« "The Prize," my ready-to-steal spiritual screenplay idea | Main | Please keep comments on-topic »

December 17, 2017

Comments

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

Hi D.r.,

You wrote "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."

There is much wrong with this comment I don't know where to start!? First of all, who is "promoting" anything? Appreciative Reader asked some questions, and I answered from my own experience. It is not so much a promoting (actually, quite the opposite if you truly understand what I wrote, but hey ho!) as it is a recollecting. Secondly, I did mention "potential dangers" at numerous points (" 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.", " 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." etc). Thirdly, I have no personal experience of the "negative spirits" you call "demons" and I believe they can be interpreted in other more useful models, such as psychological health for example. It all depends on your models of "self", "consciousness", disassociation etc (I have encountered the sweeping archetype of the "demiurge", but that is of a different order to the type of phenomena I believe you are referring to here). In other words, it is not in my personal story to talk of such things as "demons", and I have personally never been afraid of such things. Maybe they exist in your reality? As I said before, I believe one must be utterly fearless in this exploration of consciousness......there are many terrifying hurdles to leap. But that is my path, not for everyone!

In your second comment, you wrote: "Reincarnation isn't a reality you conceive in your mind only! LOL"

Haha, I loved that and this is why I just had to respond :)

You see, my current read for the past week or so has been Stephen Braude's "Immortal Remains - The evidence for life after death", a book that critically examines the evidence for "life after death", especially taking into account "Super-PSI" explanations (which, btw, I tend to view more favourably than "survivalist" interpretations of the data, even though I feel even they are woefully inadequate and incomplete!). I'm currently on page 2016, slap bang in the middle of a chapter called "Reincarnation and possession". You can see why your comments made me smile :o)

The first western book I read on reincarnation I was either pre or early teens, almost 30 years ago now, and it was Stevenson's "23 Cases suggestive of reincarnation" (or some such). In between I have read numerous western books and articles on the subject & related, in which I would include things such as F W H Myers & other psychological works about the concept of "self", hypnotism, neuroscience etc). I've studied, in depth, all eastern philosophies on the subject, as well as the (wildly varying) gnostic teachings on it, as well as their conceptual pre-historic antecedents (Mesopotamia, Egyptian, Chaldean, Accadian, African etc). I've deeply studied all the modern literature and experiences on reincarnation too, from mediums & channellers to children with "past life memories" to NDErs, all of whom recount wonderful yet often wildly contradictory mechanics and purpose to this "reincarnation".

Further, I have personally experienced numerous phenomena which could be called "past life", from visions of animal lives to specific persons (often involving past RS gurus like Sawan for eg.), as well as memories subsequently apparently veridically confirmed, though I seriously question it (involving Beas, India for example!). But I seriously question how we interpret these experiences.

So, putting aside your laughing out loud from the sidelines for just one moment, when you write "Reincarnation isn't a reality you conceive in your mind only! LOL", perhaps you need to clarify if you have understood what I mean by the labels "reincarnation", "reality" and "mind"?

And, forgiving you the requirement of proving that "reincarnation" isn't "only" "conceived in your mind" which I suspect is impossible, perhaps you can at least simply share your own understanding and the knowledge and experiences that have led you to it?

Or perhaps the "LOL" covers it? :)

Thanks, Manjit for your ”detailed” conceptualizations! No one here will ever be able to accuse you of not being a Thinker! Having read you for the last dozen years or more, I , at least, can surely recognise not only your growth, but willingness to admit your unknowngness, in spite of seeming to know it All. HaHa,

Conciousness, Awareness, Ego, Self, are dfferent pieces of the the same Puzzle, yet, very few agree on which one belongs to Who.

When I am in deep sleep, my physical body is unconscious. Yet, a Dream is taking place, and Jim is the Star image of the scene, and Jim is speaking with his Father, long dead.

So, who, or what, is looking at, or observing Jim?

Brian wrote that there is no i.e. Zero consciousness out side the brain, and that Anesthesia silences it, or some thng or other.

I believe that consciousness is seperate from the brain, because on a time delay, I observed and felt polyps beng removed during a Colonoscopy, while under Anesthesia.

I was out like a light, durng the procedure, but a month later, while asleep, was observing Jim having the procedure, with both the Doc. and Anethesiologst were doing some thing to Jim’s bare Butt sticking out of the sheets while layng on the bed! The pain was so extreme, that Jim bolted up right from the bed, right in the middle of the dream, a month later! The “Observer”,i.e that mysterious Consciousness, , was observing from 50-60 feet away from Jim and and Doctors, and then saw them walk up close where the Observer was hooverng, and wached the Doc. wash the Wand off, with water from a sink.

So, what, or who was the Observer? And why the time delay? A month or more after the
Procedure.

I would have asked Gurinder while in the Q & A line, but he had already had enough buts from another to know who the Observer was , who was watching Jim’s Butt get observed! 😇

Jim Sutherland


Thanks Jim!

I'd watch it I were you when it comes to writing stories involving butts :) You know how touchy (no punny inuendo intended) some posters get!!

I think the answer to your question may just be, "consciousness"?

G'nite my friend!

At 81, . . I wish to make a kind of declaration but not 'preach' because of the Que sera, sera aspect

I feel 24/7 an immense regret not to have rssB _meditated and I'm on the point of crying
because
NOW
This Anahabad Shabd has become so intense

that I'm suffering physically because of the Beauty, The Perfection, The Hyper Sweetness, The Pureness, The I'm THAT Feel, The Love for All that is, and so much more
and specially the acknowledgement that
Masters are so correct
that more Bayan ( listening ) is
more resistance to endure what is going to happen
All those superlatives


before dying and I'm not sick or what :-)
I will not go without this statement

"Do meditations and specially Simran , Simran & Simran without stopping
even in the brothel
and the reward will be outstanding
terrifically overflowing
OMG


777

ps
Thanks to the Masters, who are that Sound, if the want it or not

-

-

° they


-

-
777

-

Manjit, I've also studied many of the things you have too. F W H Myers book was particularly thick and difficult to read but full of interesting stuff. I too have had experiences in meditation that seemed to be past lives. But outside of meditation, nothing.

I find the case of Shanti Devi particularly interesting as she seems to have remembered her past life since birth and didn't forget it throughout her entire life.

On the subject of possession, Stevenson himself thought it was a possibility to explain reincarnation.

I am almost 100% certain that if you started turning to Christ and studying the Bible you would soon enough start experiencing demonic entities. I could write a book on everything I know about this but like to keep things brief in website posts.

Quote D.r : “Appreciate Reader, you didn’t respond to my post. I wondered why. Perhaps I am beneath you.”


Absolutely NOT, D.r. God forbid I should ever think you, or anyone, to be “beneath” me!

This delay in responding, now, is because I’m afraid I log in here only once every few days, sometimes even more sporadically. I’d been away for the weekend in any case, and I’m seeing this comment of yours, that I’ve quoted above, only now.

On the other hand, yes, I had indeed seen your earlier comment, the one you posted on January 24 at 8:47 AM and which you refer to here, and, yes, I had deliberately omitted to reply to it. I did that, because I had no wish to participate in the intellectual arm-wrestling that you seemed to be spoiling for there. In fact, like some others here, I was beginning to think that you are, frankly, trolling. I did you the courtesy of sharing some quasi-personal things with you, earlier on in this thread, because you had expressly asked me and had seemed to sincerely want to know ; but I was beginning to regret the time and effort I’d wasted doing that. Sure, I could, theoretically, have been wrong in interpreting this about your motivations from your comment(s), but you can hardly fault me for doing no more with that conclusion I drew than simply and without comment withdrawing from the discussion.

Regardless, the terms of this one-liner comment of yours compels me to respond again. I don’t want you to think I’m looking down on you as a person, never! What a preposterous idea, I should be psychotically deluded if I imagined if I were a single inch “above” anyone else! I assure you such a thought has never entered my mind.

Anyway, since you seem so much to wish to know my views on your earlier comment, here’s my response :


Quote : A.R., the way I interpret your comments is that it seems you have a problem with the word “God” and all it entails.

That seems a strange conclusion to draw from what I had said! I went back just now to the comment(s) I’d addressed to you on this thread, to make sure I hadn’t inadvertently said things there that I hadn’t intended to convey, and I can find no reason for you to infer that from I’d said, neither in my earlier comments here and most certainly not in the comment to which you were responding. What I had pointed out in the third paragraph of my comment posted at 06:45 AM of January 24, is that Pascal, in formulating his Wager, was probably ignorant of the many ‘Gods’ (that is, of the many well-evolved and widely believed ideas about God that were and are prevalent in the world). He says : “Da da ta dum da; ergo, it makes sense to believe in God”. That formulation is riddled with so many logical errors that it would take a full half-hour to properly discuss all of them : but I was merely concentrating on and speaking about the fact that, had the man’s worldview been any wider than it seemingly actually was, then he couldn’t have even begun to say any of that without immediately asking himself “Which particular God, of the whole plethora of God-ideas that we have floating all around us?” That is what I’d meant to convey by the “Which God?” in my earlier comment.

For you to have concluded from that that I have “a problem with the word ‘God’ and all it entails” seems bizarre. So bizarre, in fact, that I’d put this down to deliberate and disingenuous strawmanning and trolling, rather than confused thinking, because your other comments here on this blogsite bespeak an agile enough mind, not one from which I would expect such unbelievably muddled thinking.


Quote : You come across as some sort of atheist, whereas I am not.

Not that I have anything against the label ‘atheist’ but, once again, I fail to see how you might possibly frame that statement basis my comment(s) addressed to you.

I had expressly told you about the religious/spiritual “experiments” I was engaged in. That would obviously indicate a very significant investment of time and effort in things religious/spiritual (and, indeed, it does). How does that gel with your impression of me as “some sort of atheist”?

Might it, perhaps, be the fact that I cannot and do not, like I said, simply believe what some particular religion(s) advocate? Is this simple unquestioning “belief”, then, your single criterion for determining whether or not one is an atheist? Should that be the case, then surely you see that you yourself, who have repeatedly been bringing up here your own inability to believe, do not qualify as a theist either.

I repeat, I have no objections to the label of ‘atheist’, and don’t bring this up because I don’t like being associated with that term : but both clauses of your statement I have quoted immediately above cannot possibly follow from our exchange here. This, again, is a case of seriously muddled thinking, or else (as I thought far more likely) of trolling.


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

Are you really not able to comprehend the basic point to this argument? If neither the promise of ten million dollars today, nor of eternal salvation in the hereafter, can induce you to (truly) believe what you wouldn’t otherwise and without these inducements, then surely you see the absurdity of the central theme of Pascal’s wager. Surely you see, then, the absurdity of throwing either the carrot or the stick to facilitate belief? The only thing that can possibly achieve is, at best, a mere PRETENSE of belief. As I had suggested earlier to you, and as you clearly admit yourself right there.

The only kind of discussion or input that can actually facilitate belief is evidence. Now different people may have different standards of evidence. Some may have an erroneously loose standard (and be unable to judge what actually is evidence). Others may have an unreasonably stiff standand (that does not let in subjective evidence at all, not even to facilitate purely personal conclusions). Indeed, I may myself be mistaken in holding my standard as I do, somewhere in between these two extremes. But that is a different discussion. The point I was trying to make is that inducements don’t work, they cannot compel or even encourage belief. Another elementary error in the formulation of Pascal’s Wager. (“Another”, I say, because I’d refer to his “Which God” fallacy earlier.)

You say your experience dictates (your perception of) reality to you. Fine. You are free to believe whatever you want. And everyone else is free to believe whatever THEY want, as long as they don’t attempt to proselytize. Nothing to really argue about there. And no reason for you to bring up the last sentence at all in the context of what we were discussing.

Also, let me point out that it is you who have, unprompted, brought up before me your inability to believe. In other words, your experiences do NOT, really, facilitate belief, for you personally. Not really. As you yourself admit, repeatedly.

If you are not trolling, if you are honest in all that you have said here, then the only thing that can ‘help’ you here, is to be presented with further evidence (of some standard that is acceptable to you personally), that might let you believe fully in your God. Evidence, not promises or threats. That is what I was trying to point out to you in my comment(s).

Your response, as I have quoted immediately above and discussed just now, once more indicate either a thinking that is unbelievably muddled and confused, or else (and once again, more likely, per my lights) trolling plain and simple.


Quote : I enjoy putting atheists down

I noticed. You enjoy putting down not only atheists, but also theists whose faith happens to differ from yours.

Two things jump out here at anyone who has seen you commenting away here.

First : don’t you see the incongruity in, on one hand, going around rudely and insensitively “putting down” everyone else’s religious beliefs and thoughts, and on the other hand taking perfectly seriously your own equally irrational thoughts and beliefs (and attempting, unasked, to force these on to other people’s attention)? You keep on whining on and on about your own feelings about God, and about God touching you, and about the Bible speaking to you, and your own crisis of belief : don’t you see the incongruity in seemingly expecting from others the sensitivity, the respect and the consideration for your own irrationalities that you never think of extending to others?

And second : it seems your idea of “putting down” people includes calling the 75-year-old Jim Sutherland mentally deranged, of gratuitously insulting the gentle courteous octogenarian 777, of calling Spencer Tepper (whose comments here reveal a far finer mind than yours) an asshole. It isn’t that I have never had disagreements with some of these very people, I have, but your conduct would come across as offensively obnoxious to most people. Certainly it does to me.

I have never understood why some people feel they have license to act obnoxiously just because this is the Internet. Acting in this manner with random folks in the real world would assuredly earn you repeated trips to the hospital with broken bones. Done online. this counts as trolling, pure and simple.

True, none of this concerns me directly. After our initial exchange some months back, you have been kind enough to be civil with me personally, and I thank you for that. But still, while I am not directly involved in any of these insults you so freely throw around, are you surprised at my reluctance to keep on engaging with someone who thinks and acts like you seem to do? Especially given how your other comments reinforce my suspicion that you are simply trolling away here?


Quote : if I can corner them and get them to admit THEY DO NOT KNOW WHETHER GOD EXISTS OR NOT, I win the argument automatically

No you don’t. You absolutely don’t. What you say is so flawed at so many different levels that it would take another ten or fifteen minutes to properly and clearly point it out there. I have no wish to get into another full-on discussion with you about something so elementary (especially given the background of your commenting history). However, since we do seem to be discussing your comment after all, let me put down some absolutely basic points for you to consider :

First : Not believing something is the default state. Santa Claus, Zeus, Allah, Vishnu, Pure Land Bodhisatvas, YHWH, a sudden outbreak of invisible goblins running around in your city, whatever. You believe things when you have evidence, else not, if you are at all rational. And the more extravagant the claim, the better/stronger the evidence that you need. No one disproves negatives, as a general rule. The burden of proof is indeed a thing, not just when you engage with others, but also when you think about things by yourself.

And second : going back to why I said what I did about Pascal’s Wager in the first place : don’t you see that, following your convoluted logic (in the sentence I have quoted just above), the RSSB faithful wins their argument with you too, every time, as does the Muslim, and the Buddhist, and the Hindu, and the Scientologist, and the Mormon, or whoever? (Unless, that is, you choose to bolster your argument against them with “scripture”, perhaps raising your voice and thumping on your Bible for effect?)


.


Anyway : I got into all of this now because of what you said there, because I didn’t want you to think that I find you, personally, as an individual, as a person, in any way “beneath” me. I assure you I don’t, absolutely not, never. But excuse me if I don’t feel inclined to keep on engaging with arguments of this nature.

No offense meant, D.r, seriously. Think about what I’ve said. Or not. Just … again, without any offense meant, just count me out of your argument-fests here.

Dear MANJIT,

Thanks VERY much!

I am, quite simply, well, … overwhelmed, at those two comments you’ve posted there, in response to my questions. The first one, especially. Sheer distilled wisdom there, is how I’d describe it, without in any way resorting to hyperbole. Absolutely worth preserving!

“Helps answer some of (my) questions on at least some level”? God yes! By the way, thanks for so scrupulously pointing out, at the outset, this is just your personal take, and some of what you say is speculation. Understood. And I’d have assumed that, myself, in any case : it isn’t as if I’m throwing away the pinch of salt I always carry when I discuss (or even simply, by myself, think) about things of this nature. That said, I found especially the first post of yours, the “how to” portion, beautifully and exhaustively described. None of that was (individually) new to me, of course, but I love how you tie them all together, and make clear the role that each (might) play in facilitating an “awakening”. Nothing more one can add to that! Like I said, absolutely worth preserving, that post of yours!

Of course, this first post contained the meat of what you said (and of what I’d myself asked), but in your second post, the part where you talk of reincarnation etc, the part about what happens to consciousness after death (and at times within this lifetime, as you point out), that was indeed, as you say yourself, truly, truly mind-blowing! Actually, to be frank, that reads just a bit like fantasy fiction, something that our late friend Ursula Le Guin (actually not so much Le Guin as Olaf Stapledon, I suppose) may well have penned! On the other hand, one can say just as much, I suppose, about the Bible, or about any and every religious/spiritual idea/world-view that one hasn’t yet got used to! Accounts of accessing past lives are common enough ; and accounts of merging with “everything” one has come across, too ; but this expansion of consciousness, what you say about accessing other lives, that is, other people’s lives, other “races”, that was remarkable! My first reaction was, hey, that’s something I’ve never ever heard of, outside of fiction! But then I remembered this account I’ve read of in Paramahansa Yogananda’s celebrated Autobiography, where -- like Olaf Stapledon’s protagonist (I seem to keep bringing him up! Are you, or have you ever been, into SF, and have you read him, especially his Star Maker? No more than just fiction, plain and simple, but worth reading for the sheer breadth of his ideas!) -- he, Yogananda I mean, in the course of his mediation, seems to “become” the entire planet, and more (and yet still not “everything” -- more, but not all). Something like that, I’d read this a very long time back, but I remember that portion. That seemed very similar to what you’ve experienced, and speak of here. Remarkable!

As you can imagine, a hundred and one further questions arise. But I’ll refrain from giving vent to them. Partly because I’m reluctant to keep on imposing on you, but mainly because I’m seeing that, in light of all that’s been said here, they’re not really necessary. As you correctly point out, much of what I’d asked is indeed “intellectual nonsense” ; and even where not quite nonsensical they’re probably a wholly unnecessary diversion.

Incidentally : no, I’m afraid I have absolutely no childhood recollection of spontaneous absorption to hark back to, of the sort that one reads about in Buddha’s life, and as you yourself seem to have experienced. Nothing of that sort in my very ordinary childhood, as far as I can remember! But still, yes, thanks (also) for that pointer! You’re right, while that story is well known, I haven’t heard that particular approach, that you talk about here, mentioned anywhere.

One thing I’m curious about : With all you have experienced, how are you able to assimilate into a ‘regular’ life?

Now I am very circumspect, myself, about sharing personal information online, and I absolutely would not expect anything different from you : but within the bounds of what you’re comfortable sharing -- and if you wish to talk about this only in abstract terms, or even if you don’t wish to engage with this at all, that would be perfectly all right -- how, in what way, are you able to carry on with your daily workaday life? This isn’t idle curiosity : I ask because even where I stand (which is at a far more mundane, far more ordinary plane/level than you!), I sometimes, in fact often, find it an effort to carry on with what appears to be the drudgery of daily life. This isn’t your regular normal angst, as far as I can discern, not a function of that daily life itself : that is, my work is, by God’s Grace, extremely engaging, as is my personal life ; and yet, I find myself asking what the point of all of this is. (And one obvious answer, I know, is that there is no “point” at all. And I realize that the same question may be asked irrespective of one’s worldview. Nevertheless, I’m interested in your particular take, to the extent you are comfortable speaking about this.) I find myself wondering, often, whether it is really worth the effort of going through the motions of anything and everything. It is from this perspective that I ask for your personal take on this : what justification you find for devoting the time and energy required to earn and spend money, to lead a ‘regular’ life. (The Buddha’s way, of simply surrendering one’s entirety to the restfulness of the observing self, seems so much more, well, restful! “After enlightenment drawing water chopping wood” is fine, but my question is WHY? Or at least, when literally drawing water and literally chopping wood this may not really apply, since purely physical activities can themselves be extremely restful and actually facilitate this ‘observing’, but when it comes to the far more complex engagements of today’s world, engagements both professional and personal, I ask again : to the extent that they aren’t strictly necessary, why? And again, if your abstract answer is a very reasonable “no reason at all to do anything not strictly necessary for you”, then I’ll ask why you, personally, do what you do, whatever that is, either professionally or otherwise.)

.

You asked about my practice, perspective, all that. Next to yours they are embarrassingly mundane : but still, since you ask, and especially after all that you’ve shared with me, I’ll be happy to share this much with you : I’ve personally sampled a rather large number of “practices” and traditions, in some detail and depth, over a number of years ; and I have now, at present, settled on three specific, wholly experiential traditions as the most promising of those I have personally sampled. All of these three systems I try to follow to the best of my ability (without getting tied up in the theological mumbo jumbo, just the procedural / meditation aspects, the parts that seem to me to be the essence of these paths). As you can imagine, all of this takes quite some doing, and translates into a significant, even extravagant, investment of time and effort every day. But what the heck, I enjoy it : think of it as a hobby! People take up all kinds of weird hobbies, why not this, then!

As for what my “perspective” is, my “deepest desire and wish”, what I “hope to achieve or learn, and more importantly WHY” -- very deep probing questions, these! Although I would expect no less from you! -- do I love God, the thought of eternal bliss, am I scared of death, etc ………. Again, I am, frankly, a bit reluctant to get into these personal waters, plus what lies under those waters is wholly mundane -- but still, seeing that it is you who’s asking, you whom I’ve been plying with all these questions both now and earlier on, I cannot very well not answer, can I?

Conceptually the materialist paradigm makes the most sense to me. The world is what it is, life is what it is, our physical selves have evolved to what we are. The “how” of this we know something of, and are learning more and more about ; the “why” of this we have no clue about, and perhaps “why” is a meaningless question anyway. Perhaps. Consciousness is (probably) no more than a (possibly moment-to-moment but nevertheless apparently enduring) by-product of our physical processes, and (probably) ends when we die.

This is what sounds reasonable to me. My conceptual world-view.

Nevertheless, two things : first : even if this is true, nevertheless, perhaps our consciousness is capable of developing, through conscious culture, in ways that it might not necessarily develop of itself automatically, and that possibility seems worth exploring to me ; and second : while the materialist paradigm makes sense basis what we know, the fact is that we do not really know very much, and reality could well turn out to be far bigger and perhaps entirely different than we now imagine, and that aspect also is something that to me appears worth exploring.

Incidentally : I find that the materialist paradigm comes very close to what I understand of the (original) formulations of the Buddhistic teachings, at least the Theravadin part of it. Now while this can well be seen as validation after a fashion (of materialism validating Buddhistic insights, and also of Buddhistic teachings validating the underlying “truth” of materialism), what is intriguing to me is how the man, the Buddha, managed to get to these insights all of those centuries and millennia ago. That would indicate that there might, perhaps, be some short-cut here to arriving at all of these conclusions! Again, perhaps, worth exploring?

I don’t really self-describe as “religious” ; and yet, I realize I spend far more time and effort in my “practices”, with my meditation, than most folks who do think of themselves as “religious”. No, I don’t see this anything ‘special’ in that, in what I do : that’s simply how my tastes happen to lie. Just what I think of as my particular hobby. (And an extremely high-maintenance hobby it is!)

So anyway, my interest in all of this -- including the very many questions I’ve asked you -- is ultimately wholly utilitarian, practical. That is, I’m trying to look at whether I can access this myself, at some point (and of course, before that, whether I want to at all).

Sure, the thought of eternal bliss seems attractive. On the other hand, I’m not sure that’s even a thing. But if it is, sure, I’d like to give it a shot, why not?! But if you ask me, conceptually, I’d say the idea sounds rather ridiculous. And yet, here I am, spending time doing things that might well turn out to lead (or at least point) to something like that. Or, of course, not.

Do I love God? Going strictly by my conceptual world view I’d laugh at you for even asking that question. But in fact and in practice I would never ever laugh at anyone talking of their love for God, because I have myself, without logic, without explanation, often, in the privacy of my own meditation room, been so wholly overcome with love that I have found myself reduced helplessly to tears. That sounds silly, I realize, as I type this here -- a psychiatrist would probably have a whole bunch of names to describe something like this! -- but the honest answer to your question would be : Yes, I do love God at least as intensely as my most intense love for anyone and anything secular. There, I’ve said it. Truth to tell, I’ve never even thought about this really, I guess, before you actually asked this question. Perhaps you only meant to ask about this casually, and did not expect me to suddenly go all Oprah on you in response! ……. Isn’t that one great thing about anonymity, one of its many uses, that it helps one overcome the embarrassment of admitting to something like this!

As for “lover of Truth” : well, what else do we have but “truth” and reality? We may not know all of it, but it is what we have, no more and no less. That is the definition of “truth”, that is the definition of “reality”. I’d like to know more of it than I do now, if I possibly can. (Thinking on this, spurred by your question : Why exactly do I want that? Why exactly do I want to know more about reality than I do now? Well, part of that answer is probably wholly utilitarian, wholly practical. If I know more, I’d then know better, what best to do with what I know. But that’s only a small part of the answer. In the main, the answer is : Just because. In other words, to be honest, I don’t know why exactly. I just do. No, unlike you, not desperately, not so passionately that I’d rather die than not find out -- to paraphrase from memory what you’d said to me, about yourself, some months back -- not desperately like that, but still, I most certainly do want to know more without, it seems, really knowing why.)

That’s about it. Like I said, my thoughts, perceptions, motivations, these are, I’m afraid, wholly pedestrian and mundane. Shallow even. Nothing remotely grand! But for all that, this subject does interest me, and I like what I’ve sampled thus far of these “paths” that I follow : so I carry on with them. And I try to find out more about what there might be to know about all this.

.

… Moving on, I’d like to make one last observation about what you’ve said, and invite your views on how I’m seeing this. In a way your experiences, your world-view, seem to sort of hold up my own point of view. That there are (or at least, there may be) loads of loads of stuff out there to see and discover and experience and understand, and seeing and experiencing and understanding them can be a great deal of fun if that is how your predilections happen to lie, if that is how you are driven. On the other hand, if you don’t get into them, or else having got into them if they after a while cease to be as engaging and you stop with them, well then, no big deal, in the sense that after you die you’ll simply disappear, your consciousness (“consciousness” with a minuscule ‘c’, your “ego” if you will, your “sefl”, in short “you”) will simply be extinguished. It (that is, your consciousness) might well merge back into the One (rather than the candle flame simply extinguishing, per a strictly materialist worldview), but in as much as the personal self will disintegrate, to that extent that end-result is indistinguishable from the end-result at death from the materialist paradigm. Therefore, if you enjoy doing all of this, fine ; else, with absolutely no fear of ever having to regret this later, go ahead and do whatever else takes your fancy. (Which is emphatically not what one can say about a Christian worldview, for instance, or about an Islamic worldview, or an RSSB worldview, or a Tantric worldvew, or even an Advaitic worldview. In those worldviews there are real, lasting consequences to your choices, consequences that follow you after you die.)

Do you agree with my summing up? Summing up from a purely practical perspective, that is?

Hi Appreciative:

You wrote:

"Spencer Tepper (whose comments here reveal a far finer mind than yours) an asshole. It isn’t that I have never had disagreements with some of these very people, I have, but your conduct would come across as offensively obnoxious to most people. Certainly it does to me.

I have never understood why some people feel they have license to act obnoxiously just because this is the Internet. Acting in this manner with random folks in the real world would assuredly earn you repeated trips to the hospital with broken bones. Done online. this counts as trolling, pure and simple.

True, none of this concerns me directly. After our initial exchange some months back, you have been kind enough to be civil with me personally, and I thank you for that. But still, while I am not directly involved in any of these insults you so freely throw around, are you surprised at my reluctance to keep on engaging with someone who thinks and acts like you seem to do? Especially given how your other comments reinforce my suspicion that you are simply trolling away here?


Quote : if I can corner them and get them to admit THEY DO NOT KNOW WHETHER GOD EXISTS OR NOT, I win the argument automatically

No you don’t. You absolutely don’t. What you say is so flawed at so many different levels that it would take another ten or fifteen minutes to properly and clearly point it out there. I"


Unfortunately, I never made the quote you have attributed to me.

That was D.r. you were referring to.

Please be careful about criticizing anyone.

As a rule on line, I try to quote exactly what the person said when I'm commenting on their citation.

And as a second rule, I do not make statements about the person, only the argument they have made.

To do otherwise is unfair and unkind.

Hi Appreciative

When I withdraw on the flight to DC my Master told me I'd made a mistake and owe you an apology.

I re - read your post, and now realize it was written to someone else, and that you are actually trying to raise the standard for dialogue.

I was wrong in my post above.

Please accept my apology.

No problem, Spencer. Please don't mention it.

Nothing as grand (or pretentious) as "trying to raise the standard for dialog". Just commenting as appeared appropriate.

Since we seem to be handing apologies around, perhaps I should extend one to D.r here, for the somewhat strident tone of my comment I addressed to him (as it appears to me now, when I look at what I'd written). I stand by the content of every word I'd written, of course, but perhaps I should have tried to soften the tone in which I expressed it. My point made, and those irrationalities addressed, may we shake hands and put this behind us, D.r?

Appreciative Reader, thanks for responding. I have no problems with you.

I believe that you could be an atheist because I see no reasons you gave to think otherwise. Atheists get under my skin and I rarely meet polite ones. Obviously, if you aren't an atheist then ignore what I said. I stand by what I said about if a person doesn't know whether God exists or not then I win the debate. I don't buy into the idea of "burden of proof" as that's just something some bloke made up in the past and has no bearing on the God question, even though God is compared to spaghetti monsters and such things.

I disagree with your characterisation of me as a Bible thumper. I don't consider myself a "saved" Christian (which my problems with belief probably indicate) and certainly not a fundamentalist. I do however, believe Christianity makes the most sense, and for many different reasons. I'm open to the idea of reincarnation mainly based on the Shanti Devi case, but otherwise reincarnation seems to have philosophical problems.

As for my characterising others on this board as mentally deranged and other obnoxious terms, I apologise to those people for that. I wasn't in my right mind when I wrote those comments.

I'm highly strung and easily ticked off by other people but I'm learning to be more accommodative. It isn't easy when people out in the real world are 99% assholes. I get peace reminding myself that the 1% or more other people are good people and that helps.

But the arrogance and ignorance of atheists really ticks me off. That's my pet peeve. I also believe in free will existing to some degree, and so Brian's stance on that issue is another seeing of red for me. And I don't mind being called a troll either. I believe that this word "troll" is used way too much online and has gone a long way from it's original meaning so that now it can encompass almost anybody who simply disagrees with someone else.

D.r

Is a part of God

too

(-:

Karim,

Eastern gurus go much further than the idea that you or I are part of God. They claim to be God. Full stop.

That is where religion goes insane. You need a bunch of keys for the padded cell.

In this virtual reality and the realms above it ( like an onion up to astral )
where the Brahm Proctor reigns
all holo decks are real

Some realms are created by powerful jeevas and super real
others by many lesser souls together

At dying you go to:
Where your heart already is
A serial killer goes where the killers are
the yogis c s go where Brahma is praised

There are many more churches there than on this planet
Even Thor, Zeus and Wodan still rule there


This is ALL in this first of 7 "Heavens"
created by MINDS

It has not to do with spirituality - It's so temporal ( relatively temp )

The real Path starts after the 3rd "Heaven" , 3/7

Besides 98% fakers on this planet is all excercise/attention/concentration/contemplation
UNDER the Eyes
also while thinking is

of no avail
and for unstable minds dangerous

And for those who by much ascese arrive at the top ( Brahma )
be in Him , next wait until he associates
with 2/7's Ruler ParaBrahm
together with myriads of other 'Brahms"

Before I go preaching >> read my comments

Be Happy


777


ps
This is who, . . what you are

Okay, I seem unable to stop myself from typing this comment. No doubt Brian's no-free-will in play here!

D.r, one last comment from me! Not a put-down, just some friendly disagreement, made in as soft a tone as I know how while still saying what I have to say.

I just read your comment to me posted Jan 30. I have to ask, did you even read what I'd addressed to you on Jan 29? If you read it, did you understand it? Because here you seem to be doing the equivalent of screwing your eyes shut tight, putting your fingers in your ears, and repeating over and over : "la la la la la ... Atheism is bad ... la la la la la ... atheists are horrible ... la la la la la ... i am no atheist ... la la la la la la la", while doing your best not to let any contrary views or arguments, no matter how reasonable, enter your consciousness! I don't see how you could say any of the things you say in your current comment (of Jan 30), either about atheism or about trolling, if you'd actually read it.

As for your comment to Karim, can you really think/say what you do there with a straight face? This is so loose a ball that I cannot resist the (perhaps rather base) urge to step in and hit it out of the park.

"Eastern gurus go much further than the idea that you or I are part of God. They claim to be God. Full stop. ... That is where religion goes insane. You need a bunch of keys for the padded cell."

Do you really not see how this ties in with a certain guru that you yourself claim to be influenced by and a believer of? What was Jesus Christ if not a (Middle) Eastern guru who claimed to be (Son of) God? I'm in agreement when you tie (most of) the hoopla around that guru to "religion gone insane".

I repeat, this is not a put-down, just friendly (yet emphatic) disagreement. I simply cannot get myself to believe that anyone can possibly think the way you seem to think, with near-zero rationality and reason, unless they are deliberately trolling. Your logic-free opposition to atheism is bad enough, but when you add to that mix your opposition to all religions other than your own, and your statements supporting your particular faith, all of that with an apparently straight face, then one is left shaking one's head in sheer amazement.

Appreciative Reader, if I have touched a nerve in you and you still think I am trolling, that is what is to be expected, because non-Christians hate Jesus with a passion, and it ALWAYS comes out in the end.

What I suggest to you is to study Christianity with an open mind and leave off feeling insulted. It will do you no good.

Clearly you are upset. That means I am doing something right. I don't have to put you down or use swear words when I talk about my beliefs supposedly compared to yours. But I always know someone is doing something right when Christians get attacked for no good reason. Always.

It is quite impossible for me to respond to the wall of text you post adequately enough. I just want to point out though, that Jesus is not the same thing as a guru. They may be synonyms in YOUR mind, but reality doesn't cater for what you want it to be compared to what it actually is.

I am sad that you think I am trolling when I clearly am not. I am also sad that you think atheism has legitimate answers. Clearly, you are an atheist.

By the way, I can label you a troll quite easily, too. Does it make you one though?

Hi D. r.

Your position about Master Jesus does reflect the fundamentalist view, but not the view of Paul or the early Christian Fathers (the Catholic Saints attributed with the early development of today's church).

Current dogma, which you are citing as your belief, was developed at least two hundred years after Christ was crucified, and developed amidst the Censorship and even torture of the wide variety of alternative views about Jesus at that time.

Unfortunately that dogma does not find reliable support in the Holy Bible, and in particular the words of Paul and Christ.

SPencer Tepper, you are simply just wrong here.

You give no evidence that I have proposed any "fundamentalist view" whatsoever.

Not only that, but it appears you are citing the gnostics as the same thing as the church fathers, who wrote against Gnosticism extensively.

Then you are trying to claim that Paul and Jesus are the same, or trying to make me anti-Paul in some sense, where you really honestly do realise that Paul is anti RSS, Anti Guru, and Anti all you stand for spiritually.

Hi Again, D.r.

Where the two views differ, Fundamentalist and Early Christian, is how they view the past and others of faith.

Both proclaim the necessity of singular devotion to Christ.

But the Early Christian view was that Christ was always here. Paul writes that Christ walked with Moses, Clement of Alexandria wrote that the path to salvation (the "song" of salvation) is not new, but It's as old as creation.

Short course, so long as you remain devoted to Christ entirely, and avoid judging anyone else's beliefs, your on safe territory.

Where you call your brother "racca" as Christ taught, you are in danger of hellfire...at least according to what Christ said in the Bible.

"Sister, we are all following Christ."
- Maharaj Charan Singh Ji

Who is Christ? That is a matter of personal verification.
Maybe more accurately, what is Christ?
Or where, in me, is Christ?

Spencer Tepper,

Again, what you have written here has nothing to do with me or anything I wrote.

I do know that your masters, Charan Singh and other RSS gurus, have hoodwinked you into thinking that Jesus Christ was a mystic and spoke mysticism, but you are absolutely incorrect about this.

I wish I could get through to you properly how incorrect you are about this.

Hi D.r.

You wrote:

"I do know that your masters, Charan Singh and other RSS gurus, have hoodwinked you into thinking that Jesus Christ was a mystic and spoke mysticism, but you are absolutely incorrect about this."

Unfortunately, you can't blame them. My beliefs come from my own experience and investigation.

As for the divine Spirit, perceived as divine music, the very Name of God witnessed within as a holy sound, that is taught directly and eloquently by one of the earliest Church Father's Clement of Alexandria:

"But let us bring from above out of heaven, Truth, with Wisdom in all its brightness, and the sacred prophetic choir, down to the holy mount of God; and let Truth, darting her light to the most distant points, cast her rays all around on those that are involved in darkness, and deliver men from delusion, stretching out her very strong right hand, which is wisdom, for their salvation. And raising their eyes, and looking above, let them abandon Helicon and Cithaeron, and take up their abode in Sion. "For out of Sion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem, --the celestial Word, the true athlete crowned in the theatre of the whole universe. What my Eunomos sings is not the measure of Terpander, nor that of Capito, nor the Phrygian, nor Lydian, nor Dorian, but the immortal measure of the new harmony which bears God's name--the new, the Levitical song.

'Soother of pain, calmer of wrath, producing forgetfulness of all ills.'

Sweet and true is the charm of persuasion which blends with this strain."

- Exhortation to the Heathen, Clement of Alexandria (approximately 150 CE)


D.r., when you here this divine sound, you will understand. it is the very Word of God.

Until then, it is enough that you not presume others are ignorant or misguided simply because they do not believe as you do.

We all believe to the extent we can understand and our experience guides us.

Since that is different for each of us, naturally, there will be a diversity of views.

St. Paul teaches reincarnation:

"20 If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21 It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. 22 Of them the proverbs are true: 'A dog returns to its vomit,' and, 'A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud.'
2 Peter 2:20-22

Interesting
about our stupidness to discuss who yes and who not was a 7th heaven Master


Jaimal while walking with Sawan said : pointing at the Himalaya's
"The last time I was here , there were no mountains

So that is at least 100 million years ago

777


Wow

-

ps
Are we all please aware with what kind of stuff we are wasting our time<
<

I'm sure Brian would agree with me that it is a real stretch to quote early Church Fathers as supporting the concept of inner sound and light based on the passages you gave. There is clearly no tradition of anything resembling inner sounds and lights in Christianity from the very beginning. 2000 years of this tradition and no real mention of inner AUM sounds and lights of spiritual eyes, which are obviously Indian derived mysticism. If you had an ounce of credibility to back up your quotations and statements, you would look at modern famous Christian leaders who know absolutely nothing of what you mean by inner sounds and lights. Let's be specific - your RSS indoctrination has convinced you that the AUM sound exists, and yet no Christian of any reputation in the last 300 or so years has ever even mentioned any such thing. The burden of proof is on you to show that some OM sound has anything to do with Christianity at all, without re-interpreting the clear and plain meaning of scripture in some poetic fancy way.

Hi D. r.

You wrote

"yet no Christian of any reputation in the last 300 or so years has ever even mentioned any such thing."

Here, from a famous Christian, Lord Alfred Tennyson

If thou would’st hear the Nameless, and wilt dive
Into the Temple-cave of thine own self,
There, brooding by the central altar, thou
May’st haply learn the Nameless hath a voice,
By which thou wilt abide, if thou be wise,
As if thou knewest, tho’ thou canst not know;
For Knowledge is the swallow on the lake
That sees and stirs the surface-shadow there
But never yet hath dipt into the abysm,
The Abysm of all Abysms, beneath, within
The blue of sky and sea, the green of earth,
And in the million-millionth of a grain
Which cleft and cleft again for evermore,
And ever vanishing, never vanishes,
To me, my son, more mystic than myself,
Or even than the Nameless is to me.
And when thou sendest thy free soul thro’ heaven,
Nor understandest bound nor boundlessness,
Thou seest the Nameless of the hundred names.
And if the Nameless should withdraw from all
Thy frailty counts most real, all thy world
Might vanish like thy shadow in the dark."

from The Ancient Sage by Tennyson

Another famous Christian, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Oliver Wendel Holmes, not only reference to the audible spirit, sounding like a Triton's trumpet, but to reincarnation, ever greater mansions for the soul....

"Thanks for the heavenly message brought by thee,
Child of the wandering sea,
Cast from her lap, forlorn!
From thy dead lips a clearer note is born
Than ever Triton blew from wreathèd horn!
While on mine ear it rings,
Through the deep caves of thought I hear a voice that sings:—

Build thee more stately mansions, O my soul,
As the swift seasons roll!
Leave thy low-vaulted past!
Let each new temple, nobler than the last,
Shut thee from heaven with a dome more vast,
Till thou at length art free,
Leaving thine outgrown shell by life’s unresting sea!"

From The Chambered Nautilus by Oliver Wendel Homes

Here another famous Christian, poet Emily Dickenson describes the internal experience of death, before the senses break through and she is plunged back to this world.... She describes all of heaven as a bell, and she is merely an ear to hear this divine bell...

"As all the Heavens were a Bell,
And Being, but an Ear,
And I, and Silence, some strange Race
Wrecked, solitary, here –"
from I Felt A Funeral, In My Brain by Emily Dickenson

D.r, yes, I certainly do agree with you. It's amazing how far believers in Spiritual Sound and Light will stretch reality to make it fit their preconceived ideas. Way back when in my true believing days I was guilty of doing that myself, so I know whereof I speak. Once a rigid conceptual framework gets imbedded in a religious person's mind, everything gets viewed through that framework, which naturally leads to massive distortions regarding what is actually there.

St. Paul teaches reincarnation

The seed we plant is given a new body according to God's will, after we die, and that body depends upon what we plant in this life.


"35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?

36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:

37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:

38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.

39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
1 Corinthians 35-41

Brian

I am only offering citations, evidence.

Now the burden of proof is upon you to explain what Clement of Alexander meant when he spoke of the divine sound from heaven that raises the soul and gives rest.

Or what Tennyson meant when he wrote the divine has a voice and that voice is the very life keeping this creation in existence.

Or you can ignore that direct evidence in favor of your pre-conceived dogma.
But please do not add personal character assassination.

It is a poor substitute for reason.

I give you evidence for your own reason.

But if you dismiss it out of hand without consideration, without thought, but merely personal accusation, then you have forfeited reason.

Take your car to Clement, to Jesus, to Paul, to Holmes, to Tennyson, to Dickenson, for I only offer up their words.

I don't think you or D.r. has any excuse to ignore what they have written


You can hold any fantasy you like, Brian, but you can't ignore facts and claim with any veracity truth.

unified field of consciousness is a proven fact , undying vibrating unified field , lts logical deduction leads to reincarnation.

Hello again, Manjit!

I’m bumping this thread up to draw your attention to my comment addressed to you, posted on January 29. It may have got lost under the whole flood of other posts (including my own) that followed right after in this thread.

I’d raised two points in that comment of mine, and I’d love to have your views on them.

And even if you don’t wish to keep on revisiting this subject, that’s perfectly fine Manjit, but I wouldn’t want you to go away without my expressing to you my appreciation for the lovely responses you’ve taken the trouble to post here, which were very helpful to me in properly understanding your own perception and your personal point of view about all of this.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

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

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

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

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

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

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

Welcome


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