote of the joy of seeing a beatiful sunset.

If that happens in meditation, is it any different?

Spirituality is our experience, understood at a higher level. In a flash comes the great insight, the answer, the peace.

If spirituality is anything, it is that.

The practice is a formula, a means to an end, greater peace, more time at the Lord 's table, now direct experience, greater intimacy with that Highest Power.

As Sawant Singh wrote, to paraphrase, there is a difference between the true power of lightening, which in a single storm can produce enough electricity to run a city for a year, and our own little electric generator we fuel with the gasoline of our attention. Or to site Jesus, they kept their lamps trimmed and filled with oil until the coming of the Husband.

[Karim W. Rahmaan]

Originally posted by SpencerTepper:

to paraphrase, there is a difference between the true power oflightening, which in a single stormcan produce enough electricity to run a city for a year, and our ownlittle electric generator we fuel withthe gasoline of our attention

Peace be with you.

[Appreciative Reader]

To Karim :

Heh, no, certainly not! It would be silly to take personally something so very trivial, so very wholly innocuous and inconsequential!

I appreciate your joke -- the “if I told you I’d have to kill you” trope from spy movies -- but I have to ask, what is “kharge”? Won’t you share with me that at least, the meaning of that curious word? That’s a word I don’t think I’ve ever encountered before. My dictionary doesn’t list that word ; and neither Urban Dictionary (which is usually helpful for new, niche, unorthodox usages) nor Google generally seem able to shed light either on its provenance or meaning.

Thank you for the good wishes you send me, Karim!

Your online persona – deadbeat desperado from “da ghetto” and “da hood”, who’s (presumably) made good by pulling himself up by the bootstraps, and who from that unpromising soil has, by God’s Grace, found spirituality and found peace and fulfillment -- is truly fascinating. Even as a purely online construct it is sheer genius. And should that online persona happen to coincide with your real-life persona, then that is a life truly inspiring, then that is a life truly to be held up as example. In either case, you have my admiration and my good wishes.

[Appreciative Reader]

To MANJIT :

I’m bumping this up again, Manjit, in hopes of drawing your attention.

What you’d said in your comment up there, your first one on this thread, that is truly inspirational and possibly very important. I wouldn’t , if at all possible, want to let go the opportunity of examining what you say more closely.

Should what you say indeed turn out to be “true”, it would be unfortunate indeed to let it go simply as a random and whimsical, if interesting, online comment. Should it indeed turn out to be “true”, I would very much like to know more about what you say, know in greater depth and detail about what you say. Towards that end, I’d like to, again in this comment, draw your attention to my comment and my questions, posted some way upthread.

I’m hoping you’ll see this now and respond to my comment and questions posted earlier. Thanks!

[D.r]

Appreciative Reader, what background of belief do you hold then? You said you find it impossible to believe. Well, I do too even though God came to me. It wasn't my doing. It was a gentle imposition into my life, a glimpse of things. Still, from a Christian perspective you have to believe that Jesus died and was resurrected. Is this easy? Not for me it isn't. In fact, I would say it is probably one of the hardest things a person can do. I practiced meditation for 15 years before I had this experience and it wasn't hard for me to do that really. I agree with Saint Paul where he said God is revealed to us all inside and we all know it but some people prefer to supress this truth. Despite what atheists may say. You see, there is natural revelation - we know inside that God is there because nature is here. And then supernatural revelation, whether through a scriptural text or a personal experience of God. Clearly, nature and scripture aren't enough. When God reveals Himself to you (and you don't get to God by your own efforts, otherwise the concept of grace makes no sense) you know and you know that you know. It isn't a belief any longer. But yes still, there's more to it than such a preliminary glimpse. This is where belief comes in. I haven't made it that far yet, but I know the promises are true due to the nature of the experience that I had.

[Jim Sutherland]

D.r., you said you have to believe that Jesus died, and was resurrected, in order to become a Christian, and you are having trouble believing that.

Any sane person knows that bodily ressurection is impossible, at least, Biologically. But certainly not Spiritually.

In case you missed the Article I wrote some time ago, dealing with that reason to deny the resurrection of Jesus, take a read, and reconsider that stumbling block to becoming a Christian.

http://eternaloasisofsouls.blogspot.com/2014/01/final-edited-article-edited-by-my.html?spref=bl

Jim Sutherland

[777]

-
-

"Well, I do too even though God came to me."

HE IS THERE ALLREADY

You only have a trillion layers of asbestos between
to avoid the heat

-
-

777

-

[manjit]

Dear Appreciate Reader,

Thank you for your kind comments, and I hope you have a wonderful new year too my friend! :o)

You ask some really terrific questions, intelligently penetrating. To be honest though, I'm not sure I'm the right person to answer them. This may sound strange seeing as I wrote the original post ha! My original post was not meant to be proscriptive, but rather poetically descriptive. It came out in "flow" rather than through "thought", if that makes any sense. These are not meant to be concepts to be intellectually understood, but rather reflective suggestions that are meant to trigger memories or associations of something non-conceptual that, I believe, we are all already aware of on some deeper level of our being. As soon as you start analysing & unpacking these ideas as logical concepts, I feel like the real potential value of it is lost? (indeed, I posted it on 3 forums, but seriously considered deleting it from 2 of them - not here as you can't - shortly afterwards. Words & concepts merely insult the reality they're pointing too. I left them there as I considered it any act of conceit to delete!)

In view of that, it is difficult for me to expand the requisite effort to think about these things in logical or intellectual terms, and even more difficult to generate enough passion to do the subject justice. I have no desire or inclination to defend these views on a personal level..... the original post was written and sent spontaneously, effortlessly & without any real intention....now, with your questions, I must make an effort!! :) However, I have to say you come across as a good & sincere person in all your interactions with everyone, very polite & civil as well as asking thoughtful, considered questions. These days that's quite rare online (myself included, I don't have time for pretences!! :), and I think that deserves some respect! So, to return that respect you show to everyone, I will attempt to answer your questions, even if the fact we are now dealing with concepts dampens my personal enthusiasm!

1) You asked: "How do you know you aren’t carrying out some quantum addition here and ending up with 2 + 2 = 3274956 yourself?.... How do you know your “feelings” have any correlation with the actual reality “out there”? How do you know this isn’t simply a figment of your imagination?..... some kind of psychosis?"

Cracking good question! I posted my original post here, Radhasoamistudies and another forum about science & spirituality sort of stuff. On that forum, one of the responses I got was from somebody who criticised the concept of us all being "one", as if it is some sort of "bland mush", and wanted to retain their "individuality" after-death etc. Anyway, whilst I don't find that argument very persuasive (based as it was, they would themselves admit, on nothing but a concept of what this "oneness" actually is), offered to them what I considered to be a more challenging argument against the inferences of my post: "I have great doubts to what extent this is in any way an accurate representation of "reality" out there. Is the microcosm (of my conscious experience) a true reflection of the macrocosm? I believe it may be, but I am completely unable to prove it!".

What you're asking me here is to unpack that "I believe it may be" in the last line? Yes, your question is a good one that I have asked myself many times....intellectually. It needs to be made clear, though, that during the experience itself, there are absolutely no questions left unanswered - that is, you can ask/see questions, and the answers are self-evident and obvious, experientially and logically. The challenge is to transcribe those meta-physical ideas and concepts into deeply limited, dualistic language, like trying to communicate love via the medium of burping. A very challenging, and somewhat tedious, task....futile, really.

There are so many dimensions to answering your question that you can write for years and not cover a single percent of it

Whether scientifically, philosophically, rationally or, most importantly, experientially, all roads lead to Rome.....Consciousness. There is not a single experience, reality, law of nature, universe, sensation etc etc etc that will EVER occur outside of your own consciousness. This is a direct, unarguable and experiential fact for all of us. The so-called "outside world" is merely an appearance, a fiction or narrative within your consciousness. Who wants to argue this? Give it a try, humans have been trying to escape this fact for thousands of years, science being one method of objectifying the universe. It is a profoundly useful tool. But a lie nonetheless. And quantum physics HAD to appear to halt the inanity of materialism...how ridiculous, once materialists believed the universe was made of atoms and that was the deepest structure/layer of reality!

But I digress. The above is one thread of argument. Another....and I suspect more interesting to certain people (and here I add caution, because I mean here the egos of some people are thrilled & inflated with these ideas, but that is neither the intention or benefit of these experiences & understandings)....thread of interest would be experiences that suggest that our individual consciousness is connected to the rest of the universe and other conscious beings.

Things get really subtle & "occult" here. Experience is the only real teacher. Telepathy, psychokinesis, synchronicity-clusters, precognition etc etc. Here goes (bearing in mind these are concepts which are, if taken literally rather than hinting at reality, false!); our consensus reality here on this earth has certain limits & parameters which define the purpose of the experiences that can be had here. If we all really knew our true identity, the whole thing evaporates and the entire purpose of this reality is obviated. Forgetfulness is the purpose here. This is why there will never be any incontrovertible proof of psychic powers, life after death, intelligence in design etc.....or incontrovertible proof these do not exist. Everything collapses into ambiguity & unknowingness upon deeper examination....physics is a perfect example of this, as is scientific research into the nature of consciousness. Ultimately we, as a human race, are left saying "what the f#@k! is going on?!?!!".

What has this got to do with synchronicities, telepathy etc? Well, within a very restricted & limited context, with very little information leakage outside of that context, with no real impact or implications for reality "at large", with no real benefit or desire on an egotistical or material level, and with enough character to not get swept away with egotistical fantasies, one can prove to oneself (or consciousness will prove itself) there is, without any doubt whatsoever, a deep and profound connection between our so-called "Individual" consciousness, with BOTH "material" reality & the consciousness of others. I am talking literal "miracle" levels, consistently & over time...to the point it just becomes boring, the lesson has been learnt (the lack of personal desire makes these things irrelevant beyond their implications). The macrocosm is seen within the microcosm....and the microcosm is then provided proof from the macrocosm that it wasn't just a dream......

Okay, not even sure if I've touched your question, but it's only question 1 and I've got to draw a line somewhere!

2) You wrote: "If the scheme of things is indeed as you describe it to be, then how is it, do you think, that a few (like you) manage to slip out of this grand all-encompassing net of make-believe and stumble on to knowledge of the actual state of affairs? You seem to not only have found out the actual reality, but are even able to publically speak out about it! Wouldn’t that sort of thing put to risk the whole grand edifice of make-believe that the One has built up so carefully?"

Haha, I loved this one!! Again can spend hours on this! For example, I can take issue with your "slip out of this...."....who is "slipping out"?! There is nowhere to go!

There is nothing to be put at "risk"! Everything is as it is because it is meant to be how it is (that's how it got there!), where is the fear of "risk", who or what is there to fear when consciousness is all that exists? Secondly, what has my post achieved in destroying peoples "make believe"?! Nothing! It is like a snowdrop in a furnace! It may have been a beautiful unique creation for a tiny split second in time, but almost as soon as it was formed, it was melted by the furnace of ego......intellectual questions :)

What I describe is, imo, the true perennial "mystical experience". It has been had by thousands if not millions of people through time in a staggering wide array of contexts...it is also the highest of epitome of most spiritual paths and practices, though we are more often left grappling with the subsequent worldly and mundane dross it degenerates into (which includes the body of all religions, paths, practices, gurus etc). What I'm saying is I'm not the only person whose had this understanding & experience, and that, further, it is a natural extension of the nature of existence. Where there are people profoundly limited in their conscious experience, there will be others profoundly unlimited......these are merely two sides of one consciousness coin and it cannot be any other way.....as is understood during the experience itself, self-evidently.

3) You write: "I’m afraid your “One Consciousness” appears unable to do this! Like some ADHD-afflicted child unable to sit still, "

Haha :o) I can completely understand that, from certain perspectives, this makes no logical sense.

However, from other perspectives....and I include merely normal limited consciousness too.....it doesn't. You see, your question makes the implication this universe (btw, this earth seems like an infinitesimally small slice of the larger consciousness reality, and very near the lower end of beauty) is an unworthy or negative thing....consciousness should just shut up and go to sleep!! :) My friend, I simply cannot put into words the astonishing beauty, wonder, exhilaration, magnificence etc etc etc of this universe. The possibility of consciousness NOT stirring is absolutely ridiculous......why wouldn't you want all this wonder, wonder, wonder to behold? I almost fall apart thinking about it, our entire human existence is like a grain of sand in the expanse, yet even that alone is mind-boggling, intoxicating, incomprehensible, how to even begin on all reality!?

Again, I should clarify this is ALL concepts, mere shells of reality itself, at BEST. In consciousness itself, the entire reality (of which this earth is a tiny, tiny slice) is created and re-absorbed in a timeless eternal state of now....it has happened, it is still happening, it has never happened, all at once! The question of not creating it seems absurd, even impossible....consciousness can....so it has already happened. The mere thought or idea of it in consciousness caused it to happen immediately, but as if in a dream; it never really happened.

There is a poster here 777 that I disagree with on many issues, but on one I can wholeheartedly agree. It is the sine qua non of spiritual teachings; WOW.

It is strange, there are 2 main objections to what I wrote in my post; those that say why did God create this world, full of suffering and death, in the first place. Idiot! And the other, those that say they think the notion of some indistinguishable oneness mush is horrifying and that they want/believe we retain our individuality forever, ie they want to perpetuate this or similar dualistic worlds.

The incomprehensible truth is that the consciousness I discuss contains both these viewpoints, these realities. It transcends them. It is easy to lose sight of a forest due to the pesky trees getting in our way.

Of course they both exist, they are opposing, dualistic views & ideas, if one exists, so must the other. The hard to decipher thing is that consciousness is tied by neither, and contains both. Because we keep conflating concepts, ideas and beliefs with reality, we are trapped in dualistic notions, preferences, wanting, a sense of lacking something etc.....

Anyway, I really feel as if these answers are terrible, absurd, ridiculous etc, but I gave it a shot! To write something more coherent, comprehensive & convincing could take many, many hours at least, and I'm too tired for that malarkey!

Your question 4 wasn't really a question, but I would leave you with a quote from Nisargadatta somebody posted to the RSS forum recently, I fell it covers in a far more succint way than I ever could how to search "realisation" of that which I hint at. It is the true secret of following the "path"....the "middleman" is merely an actor, which is why even the disciples of criminals, frauds and even worse can "realise" this (and, in my experience, almost all "middlemen", gurus etc are actors and frauds), if their OWN heart is in the right place. Much wisdom in these words:

"Be aware of being conscious and seek the source of consciousness. That is all. Very little can be conveyed in words. It is the doing as I tell you that will bring light, not my telling you. The means do not matter much; it is the desire, the urge, the earnestness that counts."

~ Nisargadatta

Cheers!

Manjit

[Spencer Tepper]

"Still, from a Christian perspective you have to believe that Jesus died and was resurrected. "

Not really.

[D.r]

Jim, I don't find your writings about Christianity to be accurate. I remember asking you how you got into eastern religious beliefs and you didn't answer properly. You may have given answers but you didn't explain it as far as I'm concerned. How did you come to believe in reincarnation? You call yourself a kind of gnostic Christian but Gnosticism was debunked by the early Church fathers before any church councils in the 4th century.

The gospels were not altered by the church in the 4th century. We have manuscripts of the Gospels dated to the 1st century.

Pre-existence, that some early church fathers believed in, has nothing to do with reincarnation.

I'm sure you are aware of the many criticisms of the theory of reincarnation. Or perhaps not.

Mysticism in Christianity starts from the desert fathers in Egypt, from the orthodox and Catholic Churches a long time after Christianity began. there is no such thing in the New Testament, and certainly not in the Old Testament. People love to selectively quote the Bible and take it out of context to support mystical ideas that simply do not exist in the originals. I am never surprised or amazed when people do this, these days, because they have to go to Jesus Christ to bolster up their own mystical beliefs, to try to make them seem legitimate.

[Appreciative Reader]

Hello, D.r.

You asked me directly about my “background of belief”. Do please excuse me, D.r, but I’m afraid I’m not very comfortable sharing purely personal details online. No offense meant to you when I say that.

In somewhat more general terms, this is how it was with me : I was brought up in a theistic background, in fact an extremely religious background. It has always seemed preposterous to me to blindly believe the hundred and one things that people around me apparently believed implicitly. The fact that people use "scripture" to support their beliefs has seemed risible to me since as long back as I can remember, since that presupposes that that particular scripture does contain the "truth". (I know you yourself take the Bible seriously. I'm not trying to deride or even question that faith when I say this, just talking about myself like you asked me to.) And nor was apatheism ever an option for me : this question has always seemed extremely important to me. Which led me to look around, near and far, sometimes very far. Fast forward to today : At this time I follow three experiential systems that seem the most promising to me : that is, I try to follow as correctly as I can the prescriptions of all of these three systems, including their respective meditative techniques. But I keep an open mind about the tons of theological baggage those techniques come bundled up in. I don’t identify in any way with all that baggage, and would be happy to discard them entirely if, going forward, I do not come across subjective evidence that satisfies me.

About being unable to believe, which is what you asked me about, this is what I meant : To believe or not to believe, I don’t know, perhaps that is not really in one’s control. This is why I’ve found Pascal’s Wager wholly absurd (probably the man himself had meant it as a joke, I don’t know) : quite apart from all the other glaring shortcomings in his argument, the fact is that you cannot really will or choose to believe something! If you offered me ten million dollars upfront, right now, transferred immediately into my bank account, if only I would believe that the sun is actually a pink elephant, trunks and all, that through magic only appears to be a star, well then even if I wanted to I couldn’t possibly accept your offer! Of course I could deceive you, and pretend to believe. But actually believe? That’s not possible! Not for me, at any rate. Is it similarly impossible for everyone? I don’t know for sure one way or the other, but I suspect it is : I suspect that no can really, deep within, actually believe what they find unbelievable, no matter what inducements (either real and concrete in the here-and-now, or imaginary in some after-death land) they’re offered.

I respect your sharing with me the very personal details of God coming into your life. I must say I’m moved by the depth of your feeling. There seems no point in my burdening you with whatever specific pseudo-explanations might occur to me about what you felt (as you’ve described just now, and also once earlier elsewhere on this blog in greater detail). That would be no more than one blind man gabbing away to another, simply thinking his way through about this thing called ‘vision’, this ‘sight’ business, that so many people speak of, people who claim they have things called ‘eyes’! It will probably be far better for you to speak about this with someone who actually has eyes and who has actually themselves seen. Always assuming that eyes really exist, and always assuming that vision/sight is really a thing, something that is by no means sure.

But one thing I’d like to point out, that you may perhaps find helpful. (Or not -- that is, you may perhaps disagree with it, or else you may perhaps find it obvious and trivial and trite -- in which case please ignore this.) Manjit spoke in his comment above about religious folks (he said this in the RSSB context, but naturally this applies to other religions as well, including any and every flavor of Christianity) adding two numbers and ending up with a wholly unsupported equation, like 2 + 2 = 3274956. No matter who says it, some apparently wise man today or some apparently wise man hundreds or thousands of years ago, simply their saying that it is so doesn’t actually make it so, does it? When you cannot believe some apparent impossibility, I don’t think it makes sense to beat yourself up over this “failing” of yours (and the votaries of that particular system will do their damnedest best to either tell you directly or imply indirectly and subtly that the failing is squarely yours for not being able to believe). Most people don’t have any direct observations at all to work with, they don’t even have the “2” on the left side of the equation : you appear to have been blest with certain “observations”, you do seem to have at least a “2” with you. Does that 2 really equal (or lead to) 3274956? I don’t know, it might for all I know, but to me it seems extremely implausible. Especially given that there are plenty of other claimants all around with other large numbers like 1175698 or 6659869 or whatever, that they want you to equate with that “2” of yours instead of the 3274956 that you were originally offered, and to believe their own particular equation. After all, if you are open to believing the one system and its seers, why not the others? After all each system is just as reasonable (and just as outlandish) as the other, isn’t it? Think how strong, how robust, is the faith and the belief (in things that he does not have adequate evidence for) that drives the fanatic nut job to strap on his suicide vest! Might it not be best to simply, honestly, accept that you have a “2”, just that and nothing else? Of course, that doesn’t stop you looking for other numbers, other evidence, other experiences ; and if/when those other numbers come up you can always add them to that “2” that you already have with you.

Sorry, long post. And probably not what you were looking for? Afraid I can't do any better than that -- you asked me, so I answered as best I could.

[D.r]

Appreciative Reader, thanks for replying. I noted that you seemed to suggest you were brought up in a religious setting and rejected it early on. The same thing happened to me. It wasn't because of religion though. I simply went through puberty and an academic education that made me critically minded, and I wanted to enjoy life. Most kids probably feel this way. Later on I got interested in meditation and yoga teachings and practiced that for years. If God didn't reveal himself to me in the way that He subsequently did, I would probably be the kind of person that attacks religion, Christians, Christianity, etc., and be soundly agnostic, like I was before.

It sounds to me like you are the kind of person that can't believe in something because you are like a person that has been created not to believe. There are people like this. It doesn't invalidate the many other people that can and do believe though. You didn't specify what it was you found hard or impossible to believe though. If it is the resurrection of Jesus, many people find it hard to believe and many people do believe it. Pick and choose, if you will. Nobody, as far as I know of, compares Jesus' resurrection with proclaiming that the sun is actually a giant toaster or something completely meaningless and trivial like that. That is the problem with atheists, as far as I'm concerned - comparing God with spaghetti noodles that fly in space. A shallow and ridiculous analogy. Nobody that believes in God comes out with such drivel as this, it doesn't even cross their mind. Comparing apples with oranges doesn't make a good case.

As to your reluctance to reveal any so called personal details on this blog that is of course up to you, but since it is anonymous I see no real reason for it.

[Appreciative Reader]

Manjit, thank you for that beautiful response of yours.

I’ve read it a few times, and in fact I’ve taken a print of it so I can read it through a few more times till it fully sinks in.

You’re right, it does seem futile to keep on needling something like what you speak of with analytical probes. (At least that is one way of looking at it.) Perhaps that is the mistake I made when I spoke about this same subject with Osho Robbins some months back. On the other hand, what else is one to do? It is either that, or simply put it aside with a shrug and perhaps an appreciative smile!

I’ve just now spent just under half an hour writing a longish post, with some follow-on questions and observations for you. But you know what, I don’t think I want to impose further on you with my questions. So I simply deleted that comment instead of posting it. You did indicate that you’re short of time, and that this sort of thing is something of an effort for you. I don’t want to force you into the awkward position of having to choose between two uncomfortable options, either spending more time and effort answering stuff against your will, or not answering despite your reluctance to appear rude.

So, no further questions from me. Thanks again for your two posts here. Excellent food for thought.

Of course, if you do have the time and the inclination for attending some more questions -- don't worry, not an unending series of questions, I mean one final set of questions for you to answer -- then please let me know, and I’ll go ahead and post them here.

[Jim Sutherland]

D.r. Writes to Jim,...”Jim, I don't find your writings about Christianity to be accurate.”

Me: HaHa. I sure am in the Company of the Majority. Who appointed you the Judge to approve, or disapprove the accuracy of what I, or others conjecture about Christian issues? Its all, conjecture, in my opinion, no matter which particular Sect you decide you want to side with, at any particular time in your research. Your belief system stabilizes, only after you quit researching. But it will always reboot, with every new additional piece f information you happen to aquire, as long as you keep reading, hearing, meditating, praying, as long as you don’t close your mnd to new Revelations you may not be familiar with.

As for Gnosticsm haven been debunked in the 4th century, that identifies your Fundamentalst persuasion of so called Christianity .

I do not take the Bible as being inerrent, or historically, accurate. I also don’t claim to be its Chief Apologist appointed by Jehovah or Jesus to defend all the different translations and laguages .

I have debated, or more accurately, scrimaged, with many different well known characters who have taken their serious stands on how they conceive the Bible to teach or illustrate.

I suggest you ( if you are really interested in researching, and not just here to argue) run a search on Allen Chronshaw, who has more of his writtings on the Internet than you could read in this life time, even if you are young! He claims to have lived as the actual Brother of Jesus, and walked, talked, with him, as his Brother, James. He says he remembers Jesus telling his followers to follow James, and not Peter, or John. Allan also says he personally authored the first New Testement Gospel, titled, Mathiew, which was written in Hebrew. He says he also remembers being an Ebonite, and witnessing the original Gnostic Teachings being changed by tne Romans in the 4rt Century. I have debated Allan, off and on, for the last dozen years or more, i agree with much of what he writes, and disagree with a lot of it.

As for Reincarnation and Karma, I am Rock Solid, as a “ Believer” , and I have many Articles on my blog about the subject. I don’t honestly know, exactly how the Spiritual Mechancs of it all operates, but I believe it to be the only possible Justice of any Creator that makes any sense to me. I have an Article in my blog showing Reincarnation taught in the Bible.

Again, I don’t claim to be the Biblical Authority or Apolgist for Jesus, but I AM my own Authority, to believe or reject what ever teaching I desire,...as you are.

If you present your Biblical Credentials, to support your Authoritive Fundamentalst beliefs, I may give them more consideration. ( or share more Spoons to stir the Pot with, than I list on my Blog.)

Jim Sutherland

[Jim Sutherland]

To D.r.,.......Here is a New Testament Trivia to debunk, of you can?

http://www.vectorpub.com/pdf/TrueAuthorship.PDF

Good Luck!
Jim Sutherland

[Appreciative Reader]

You’re right, D.r, the fact that I myself cannot will myself to believe stuff to order does not mean that no one can. I said as much myself. I don’t mean to criticize those who apparently do so believe (although in as much as I look at what they do or don’t do in order to guide my own actions, naturally I do critique them).

You’re right, my pink elephant example was grotesquely exaggerated, perhaps something of a strawman. Let me try something more real. Would you be induced to belief in the tenets of Islam if I were to offer you USD 10 M? What about Rastafarian beliefs? Even if you needed the money desperately, COULD you pull this off, this believing what someone asks you to? What about if instead of money I promised you salvation -- could you then believe what I asked you to (even if you wanted to)?

Pascal was a parochial ignoramus (by today’s standards, and I admit that it isn’t fair to judge people of earlier times by today’s standards, so instead of "parochial ignoramus" let's simply describe him as ignorant of most of the many other fully evolved faiths that we now know about), else he couldn’t have even begun to formulate his absurd “wager”. Had his worldview been any wider, he’d have immediately stopped at “God” to ask himself “Which God?”, and not embarrassed himself with the ludicrous logical errors he went on to commit in the formulation of his wager. Unless of course -- and as I suspect -- he meant it only as a joke all along.

Sorry, that last paragraph came out stronger than I had intended. But don’t let’s argue about this : this is absolutely elementary stuff, and I have no wish to attempt to convert you to my way of thinking. I only said what I did in an attempt to explain what I’d meant by “not believing”, which is what you’d asked me to do.

[D.r]

Jim, I don't know if you have trouble reading correctly (and I mean no offense by saying that) but I actually stated that Gnosticism was debunked by the early church fathers BEFORE the 4th century.

As for this fellow that claims to be the reincarnation of the brother of Jesus, such claims appear silly to me. For what it's worth, that's all I can really offer in response. It reminds of people never claiming to be the reincarnation of some poor peasant but always only famous people from the past.

It also appears that you think the resurrection of Jesus was not an actual physical event but some sort of gnostic spiritual thing instead. This has also been debunked by many credible people. I don't claim to have credentials in theology and never have, nor do I claim to be an expert. But I don't have to be, either. If you think that people are only worth listening to and taking seriously if they have Phd's, you'd better scrap Newton and Maxwell and many other geniuses of the past who clearly didn't get doctorates.

You characterise my position as fundamentalist. An easy tactic to use, of course. Since I don't think the Bible in inerrant I fail to see how you can make such assumptions. It would do you better to actually inquire of me what I DO believe before throwing around assumptive accusations.

As to reincarnation in the Bible, there seems to be a couple of references, as far as I can make out myself, that lend support to that idea. But it isn't clear cut and obvious. What does seem obvious, though, is that you cannot believe in both reincarnation and the idea of hell. They are mutually incompatible. Since hell is mentioned frequently by Jesus himself and other New Testament writings, it is stretching things too far to claim reincarnation is compatible with it all.

As to the "secular" evidence for reincarnation, there isn't that much though there are cases that strongly support it, like Shanti Devi.

I don't agree with you that subjective interpretations should be a good guide to a person's worldview.

[D.r]

A.R., the way I interpret your comments is that it seems you have a problem with the word "God" and all it entails. If this is the case, nothing I will say about it will persuade you, just like nothing you say about it will persuade me, unless you or I happen to change our minds. I can't really see that happening though, as you come across as some sort of atheist, whereas I am not.

If someone offered me millions of dollars to persuade me to believe in something like Islam or Rastafarianism, I would simply be pretending to do so and not really meaning it. But again, this kind of analogy seems to me to be shallow and false. My experience dictates reality to me, not hypothetical scenarios such as you bring up.

I tried atheism and found it massively wanting, around about 2007. It simply doesn't make any sense to me and partly that is why I come to Brian's blog, to hash it out with like minded fools speaking total nonsense. I actually enjoy putting atheists down, which isn't my intent but always ends up that way for obvious reasons, and if I can corner them and get them to admit THEY DO NOT KNOW WHETHER GOD EXISTS OR NOT, I win the argument automatically. I have done it many times in the past and will continue to do so.

[Jim Sutherland]

D.r. Asks,...”It would do you better to actually inquire of me what I DO believe before throwing around assumptive accusations.”

Me: OK, lay it on us. What DO you believe? About The entire Enchalada?

Jim Sutherland

[D.r]

It is Enchilada.

Be more specific. Being general is a totally stupid mental position to have.

[777]

Hi All,

These so heartbreaking comments are mostly true, . . in relativity . .

I like to add and I felt it : The sense of everything failing,. . except for LOVE
( again LOVE in the sense I described a few days ago > : helping that old lady to cross the street up to giving a Billion anonymously )

And absolutely not excluding physical love of all sorts

You know it when it is kind of pure

I m sure many here know the feel that some subjects, some persons, even art, or non art
push your attention to the crown of yr head, ; other items do the other direction
Like Gurinder so clearly AND LOVINGLY described by simple words: but , butt, 69, and no doubt other suggestions adapted precisely to the audience

It comes so precisely to Adi Granth s "Ingrained in us " - Le petit voix
what Buddha said "don't inflate it, that feel"

and it is different in all of us

Therefore there is no universal good or universally bad

Very individual

Two tremendous expressions tmho are

Do no harm,
Don't worry, be happy

And then bliss feels will grow for ever

777

Makes me remember my base philosopy

God made all Souls equal with the promise b; Be happy and I give you all you want

Then some Souls did lose His hand ( Charan said that ) and ( me ) started stealing
from other Souls - no patience untill God made the circumstances to their desire, . . .
so they steal and do harm

Stealing a smile, an apple, a car, a wife, a planet, a galaxy ( then, not possible anymore ) A universe

Now, there is no punishment

We only have to compensate, give it back
That s all
And the mesons, the Higgs particles , the strings, they all adapting to create circumstances on some physical plane to LET US GIVE IT BACK
( plus enjoy 50 fold what we gave )

Then it is ALL done as nice as possible , . . . BUT it must go effectively

Great example of Edgar Cayce > 2 parents asking : Why our 3 kids are all degraded > one blind, one deaf, one cripple
Answer : Because in the dark ages
one did the burning eyes of convicted people, the second did beat them in deafness and the third wa breaking their bones

But why we have this awfull experience to suffer with them

Answer : YOU WERE THE JUDGES

777

[Jim Sutherland]

O.K., D.r. Are you an English Teacher or a Troll?

Jim

[Blunt]

For Jim S. who likes asses and butts.
https://youtu.be/RAGcDi0DRtU

[D.r]

Jim, I am nearly totally sure you are mentally ill, But I am not 100% certain yet. Do you want to say anything else to me?

[Jen]

Everyone arguing about their beliefs. So strange. God, what god, which god, whose god? Its just beliefs! Set yourselves free, we don't know sh*t and you're clinging to old biblical stories and so called spiritual experiences which the brain can conjure up for you if thats what you want.

I think D.r is just stirring things up by saying stuff like "God revealed himself to me". This has to be a joke and if not, D.r's 'God' better not reveal himself to me because I will tell him to F'off. LOL

[Jim Sutherland]

To Blunt who is an educated Harvard Grad in butholes.

.http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/11/08/harvard-hosts-anal-sex-workshop-entitled-what-what-in-the-butt/

To D.r. I really think you are an A-Hole, not a Troll.

Do you have any other intelligent Christian comments for me?

Jim Sutherland

[manjit]

Hi Appreciate Reader,

Thanks for your kind comments :o)

I feel a bit guilty you deleted that post...please feel free to ask, comment or say whatever you like, if you don't mind waiting, I'm sure I would eventually (if not immediately) get round to responding!

Yesterday, I realised there was one thing I wanted to emphasise that I totally forgot....basically that what I wrote was not meant to be a set of concepts to intellectually believe, or that any aspect of what I wrote is what I myself "believe" or go about my daily life thinking about. Those words are like dead leaves caught up in a tornado; they merely serve to illustrate the movement or motion of that tornado, which otherwise we are unable to see directly. But the leaves are not the wind itself, likewise the concepts I wrote and the reality of it.

This is a subtle point it's hard to express here quickly......to distinguish between ego-centric "spirituality" and the "genuine" ego-loss "spirituality", it is found in the narratives of the persons having the experiences. One is experiencing & repeating beliefs, ideas, concepts, rules and, most of all, fantastic magical narratives centred around their own and other persons egos, all within the realm of duality (illusion or maya). The other is saying reality is as it is, perfect. No further comment or concept is necessary...it just so happens consciousness is that reality, but there is no reason to believe or disbelieve it because belief doesn't even matter.....it just IS!

Hold on, I can see this is making no sense! :) As I posted a quote from Nisargadatta yesterday, and as this is a Radhasoami related blog, I'm reminded of this quote, which kind of gets to what I'm saying, only a lot more clearly!:

"Q: I read a book by a yogi on his experiences in meditation. It
is full of visions and sounds, coulours and melodies; quite a
display and a most gorgeous entertainment..........of what use is
such a book to me?
A: Of no use, probably, since it does not attract you. Others may be
impressed. People differ. But all are faced with the fact of their
own existence. 'I am' is the ultimate fact; 'Who am I'? is the
ultimate quuestion to which everybody must find an answer.
Q: The same answer?
M: The same in essence, varied in expression. Each seeker accepts,
or invents, a method which suits him, applies it to himself with
some earnestness and effort, obtains results according to his
temperamant and expectations, casts them into a mould of words,
builds them into a system, establishes a tradition and begins to
admit others into his 'school of Yoga'. It is all built on memory
and imagination. No such schoolis valueless, nor indespensible; in
each one can make progress up to the point when all desire for
progress must be abandoned to make further progress possible. Then
all schools are given up, all efforts cease; in solitude and
darkness the last step is made which ends ignorance and fear forever.
The true teacher, however, will not imprison his disciple in a
prescribed set of ideas, feelings and actions; on the contrary, he
will show him patiently the need to be free from all ideas and set
patterns of behaviour, to be vigilant and earnest and go with life
wherever it takes him, not to enjoy or suffer, but to understand and
learn.
Under the right teacher, the disciple learns to learn, not to
remember and obey. Satsang, the company of the noble, does not
mould, it liberates. Beware of all that makes you dependant. Most of
the so-called 'surrenders to the Guru' end in dissapointment, if
not in tragedy. Fortunately, an earnest seeker will disentangle
himself in time, wiser for theexperience."
page 457

"Q: ......We have a guru of the Radha-Soami faith....."

A: You have met many anchorites and ascetics, but a fully realised
man conscious of his divinity (svarupa) is hard to find. Saints and
Yogis, by immense effort and sacrifices, aquire many miraculous
powers and can do much in the way of helping people and inspiring
faith, yet it does not make them perfect. It is not a way to
reality, but merely an enrichment of the false. All effort leads to
more effort........

......

The persons who after much effort and penance, have fulfilled their
ambitions and secured higher levels of experience, are usually
acutely conscious of their standing; they grade people into
hierarchies, ranging from the lowest non-acheiver to the highest
acheiver. To me all are equal.........."
I AM THAT, Chapter 64, Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj

Annnnyways, I actually only wanted to post here because I read a quote yesterday that reminded me of one of your questions. Ursula K Le Guin, famous fantasy author, passed away yesterday. On the site I read this news, they posted just one quote from her. You may notice the relevance, it made me smile anyway, seeing as I read it less than an hour after reading your questions & then pondering over it :) Cheers!:

"You will die. You will not live forever. Nor will any man nor any thing. Nothing is immortal.

But only to us is it given to know that we must die. And that is a great gift: the gift of selfhood. For we have only what we know we must lose, what we are willing to lose… That selfhood which is our torment, and our treasure, and our humanity, does not endure. It changes; it is gone, a wave on the sea. Would you have the sea grow still and the tides cease, to save one wave, to save yourself?"

Ursula K. Le Guin

[Blunt]

Jim i hope you know it is a joke. Nothing negative.

[Jim Sutherland]

Blunt, isn’t all of our lives and this Forum a Joke? Nothing really that serious. We are all stuck in an Insane Asylum, that we can’t escape from. So we have picked up our vIsiter’s Badges to watch the Show unfold.

Some of us choose to participate by posting our insanity here..

Jim Sutherland

[Jim Sutherland]

With all but, Butt joking aside, .......Butt Bumping is a serious Meditative Practice!!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jlw8CxTkyxA

Jim Sutherland

[Spencer Tepper]

Hi Jim!

Yes, you may find a fundamentalist here or there, and in this case one who swears at those of different beliefs.

It's too bad really.

" It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." John 6:63

Flesh counts for nothing. But modern fundamentalism doesn't believe what Jesus said.

"But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."
John 4:23-24

Many who claim to believe Christ is the Lord have no idea what worshiping in the Spirit actually is, let alone any actual connection to the Spirit. And they don't believe that the Father is most interested in those who worship "in the spirit". They dismiss Jesus' own words in favor of their dogma.

God isn't flesh, but spirit. And to worship our Father, we do so in Spriit.

"I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory.”
"Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?"
1 Corinthians 15:50-55

This is in direct contradiction to dogma. And this is what has happened to corrupt Jesus' teachings.

And the necessity of a living Christ in every age to help those who seek Him to find Him.

[manjit]

I just finished listening to this podcast, others may find it interesting too. Direct link to download as there is no webpage, it is safe!:

http://www.behindtheparanormal.com/assets/para010718.mp3

It's about "life after death", science, consciousness, reincarnation etc, fascinating talk, touches on many of the things in my discussion with Appreciate Reader....

[Jim Sutherland]

D.r.,......are you Certain that your correction of my “ Enchalada” with your “ Enchilada” is the real Deal?

http://www.waystospell.com/how-do-you-spell/encalada

Jim Sutherland

[Spencer Tepper]

Hi Jen

You wrote
"This has to be a joke and if not, D.r's 'God' better not reveal himself to me because I will tell him to F'off. LOL"

LOL
Proceed away!

What if God is just the subconscious metaphor, the archetype for something greater than ourselves?

Who has no concept of anything greater than themselves? Scary.

[Appreciative Reader]

To : MANJIT

Ursula Le Guin fan, are you, then? I too have enjoyed reading her. Most fiction one reads and tends to forget, more or less, and only a few exceptions generally linger on in memory. Her Left Hand of Darkness is one such, for me. Although I read that particular book a very long time back, I still remember it.

`

So : Thanks for agreeing to discuss this further, Manjit!

My original points I’ve not preserved, they’re deleted, gone. But I will, afresh, jot down now some of the main points that occur to me. Take your time, Manjit, and as and when you’re comfortable, address such of them as you wish, when you wish. Absolutely no rush (naturally!).

First off, I’d like you to address the practical aspect of this. How, that is, might one attempt to arrive at this experience oneself?

Ultimately all of these words and descriptions and concepts and even beautiful moving poetic flourishes are empty, and significant only in as much as they might end up leading one to concrete first-hand experience. Else there’s no way to actually know for sure the validity of anything of this sort ; and, more importantly still, even satisfying oneself of their veracity and validity is pointless really if one cannot actually arrive at it oneself, first-hand. I’m experimenting, myself -- rather extensively -- with a few systems/traditions, and won’t jump to any additional experiments right now ; but if and when I do want to do that, I’d like to know just how to go about doing it.

Now you’ve said three things about this, about the “how” part. First, you’ve said that ultimately nothing you do (or don’t) can either help or hinder one’s “awakening” (if I may call it that) -- that it generally happens spontaneously, or not, following no real ‘rules’. Second, you’d suggested, nevertheless, in our earlier discussion some months back, that actual first-hand interaction with an already awakened person (involving not just analytical left-brain reasoning but the whole holistic experience of interacting with them) might sometimes trigger an awakening (as you said, at that time, it happened with you personally). And third, you seem to advocate Nisargatta Maharaj’s ‘Who/What am I’ method (which incidentally I’ve also read/heard of Ramana Maharshi advocating). I’d like to include here a fourth possible trigger that I’ve personally heard about, that times of extreme distress can sometimes spontaneously result in an awakening of the Oneness experience.

Right. Just wanted to summarize what I believe I understand about the ‘methods’ (such as they are) of this ‘system’ (such as it is). Do you agree with all of those four, as I’ve stated them? And would you like to either add any other methods there, or perhaps add any details that appear significant to you to one or more of those methods?

.

The above, the practical side of this, is what I primarily wanted to ask you about. If you’re not able to delve into the rest of what I ask, that at least I’d like you to ensure, when you can, that you answer as completely as you can. With that dealt with, there are some more, secondary aspects that perhaps you could speak about as well : such as, to begin with, the experience of Oneness that you had. Can you try to describe it?

I remember Osho Robbins telling me, some months back, that an experience like that cannot really be translated into words. Like trying to explain what sugar tastes like to someone who’s never ever sampled that particular taste, to paraphrase a cliché from religious literature. Sure, understood. That said, can you still have a go at trying to explain that experience itself, as best you can? Just the bare-bones experience itself, at this stage, not your conceptual conclusions that you draw from it (conclusions about Oneness, about us being part of that Oneness, about Creation, et cetera) : just the experience itself, just that. What was it like, exactly?

.

And, after that description proper, some additional details about that experience : like : Was it just one single experience, that now stays with you as memory? Or was it just one single experience to begin with, but one which you’ve accessed (and, perhaps, continue to access) at other times also, subsequently? Or might it be that it is one single experience that started then and continues now, an experience that began at one point for you and has never really ended?

.

After discussing the experience itself, perhaps you can tell me how exactly that experience led you to the conceptual world-view you describe. About how there is the One Consciousness, how and why the creation, all that. To use your own idiom, how exactly the “2”s you experience led you to the “3274956” that you speak of. (True, sometimes this kind of ‘reasoning’ seems to happen spontaneously, but you do see that there are two things here, right : the experience itself, and the conclusions one draws from it. Like Sherlock Holmes breaking up his near-spontaneous and near-intuitive deductions by describing first his observations and then explaining his chain-of-logic thought process to Watson, I’d like you to try to break up the process as best you can and explain to me how you infer what you do about your worldview, so I can attempt to understand that process.)

.

How sure are you about the details of what you say? For instance, even if one accepts everything you say, that still might, for instance, leave scope for, let’s say, reincarnation. I mean, why not? Of the many things the One has fashioned for itself, this whole ‘metempsychosis’ schema might be one such aspect of creation, right? Such a schema could, in fact, easily accommodate the whole Holy Trinity paradigm, and/or the RSSB paradigm, and/or any and every paradigm of this nature -- with the One as the ever-present super-reality at the ‘top’ of all of this. You’re saying that after death we merge right back into the One, directly, as opposed to being reincarnated, or waiting for Jesus’s God’s trumpet-like alarm clock to wake us up, or whatever. I’m asking, how sure are you of this particular detail (that we merge back directly, in one single step, into the One after we die), and how exactly are you sure of it?

.

Finally : Some more details : Some obvious questions that would arise directly from what you say about the One, such as : What exactly is this One, then? This Consciousness, where the heck did it come from? Is it truly eternal, or did it have a beginning, and might it come to an end? Are there other “Ones” like this particular “one” that we ourselves are apparently a part of? Do you know at all? If you do know, how exactly do you know?

`

Right, that’s it. Sorry, long list of questions! And I fully realize it will take far, far more time and effort for you to answer them properly, than the relatively little time and effort it took me to formulate them. Please take as long as you wish to answer, I’ll keep checking this page, which I’ve bookmarked, once every few days to see if you’ve responded. Perfectly cool if you take a week, even a few weeks, to get back on all of this. Whenever and however it works for you.

And don’t worry, absolutely no further follow-on questions from me after this! :-) This is all.

Again, my sincere thanks for taking the time and effort!

(And, let me repeat : If attending to all of these questions seems too much of a pain, then just answer my very first point, the “how to” part, and forget the rest. That’s perfectly cool too, absolutely no issues! Although of course, if you can spare the time and effort, then naturally I’d prefer it if you could have a go at all of them.)

[D.r]

Appreciate Reader, you didn't respond to my post. I wondered why. Perhaps I am beneath you.

[Spencer Tepper]

Hi Appreciative!

You wrote

"or waiting forJesus’s God’s trumpet-like alarm clock to wake us up, or whatever"

If you hear that Trumpet, you won't have to wait long. Listening is good. Very good.

[troll detector]

D.r
(troll?)
I tried atheism and found it massively wanting, around about 2007. It simply doesn't make any sense to me and partly that is why I come to Brian's blog, to hash it out with like minded fools speaking total nonsense. I actually enjoy putting atheists down, which isn't my intent but always ends up that way for obvious reasons, and if I can corner them and get them to admit THEY DO NOT KNOW WHETHER GOD EXISTS OR NOT, I win the argument automatically. I have done it many times in the past and will continue to do so.

[Brian Hines]

Um, you do know that atheism means "not theism," right?Atheists don't believe in God because there is no demonstrable evidence that God exists. Few, if any, atheists say they have demonstrable proof that God doesn't exist, because it usually is impossible to prove the absence of something. Thus the burden of proof is on those who do believe in God to show that God exists.

[Spencer Tepper]

Hi Brian

I'm not sure you have given an accurate account of the range of belief in Atheism.

That range includes not holding a belief in God all the way to firmly believing there is no God.

Lack of evidence is not actual objective proof, so attempting to move a belief like Atheism to a fact in the absence of hard data either way is a false argument.

When science can truly nail down the cause of things to the extent they can create life, duplicate creation to the level we see around us using entirely controlled and isolated forces and materials then they might have enough information for a fact based conclusion.

Until then, there is no factual basis for Atheism. And using that argument would be like a Victorian scientist arguing that atoms do not consists of particles and are just a fantasy of ancient Mystics.

[Spencer Tepper]

Two more points about Atheism.
The choice of belief is often based on personal choice not hard facts, since there are no transferable hard data for or against any belief, either for or against God. There are only results from personal practice of faith or lack thereof.

The honest Atheist understands they can't know all things so their choice is often one of utility. They do not see how practicing a faith in God can have any utility for them.

And many of faith I have known also acknowledge, as Ecclesiastes wrote, that one cannot know these things. They carry their faith as a necessary part of their psychology, their survival. It works for them. Personal experiences are just icing on the cake.

There is however a plethora of medical research proving the health benefits of faith in God, but none for any health benefits derived from Atheism.

The argument that a person of faith could or should live more efficiently with a different personal system that has no belief in God has no empirical evidence. And that presumes a great deal about the psychological make up of such persons.

In fact, there is strong empirical evidence that a faith in God is a healthy part of dealing with life, particularly trauma and loss ; deep prayer is very good for brain health; and faith in a higher power has been shown to be an essential feature of sustainable addiction recovery, when different programs with or without a faith in a higher power element are compared.

Years of such results are found in the scientific literature available on neurology, psychology, and addiction research.

Therefore an objective individual who only wishes to live on the basis of utility alone has much hard evidence in favor of a faith based life.

Just pick the most enlightened system of faith and practice you can find. Your brain and your heart will thank you.

[Brian Hines]

Spencer, of course there's plenty of factual basis for atheism. That basis is the lack of evidence for God. Again, do you understand that the "a" in atheism means "no", as in "no theism"? Likewise, people who don't believe in fairies could be called "afairyists." But since hardly anybody believes in fairies, this word doesn't exist.

Usually people who don't subscribe to something don't identify with the absence of that thing. I rarely, if ever, call myself a non-golfer. I just don't golf (though I used to).

Likewise, atheism is simply the absence of a belief in God. Sure, I am 99.99% sure that fairies don't exist, just as I am that sure that God doesn't exist. For most people, but not religious believers, absence of any demonstrable evidence that something exists is pretty damn convincing evidence that the thing doesn't exist. Which makes perfect sense.

[D.r]

You are not sure that God doesn't exist. You do not believe that God exists. There's a difference. If pushed, you will admit to being agnostic about it.

Evidence of God doesn't come from the external universe. It is an internal experience in human consciousness. That much is obvious. For any kind of external proof of God you need to look at scripture evidence of prophecy, which has no natural explanation. Secondhand evidence of God drawn from analysis of nature, scripture revelation, etc. isn't good enough. You need first hand experience in your own consciousness. Because you have so far failed to obtain such experience, your position seems justified that you personally find no evidence for God. But there are plenty of people that do find evidence of God. So something is probably wrong on your end of the deal.

[Spencer Tepper]

Hi Brian

You wrote

"For most people, but not religious believers, absence of any demonstrable evidence that something exists is pretty damn convincing evidence that the thing doesn't exist. Which makes perfect sense."

Brian you've based your argument on a flawed premise, that people of Faith believe in something without evidence.

That's false. They have their own evidence.

You switch players in this argument from the believer to the non - believer.

Both hold their views based on their own personal evidence.

You know your wife loves you because of the evidence you see every day, and your interpretation of it.

Same for God.

What you are doing is trying to take the position of God and judging the quality of the evidence...

"they just did that to get something from you...."

"that was just convenient, not special..."

"that was just random chance"

These dismissive judgments aren't fact based at all.

So then to apply a rhetorical standard of scientific data that you do not have yourself for all the things you assume, proves the flaw in your argument.

Brian, I'll believe you when you have scientific peer reviewed evidence.

That's just silly.

[Spencer Tepper]

Brian, I believe your wife loves you because you say so and I know something about love.

But if I doubted it, I would only need to get to know your wife better.

Same for God.

There is never a burden of proof. We all believe what we do based on our experience and understanding.

If we want to know more about something, at some point, after reading the reports of others, we must do our own investigation.

Therefore no one should believe you or I, except to gather some information to help their own personal / scientific investigation.

[Jen]

What do you really believe? Take the truth demon test...

https://aeon.co/ideas/what-do-you-really-believe-take-the-truth-demon-test

[Spencer Tepper]

Hi Jen

I agree with 90% of the article except the test. The test is actually a version of the Stockholm syndrome. Under threat people lie, cheat, deny what they know to be true. And withdrawing their witness, others, such as most of my relatives, are murdered in gas chambers or starved to death in prison camps. The test itself is used all the time to force individuals to bend against their own ethics in service to the demon.

[Jen]

Thanks Spencer, I appreciate your kindness and sincerity :)

[manjit]

Hey Appreciative Reader! Right, I've got my cup of tea, let's see if I can type out some semi-coherent responses! :o)

Ursula K Le Guin; No, I've never actually read a book of hers, I just came across the quote on a news aggregation website. I have, however, come across her name in numerous non-fiction books since I was a young child, as her fiction writings are occasionally referenced in western occult/magic literature.

Your first question: "First off, I’d like you to address the practical aspect of this. How, that is, might one attempt to arrive at this experience oneself?"

Ah, a nice easy one to start then ;)

First of all, before I attempt any answers, I just want to make it clear this is all just speculation, thinking out loud, limited concepts coming from my own personal perspective & experience etc. Whatever attempt at an answer I make, however long and diverse, I will always miss something out and there are always exceptions; it simply cannot be contained by anything, let alone intellectual concepts.

In regards this question, the real secret is to understand the "practical aspects" of how "to arrive at this experience oneself" is merely a pretence, a narrative device, consciousness making wonderful foreplay with itself before ecstatic consummation. The ego creates the illusion of separateness and individuality, and then imagines there is some objective thing "out there" to do or follow which allows one access to somewhere they couldn't get to before, or to become something they weren't before. This idea is at the root of most religious & "spiritual" practices and beliefs. But if it is understood, at least intellectually, that we are really only making a journey from our current sense of limited consciousness to greater conscious awareness, which is without barriers or impediments, and that all these beliefs & practices are merely contents created by & within that consciousness, I think that is a useful idea to keep in mind if & when following or practising these things, otherwise they can actually make the ego structure even harder to "crack". Also, keeping this in mind imo increases the potential of experiencing this "Oneness" spontaneously at any given moment as otherwise these beliefs & practices can actually become like conceptual barriers to "realisation"; a whole universe of rules & conditions are erected between your own self and your own self.....they are indeed the only barriers!

I can only speak from my own experience. Here are the practices I think people should be pursuing should they wish to crack open the ego (and that's what this is all about, unravelling the ego, not attempting to become or be consciousness, which is as it is all the time effortlessly); bhakti/love, astral projection & lucid dreaming, deep-sleep practices, following spiritual paths, following a guru/s, moral and ethic disciplines, energetic meditation, emptiness meditation, resting in conscious awareness, a physical practice such as Qi Gong or Hatha Yoga, broadening one's knowledge by reading voraciously (and things which contradict one's own beliefs or preferences), entheogens (very high doses, not recreational).

If somebody is doing all this with complete & absolute obsession, a 24/7 thing, where nothing else but finding out the true nature of reality matters at all to them, then surely something would come of it?

Of course, this is a very dangerous and risky path, you must be willing to lose your head. In fact, success on this path IS to lose your head. It is not recommended. :) In my experience, most people are not really this interested or willing to make this level of sacrifice, even if they claim otherwise. There is always a limit most people are willing to go to before their ego protests!

Bhakti or Love; This is the true essence, imo, of the "path". You must have a burning, unquenchable desire for God, or ultimate Reality, or whatever....you don't even know what it is, but it must consume you, awake and asleep (if you can even get to sleep!). This can't be faked or created, imo, it isn't in our hands. It just is or it isn't in one's nature.

This bhakti can take on so many forms...but the form doesn't matter (it is a mere pretence etc :), be it a past saint or mystic like Jesus or Nanak, or an imagined deity like Krishna or Jehovah, or a stone idol or a living Guru etc It is very difficult for most people to be able to hold a form-less love or bhakti, so they place it upon one or other of these forms.

The purpose of a deep, all consuming bhakti is simple; you become so self-effacing it completely deconstructs the person-ality of the devotee, the boundaries of their ego-self are worn down & consumed by the fire of this love, to the point the devotee is almost completely lost and only the beloved remains.

Gurus: Go out and follow gurus, love them and if needs be leave them! I haven't really followed the guru/teacher scene for more than 10 years, so I don't know who's out there. Unfortunately there seems to be a great lack of truly knowledgeable and experienced teachers or gurus out there (according to my standards!) I'm aware of. You will have to settle for gurus or teachers of specific schools of thought (hence, limited in their scope....though remember, consciousness/Oneness can be accessed/realised from anywhere at any time, so even in a limited school their is a window to the unlimited!).

Find one you resonate with, feel something for, perhaps follow them if you're unable to resist the pull. And do it all with 100% sincerity and with your whole being, or really, what's the point?!

The purpose of Gurus, imo, is three-fold. One, as a focal point of bhakti. However, anything and everything is an equally valid point of bhakti, and on a practical level there is no difference between bhakti to an imagined Jesus as there is to a living Guru with millions of followers....none whatsoever (despite what dogmatists may say!).

The second purpose, imo, is to get personally tailored & unique guidance & advice from somebody who understands the vagaries of the "path" and understands you. Again, it is a risky relationship to get involved in, as most people are unable to judge the true wisdom, experience & character of a guru. But, equally, there are great potential rewards too. It goes without saying this purpose of a "Guru" cannot be satisfied by gurus with millions or even many thousands of followers, who are more like symbolic figure-heads than personal gurus. For example, in Radhasoami tradition, nowadays there is only a small handful of gurus where you can have this kind of intimate relationship with a "master". I personally think that could potentially be more "magical" than a "relationship" with a guru who doesn't even know your name (like I myself had....as if to highlight none of this really matters :)

The third purpose ties up with the 2nd, as in to be around & focus on someone who can access "altered states of consciousness" has this tendency to shift one's own consciousness to similar states.

Astral projection & Lucid dreaming; read up as much as you can and implement a daily practice. There is much to more our consciousness than this ultra-thin sliver of awareness of our "mundane" human experience we are accustomed to thinking is the totality of our being. There are unimaginable contents therein. Practicing astral projection or lucid dreaming increases the spectrum of our conscious awareness, broadens it. This is a good start, a movement from extremely limited conscious experience to less limited. This is the right direction.

Meditation: Lots of it!! As the saying goes, "enlightenment is an accident, but meditation makes you accident prone!". If you're following a guru or spiritual path, following their meditation structure. If not, implement your own; some concentration practice, some emptiness practice; balance. To some extent, meditation should be maintained throughout the day.

Here I'd just like to add something from my own experience that I've wanted to mention for a few years (in case it helps anybody) but never got round to. It is said the Buddha, after having followed the usual meditation & physical practices, finally achieved realisation through, initially, entering the "jhanas" (ecstatic states of meditative absorption). Now, without going into the technicalities of Buddhist doctrine, jhanas aren't "realisation" or "nirvana", but they are commonly considered to be indicators you are on the right "path" so to speak, and I agree. Buddha sequentially went through the jhanas before "attaining" nirvana under that Bodhi tree, or so the story goes. And how did the weary Buddha finally enter jhana, after having perfected & rejected all these other Brahmanic ecstatic meditation practices? By remembering that, as a child, he once experienced a boundless consciousness tinged with ecstasy, and focused on that memory, and that ecstasy of boundless consciousness re-arose.....YES!! I can only speak from personal experience, but I suspect that most of us do recall these moments of boundless conscious awareness as children, before we piled all this egotistical and conceptual baggage on our heads? Remember it, ponder over it, it can come flooding back as the state is actually timeless and eternal!! I can personally attest to the efficacy and power of this technique which Buddha stumbled upon, and that is not nearly enough emphasised in Buddhist meditation teachings......to remember is the easiest way to get back home :)

Reading; Lots of people say books are valueless when it comes to spirituality. On one level, that is true. On another, it is an absurd lie! In my life, reading has been a profound and integral part of my path. Today, it remains the ONLY outward indicator that I have any interest in these subjects (apart from perhaps posting here and RSS)! Read voraciously, increase one's knowledge and intellect until it collapses in on itself :) Don't get this wrong, don't read for the sake of reading......read because you have an absolutely insatiable desire for truth, information, knowledge......as with all the above, you don't do these things as a duty, but as a passion you are unable to resist!

Entheogens; a controversial subject. "Heroic", ego-crushing doses of psychedelics are imo par for the course when exploring consciousness and trying to crack open the head/ego. It is not my place to advocate these things - they are potentially mind & life-destroying, without doubt - but we are discussing a subject where I said you must be willing to lose your head. If your morals, ethics or fears etc draw the line here, then that is the line your ego is willing to get to before retreating!

Right, that's question 1 only! I'm going to end this here, and answer, more briefly, your other questions in another response (I need another cup of tea!! :).

Just to re-iterate though, all the above are merely pretences, forms the consciousness uses to create a narrative. But the journey is from consciousness to consciousness. The whole thing can be achieved in a split second, if you could but end the pretence!

[D.r]

So to sum up Manjit's post -

"If you search for me with all your heart, you will find me" - The Bible.

Manjit didn't mention potential dangers. There are negative spirit entities called demons that interfere with you in numerous ways when you are seeking God truly. It is irresponsible to promote meditation practices and entheogens without putting a warning label to it.

It also doesn't make sense to seek God via meditation and to have a human guru at the same time.

Losing the ego leads to a state of perfect possession. And what possesses you is something nobody wants to EVER know.

[manjit]

(continued)

Your question 2: " the experience of Oneness that you had. Can you try to describe it?"

I hope you can permit to be briefer than my previous answer, which was more practically beneficial.

The answer to this question is, I'm afraid, "no"!!

My original post was as close as I can get. Sorry!

Question 3) "And, after that description proper, some additional details about that experience : like : Was it just one single experience, that now stays with you as memory?"

No, yes, no & yes. Etc. I really cannot describe it, it is too profound to be rendered into words which imply linearity, direction, time, space etc.

Outwardly, there are no real indicators (though I would surely seem strange in many social and cultural and personal ways). Inwardly, it is a feeling of permanent and complete satisfaction......even in the midst of dissatisfaction, irritation, anger, lust, sadness etc. How to make sense of such a contradictory statement? Impossible!

The "experience" is timeless and eternal, the "form" of the experience is a memory, albeit one that I never "think" about as I am existing and being that experience NOW. People cannot grasp that, so they are more interested in the dualistic "form" of the experience, hence ideas of "memory" of it. That "form" is easily recalled by a slight redirectioning of awareness, like shifting focus from this screen to my foot......to a visionary/conceptual dualistic experience in form of that what I talk about. Whilst that is precisely that type of "experience" many people are seeking, ecstatic, beautiful, intoxicating etc, that is not reality as IT IS. If you are living on intellectual memories, then you are not living on reality.

The intellectual and logical mind, caught in temporality and form, cannot comprehend this imo.

Question 4) "how exactly that experience led you to the conceptual world-view you describe."

I do not hold a conceptual world view? As I've tried to explain, and I know it is difficult to comprehend intellectually, but none of these words or concepts matter, at all!! The only way to communicate is through words and concepts. I do not take them to be the reality itself. Concepts or beliefs are irrelevant, reality speaks for itself!

The only reality or value the "conceptual world-view" of my original post holds is as a love poem to it, nothing more. Do not mistake a commentary for the game itself; one is everything, the other is just a partial reflection of it from just one perspective.

Question 5) "You’re saying that after death we merge right back into the One, directly"

I like this question, it's a good one that can truly blow our mind!

But before I give it a go, I've been meaning to ask the one very important question that hasn't been asked; what is YOUR perspective in all of this? What path or practice is it that you hint that you're following? What's your deepest desire and wish? What do you hope to achieve or learn, and more importantly, WHY? Do you love your existence, this creation, or despise it? Do you love God, or the thought of eternal bliss? Are you scared of death, or are you a lover of "Truth"? etc etc etc.

These are the ONLY real questions that matter, for all of us.

For therein - and only therein - is contained our prison of beliefs, and therefore the only "true" and unique path to "escape" it!! All of my words above are nonsense without understanding your unique fetters to "realisation".

Reincarnation is a doozy in that sense! :)

For some, especially in the historic past via gnostic & eastern spiritual teachings, reincarnation and existence is something to be despised & escaped. The wondrous majesty and purpose of this reality is neither comprehended or explained, and everything is done on the assumption God has made some sort of mistake and that we must escape this hell-hole.

However, especially in more recent times, the far more common experience (via altered states of consciousness, NDEs, mediumship, reincarnation cases, chanelling etc) & understanding of "reincarnation" has become a more loving, purposeful, choice-based affair, something completely at odds with the older gnostic versions.

Further, more and more people are experiencing "reincarnations" of more than one life simultaneously, or entire groups of people/races/planets, all as aspects of one kind of "over-soul".

So which is it? Linear, unwilling and unwitting incarnations through eternal transmigratory hell, or lives that our over-soul chooses for it's greater growth and learning in an infinite universe of love?

And just what is "incarnation" anyway? Do you recall your previous lives? If not, just what does it matter if you do or you don't reincarnate as you can't remember anyway? HUGE questions of just what identity and selfhood is!!

Even if you do "remember" a linear past-life, so what, that is merely a vision or a memory, how does that impact on your existence now? Subtle karmic influences? But what about the subtle karmic influences of everything in your current life, surely there's enough there to worry about without worrying about hypothetical past lives, even if they are literally true?

Yes, "One Consciousness" does "incarnate", endlessly. The same being that incarnates in you will incarnate as everything else that has or will ever incarnate, but the logical mind simply cannot comprehend this, so it thinks "John" is going to incarnate as so and so.....NO, John is John and the next incarnation is the next incarnation, what does it profit anyone to say it is the same "soul" if you can't remember it?

Anything you can conceive in your mind is a reality on some level, if you believe in reincarnation, then it is so.

The consciousness can pick up on fragments of "past lives" (I've had many, many different experiences of "past lives" of many different types and contexts, btw, but I won't go into that!) by expanding the limits of it's conscious awareness (through the practices I described earlier?). However, a little further "expansion" and one can start experiencing multiple lives lived simultaneously, a little further expansion then entire races of beings lived simultaneously etc etc so on and so on.....and at each level there are "rules" which govern that level of awareness, call them "karmic" if you will.

All the play of one consciousness, dividing itself infinitely etc etc :) The question of linear, literal re-incarnation becomes utterly absurd and irrelevant at this level of consciousness expansion....

By the way, did you listen to that podcast I linked the other day? It briefly touches on the same questions....

So, yes, it's all true yet all false at the same time. Believe what you want to believe, it's all good :o)

Question 6) "Some more details"

No!!! This is all intellectual nonsense!!! :o)

I've spent a few hours on this and I gotta go now. I hope it somewhat helps answer some of your questions on at least some level.

Peace,

Manjit

[D.r]

Reincarnation isn't a reality you conceive in your mind only! LOL