Comments on Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)TypePad2017-12-18T03:37:23ZBrian Hineshttps://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/tag:typepad.com,2003:https://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2017/12/open-thread-11-free-speech-for-comments/comments/atom.xml/Appreciative Reader commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201bb09f16684970d2018-02-08T13:38:52Z2018-02-09T04:11:19ZAppreciative ReaderHello again, Manjit! I’m bumping this thread up to draw your attention to my comment addressed to you, posted on...<p>Hello again, Manjit!</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>I’d raised two points in that comment of mine, and I’d love to have your views on them.</p>
<p>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.</p>vinny commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b8d2d68527970c2018-02-01T23:30:14Z2018-02-03T03:52:34Zvinnyunified field of consciousness is a proven fact , undying vibrating unified field , lts logical deduction leads to reincarnation.<p> unified field of consciousness is a proven fact , undying vibrating unified field , lts logical deduction leads to reincarnation.</p>Spencer Tepper commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b8d2d67556970c2018-02-01T21:14:02Z2018-02-01T21:35:30ZSpencer TepperBrian I am only offering citations, evidence. Now the burden of proof is upon you to explain what Clement of...<p>Brian</p>
<p>I am only offering citations, evidence. </p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>Or what Tennyson meant when he wrote the divine has a voice and that voice is the very life keeping this creation in existence. </p>
<p>Or you can ignore that direct evidence in favor of your pre-conceived dogma. <br />
But please do not add personal character assassination. </p>
<p>It is a poor substitute for reason. </p>
<p>I give you evidence for your own reason. </p>
<p>But if you dismiss it out of hand without consideration, without thought, but merely personal accusation, then you have forfeited reason.</p>
<p>Take your car to Clement, to Jesus, to Paul, to Holmes, to Tennyson, to Dickenson, for I only offer up their words. </p>
<p>I don't think you or D.r. has any excuse to ignore what they have written</p>
<p><br />
You can hold any fantasy you like, Brian, but you can't ignore facts and claim with any veracity truth. </p>Spencer Tepper commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201bb09ef7064970d2018-02-01T21:05:13Z2018-02-01T21:35:30ZSpencer TepperSt. Paul teaches reincarnation The seed we plant is given a new body according to God's will, after we die,...<p>St. Paul teaches reincarnation</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p><br />
"35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?</p>
<p>36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:</p>
<p>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:</p>
<p>38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.<br />
1 Corinthians 35-41</p>Blogger Brian commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201bb09ef7005970d2018-02-01T21:01:06Z2018-02-01T21:35:30ZBlogger Brianhttp://profile.typepad.com/brihinesD.r, yes, I certainly do agree with you. It's amazing how far believers in Spiritual Sound and Light will stretch...<p>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.</p>Spencer Tepper commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b7c94c0554970b2018-02-01T20:58:52Z2018-02-01T21:35:30ZSpencer TepperHere another famous Christian, poet Emily Dickenson describes the internal experience of death, before the senses break through and she...<p>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... </p>
<p>"As all the Heavens were a Bell,<br />
And Being, but an Ear,<br />
And I, and Silence, some strange Race<br />
Wrecked, solitary, here –"<br />
from I Felt A Funeral, In My Brain by Emily Dickenson</p>Spencer Tepper commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b8d2d672ca970c2018-02-01T20:44:47Z2018-02-01T21:35:30ZSpencer TepperAnother famous Christian, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Oliver Wendel Holmes, not only reference to the audible...<p>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.... </p>
<p>"Thanks for the heavenly message brought by thee, <br />
Child of the wandering sea, <br />
Cast from her lap, forlorn! <br />
From thy dead lips a clearer note is born <br />
Than ever Triton blew from wreathèd horn! <br />
While on mine ear it rings, <br />
Through the deep caves of thought I hear a voice that sings:— </p>
<p>Build thee more stately mansions, O my soul, <br />
As the swift seasons roll! <br />
Leave thy low-vaulted past! <br />
Let each new temple, nobler than the last, <br />
Shut thee from heaven with a dome more vast, <br />
Till thou at length art free, <br />
Leaving thine outgrown shell by life’s unresting sea!"</p>
<p>From The Chambered Nautilus by Oliver Wendel Homes</p>Spencer Tepper commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b8d2d6715a970c2018-02-01T20:29:45Z2018-02-01T21:35:30ZSpencer TepperHi D. r. You wrote "yet no Christian of any reputation in the last 300 or so years has ever...<p>Hi D. r.</p>
<p>You wrote</p>
<p>"yet no Christian of any reputation in the last 300 or so years has ever even mentioned any such thing."</p>
<p>Here, from a famous Christian, Lord Alfred Tennyson </p>
<p>If thou would’st hear the Nameless, and wilt dive<br />
Into the Temple-cave of thine own self,<br />
There, brooding by the central altar, thou<br />
May’st haply learn the Nameless hath a voice,<br />
By which thou wilt abide, if thou be wise,<br />
As if thou knewest, tho’ thou canst not know;<br />
For Knowledge is the swallow on the lake<br />
That sees and stirs the surface-shadow there<br />
But never yet hath dipt into the abysm,<br />
The Abysm of all Abysms, beneath, within<br />
The blue of sky and sea, the green of earth,<br />
And in the million-millionth of a grain<br />
Which cleft and cleft again for evermore,<br />
And ever vanishing, never vanishes,<br />
To me, my son, more mystic than myself,<br />
Or even than the Nameless is to me.<br />
And when thou sendest thy free soul thro’ heaven,<br />
Nor understandest bound nor boundlessness,<br />
Thou seest the Nameless of the hundred names.<br />
And if the Nameless should withdraw from all<br />
Thy frailty counts most real, all thy world<br />
Might vanish like thy shadow in the dark."</p>
<p>from The Ancient Sage by Tennyson</p>D.r commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b7c94bfc48970b2018-02-01T19:15:54Z2018-02-01T21:35:30ZD.rI'm sure Brian would agree with me that it is a real stretch to quote early Church Fathers as supporting...<p>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.</p> 777 commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b7c94be230970b2018-02-01T14:57:27Z2018-02-01T21:35:30Z 777Interesting about our stupidness to discuss who yes and who not was a 7th heaven Master Jaimal while walking with...<p>Interesting <br />
about our stupidness to discuss who yes and who not was a 7th heaven Master</p>
<p><br />
Jaimal while walking with Sawan said : pointing at the Himalaya's<br />
"The last time I was here , there were no mountains</p>
<p>So that is at least 100 million years ago</p>
<p>777</p>
<p><br />
Wow</p>
<p>-</p>
<p>ps<br />
Are we all please aware with what kind of stuff we are wasting our time<<br />
<<br />
</p>Spencer Tepper commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b8d2d62cbc970c2018-02-01T02:40:04Z2018-02-01T04:01:29ZSpencer TepperSt. Paul teaches reincarnation: "20 If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior...<p>St. Paul teaches reincarnation:</p>
<p>"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.'<br />
2 Peter 2:20-22<br />
</p>Spencer Tepper commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b7c94bb9f2970b2018-02-01T02:18:53Z2018-02-01T04:01:29ZSpencer TepperHi D.r. You wrote: "I do know that your masters, Charan Singh and other RSS gurus, have hoodwinked you into...<p>Hi D.r.</p>
<p>You wrote:</p>
<p>"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."</p>
<p>Unfortunately, you can't blame them. My beliefs come from my own experience and investigation.</p>
<p>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:</p>
<p>"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.</p>
<p>'Soother of pain, calmer of wrath, producing forgetfulness of all ills.'</p>
<p>Sweet and true is the charm of persuasion which blends with this strain."</p>
<p>- Exhortation to the Heathen, Clement of Alexandria (approximately 150 CE)</p>
<p><br />
D.r., when you here this divine sound, you will understand. it is the very Word of God.</p>
<p>Until then, it is enough that you not presume others are ignorant or misguided simply because they do not believe as you do.</p>
<p>We all believe to the extent we can understand and our experience guides us.</p>
<p>Since that is different for each of us, naturally, there will be a diversity of views.</p>D.r commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201bb09eec9a2970d2018-01-31T19:14:05Z2018-02-01T04:01:29ZD.rSpencer Tepper, Again, what you have written here has nothing to do with me or anything I wrote. I do...<p>Spencer Tepper,</p>
<p>Again, what you have written here has nothing to do with me or anything I wrote.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>I wish I could get through to you properly how incorrect you are about this.</p>Spencer Tepper commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b7c94b4ea4970b2018-01-31T19:09:25Z2018-02-01T04:01:29ZSpencer TepperHi Again, D.r. Where the two views differ, Fundamentalist and Early Christian, is how they view the past and others...<p>Hi Again, D.r.</p>
<p>Where the two views differ, Fundamentalist and Early Christian, is how they view the past and others of faith.</p>
<p>Both proclaim the necessity of singular devotion to Christ.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Short course, so long as you remain devoted to Christ entirely, and avoid judging anyone else's beliefs, your on safe territory.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>"Sister, we are all following Christ."<br />
- Maharaj Charan Singh Ji</p>
<p>Who is Christ? That is a matter of personal verification.<br />
Maybe more accurately, what is Christ? <br />
Or where, in me, is Christ?</p>D.r commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201bb09eec8e0970d2018-01-31T19:07:52Z2018-02-01T04:01:29ZD.rSPencer Tepper, you are simply just wrong here. You give no evidence that I have proposed any "fundamentalist view" whatsoever....<p>SPencer Tepper, you are simply just wrong here.</p>
<p>You give no evidence that I have proposed any "fundamentalist view" whatsoever.</p>
<p>Not only that, but it appears you are citing the gnostics as the same thing as the church fathers, who wrote against Gnosticism extensively.</p>
<p>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.</p>Spencer Tepper commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201bb09eeaf61970d2018-01-31T17:59:04Z2018-02-01T04:01:29ZSpencer TepperHi D. r. Your position about Master Jesus does reflect the fundamentalist view, but not the view of Paul or...<p>Hi D. r.</p>
<p>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).</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>Unfortunately that dogma does not find reliable support in the Holy Bible, and in particular the words of Paul and Christ. </p>D.r commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201bb09eeab29970d2018-01-31T17:12:41Z2018-02-01T04:01:29ZD.rBy the way, I can label you a troll quite easily, too. Does it make you one though?<p>By the way, I can label you a troll quite easily, too. Does it make you one though?</p>D.r commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b8d2d5a491970c2018-01-31T17:11:22Z2018-02-01T04:01:29ZD.rIt is quite impossible for me to respond to the wall of text you post adequately enough. I just want...<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>D.r commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201bb09eea794970d2018-01-31T16:19:24Z2018-02-01T04:01:29ZD.rAppreciative Reader, if I have touched a nerve in you and you still think I am trolling, that is what...<p>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. </p>
<p>What I suggest to you is to study Christianity with an open mind and leave off feeling insulted. It will do you no good. </p>
<p>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.</p>Appreciative Reader commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201bb09ee9a32970d2018-01-31T13:34:03Z2018-02-01T04:01:29ZAppreciative ReaderOkay, I seem unable to stop myself from typing this comment. No doubt Brian's no-free-will in play here! D.r, one...<p>Okay, I seem unable to stop myself from typing this comment. No doubt Brian's no-free-will in play here!</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>"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."</p>
<p>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".</p>
<p>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.</p> 777 commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201bb09ee54b9970d2018-01-31T01:36:30Z2018-01-31T03:44:10Z 777In this virtual reality and the realms above it ( like an onion up to astral ) where the Brahm...<p>In this virtual reality and the realms above it ( like an onion up to astral )<br />
where the Brahm Proctor reigns<br />
all holo decks are real</p>
<p>Some realms are created by powerful jeevas and super real<br />
others by many lesser souls together</p>
<p>At dying you go to: <br />
Where your heart already is<br />
A serial killer goes where the killers are<br />
the yogis c s go where Brahma is praised</p>
<p>There are many more churches there than on this planet<br />
Even Thor, Zeus and Wodan still rule there</p>
<p><br />
This is ALL in this first of 7 "Heavens"<br />
created by MINDS</p>
<p>It has not to do with spirituality - It's so temporal ( relatively temp )</p>
<p>The real Path starts after the 3rd "Heaven" , 3/7</p>
<p>Besides 98% fakers on this planet is all excercise/attention/concentration/contemplation<br />
UNDER the Eyes<br />
also while thinking is</p>
<p>of no avail<br />
and for unstable minds dangerous</p>
<p>And for those who by much ascese arrive at the top ( Brahma )<br />
be in Him , next wait until he associates<br />
with 2/7's Ruler ParaBrahm <br />
together with myriads of other 'Brahms"</p>
<p>Before I go preaching >> read my comments</p>
<p>Be Happy</p>
<p><br />
777</p>
<p><br />
ps<br />
This is who, . . what you are</p>D.r commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b7c94ab8cc970b2018-01-30T17:45:01Z2018-01-31T03:44:10ZD.rKarim, Eastern gurus go much further than the idea that you or I are part of God. They claim to...<p>Karim,</p>
<p>Eastern gurus go much further than the idea that you or I are part of God. They claim to be God. Full stop.</p>
<p>That is where religion goes insane. You need a bunch of keys for the padded cell.</p>Karim W. Rahmaan commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b7c94ab636970b2018-01-30T17:08:47Z2018-01-31T03:44:10ZKarim W. RahmaanD.r Is a part of God too (-:<p>D.r</p>
<p>Is a part of God</p>
<p>too</p>
<p>(-:</p>D.r commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b7c94ab1b5970b2018-01-30T16:10:32Z2018-01-31T03:44:10ZD.rAppreciative Reader, thanks for responding. I have no problems with you. I believe that you could be an atheist because...<p>Appreciative Reader, thanks for responding. I have no problems with you.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>Appreciative Reader commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b8d2d4f7d2970c2018-01-30T14:30:18Z2018-01-31T03:44:10ZAppreciative ReaderNo problem, Spencer. Please don't mention it. Nothing as grand (or pretentious) as "trying to raise the standard for dialog"....<p>No problem, Spencer. Please don't mention it.</p>
<p>Nothing as grand (or pretentious) as "trying to raise the standard for dialog". Just commenting as appeared appropriate.</p>
<p>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?</p>Spencer Tepper commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201bb09edbdc6970d2018-01-29T20:33:10Z2018-01-31T03:44:10ZSpencer TepperHi Appreciative When I withdraw on the flight to DC my Master told me I'd made a mistake and owe...<p>Hi Appreciative</p>
<p>When I withdraw on the flight to DC my Master told me I'd made a mistake and owe you an apology. </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>I was wrong in my post above. </p>
<p>Please accept my apology. </p>Spencer Tepper commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b7c94a6105970b2018-01-29T17:19:51Z2018-01-31T03:44:10ZSpencer TepperHi Appreciative: You wrote: "Spencer Tepper (whose comments here reveal a far finer mind than yours) an asshole. It isn’t...<p>Hi Appreciative:</p>
<p>You wrote:</p>
<p>"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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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?</p>
<p><br />
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</p>
<p>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"</p>
<p><br />
Unfortunately, I never made the quote you have attributed to me.</p>
<p>That was D.r. you were referring to.</p>
<p>Please be careful about criticizing anyone.</p>
<p>As a rule on line, I try to quote exactly what the person said when I'm commenting on their citation.</p>
<p>And as a second rule, I do not make statements about the person, only the argument they have made.</p>
<p>To do otherwise is unfair and unkind.</p>Appreciative Reader commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201bb09ed9ca5970d2018-01-29T14:09:57Z2018-01-31T03:44:10ZAppreciative ReaderDear MANJIT, Thanks VERY much! I am, quite simply, well, … overwhelmed, at those two comments you’ve posted there, in...<p></p>
<p>Dear MANJIT,</p>
<p>Thanks VERY much!</p>
<p>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!</p>
<p>“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!</p>
<p>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!</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>One thing I’m curious about : With all you have experienced, how are you able to assimilate into a ‘regular’ life? </p>
<p>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.)</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>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!</p>
<p>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?</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>This is what sounds reasonable to me. My conceptual world-view.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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?</p>
<p>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!)</p>
<p>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).</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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!</p>
<p>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.)</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p> … 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.)</p>
<p>Do you agree with my summing up? Summing up from a purely practical perspective, that is?</p>Appreciative Reader commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b7c94a4e62970b2018-01-29T12:56:43Z2018-01-31T03:44:10ZAppreciative ReaderQuote D.r : “Appreciate Reader, you didn’t respond to my post. I wondered why. Perhaps I am beneath you.” Absolutely...<p>Quote D.r : “Appreciate Reader, you didn’t respond to my post. I wondered why. Perhaps I am beneath you.” </p>
<p><br />
Absolutely NOT, D.r. God forbid I should ever think you, or anyone, to be “beneath” me!</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Anyway, since you seem so much to wish to know my views on your earlier comment, here’s my response :</p>
<p><br />
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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p><br />
Quote : You come across as some sort of atheist, whereas I am not.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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”?</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p><br />
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. </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.)</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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). </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p><br />
Quote : I enjoy putting atheists down </p>
<p>I noticed. You enjoy putting down not only atheists, but also theists whose faith happens to differ from yours.</p>
<p>Two things jump out here at anyone who has seen you commenting away here.</p>
<p>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?</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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?</p>
<p><br />
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 </p>
<p>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 :</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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?)</p>
<p><br />
.</p>
<p><br />
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.</p>
<p>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.</p>D.r commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201bb09ed41db970d2018-01-28T09:56:36Z2018-01-29T02:49:20ZD.rManjit, I've also studied many of the things you have too. F W H Myers book was particularly thick and...<p>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.</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>On the subject of possession, Stevenson himself thought it was a possibility to explain reincarnation. </p>
<p>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. </p> 777 commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b8d2d442d1970c2018-01-28T07:29:08Z2018-01-29T02:49:20Z 777- - ° they - - 777 -<p>-</p>
<p>-</p>
<p>° they</p>
<p><br />
-</p>
<p>-<br />
777</p>
<p>-<br />
</p> 777 commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b7c949f28e970b2018-01-28T07:25:23Z2018-01-29T02:49:20Z 777At 81, . . I wish to make a kind of declaration but not 'preach' because of the Que sera,...<p>At 81, . . I wish to make a kind of declaration but not 'preach' because of the Que sera, sera aspect</p>
<p>I feel 24/7 an immense regret not to have rssB _meditated and I'm on the point of crying<br />
because <br />
NOW<br />
This Anahabad Shabd has become so intense</p>
<p>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<br />
and specially the acknowledgement that<br />
Masters are so correct<br />
that more Bayan ( listening ) is<br />
more resistance to endure what is going to happen<br />
All those superlatives</p>
<p><br />
before dying and I'm not sick or what :-)<br />
I will not go without this statement</p>
<p>"Do meditations and specially Simran , Simran & Simran without stopping<br />
even in the brothel<br />
and the reward will be outstanding <br />
terrifically overflowing<br />
OMG</p>
<p><br />
777</p>
<p>ps<br />
Thanks to the Masters, who are that Sound, if the want it or not</p>manjit commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201bb09ed2f43970d2018-01-27T23:36:31Z2018-01-28T01:07:53ZmanjitThanks Jim! I'd watch it I were you when it comes to writing stories involving butts :) You know how...<p>Thanks Jim!</p>
<p>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!!</p>
<p>I think the answer to your question may just be, "consciousness"?</p>
<p>G'nite my friend!</p>E Jim Sutherland commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b8d2d428cd970c2018-01-27T20:38:55Z2018-01-28T01:07:53ZE Jim Sutherlandhttp://eternaloasisofsouls.blogspot.comThanks, Manjit for your ”detailed” conceptualizations! No one here will ever be able to accuse you of not being a...<p>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,</p>
<p>Conciousness, Awareness, Ego, Self, are dfferent pieces of the the same Puzzle, yet, very few agree on which one belongs to Who. </p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>So, who, or what, is looking at, or observing Jim? </p>
<p>Brian wrote that there is no i.e. Zero consciousness out side the brain, and that Anesthesia silences it, or some thng or other. </p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>So, what, or who was the Observer? And why the time delay? A month or more after the <br />
Procedure. </p>
<p>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! 😇</p>
<p>Jim Sutherland</p>
<p><br />
</p>manjit commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201bb09ed207f970d2018-01-27T19:32:41Z2018-01-28T01:07:53ZmanjitHi D.r., You wrote "Manjit didn't mention potential dangers. There are negative spirit entities called demons that interfere with you...<p>Hi D.r.,</p>
<p>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."</p>
<p>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!</p>
<p>In your second comment, you wrote: "Reincarnation isn't a reality you conceive in your mind only! LOL"</p>
<p>Haha, I loved that and this is why I just had to respond :)</p>
<p>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)</p>
<p>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".</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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"?</p>
<p>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?</p>
<p>Or perhaps the "LOL" covers it? :)</p>D.r commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b7c949ce46970b2018-01-27T17:48:53Z2018-01-28T01:07:53ZD.rReincarnation isn't a reality you conceive in your mind only! LOL<p>Reincarnation isn't a reality you conceive in your mind only! LOL</p>manjit commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201bb09ed15af970d2018-01-27T16:33:32Z2018-01-28T01:07:53Zmanjit(continued) Your question 2: " the experience of Oneness that you had. Can you try to describe it?" I hope...<p>(continued)</p>
<p>Your question 2: " the experience of Oneness that you had. Can you try to describe it?" </p>
<p>I hope you can permit to be briefer than my previous answer, which was more practically beneficial.</p>
<p>The answer to this question is, I'm afraid, "no"!!</p>
<p>My original post was as close as I can get. Sorry!</p>
<p>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?"</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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!</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>The intellectual and logical mind, caught in temporality and form, cannot comprehend this imo.</p>
<p>Question 4) "how exactly that experience led you to the conceptual world-view you describe."</p>
<p>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!</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Question 5) "You’re saying that after death we merge right back into the One, directly"</p>
<p>I like this question, it's a good one that can truly blow our mind!</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>These are the ONLY real questions that matter, for all of us.</p>
<p>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". </p>
<p>Reincarnation is a doozy in that sense! :)</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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".</p>
<p>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?</p>
<p>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!!</p>
<p>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?</p>
<p>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?</p>
<p>Anything you can conceive in your mind is a reality on some level, if you believe in reincarnation, then it is so.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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....</p>
<p>By the way, did you listen to that podcast I linked the other day? It briefly touches on the same questions....</p>
<p>So, yes, it's all true yet all false at the same time. Believe what you want to believe, it's all good :o)</p>
<p>Question 6) "Some more details"</p>
<p>No!!! This is all intellectual nonsense!!! :o)</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Peace,</p>
<p>Manjit</p>D.r commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b7c949c9d7970b2018-01-27T16:33:27Z2018-01-28T01:07:53ZD.rSo to sum up Manjit's post - "If you search for me with all your heart, you will find me"...<p>So to sum up Manjit's post - </p>
<p>"If you search for me with all your heart, you will find me" - The Bible.</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>It also doesn't make sense to seek God via meditation and to have a human guru at the same time. </p>
<p>Losing the ego leads to a state of perfect possession. And what possesses you is something nobody wants to EVER know.<br />
</p>manjit commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b7c949c603970b2018-01-27T15:40:56Z2018-01-28T01:07:53ZmanjitHey Appreciative Reader! Right, I've got my cup of tea, let's see if I can type out some semi-coherent responses!...<p>Hey Appreciative Reader! Right, I've got my cup of tea, let's see if I can type out some semi-coherent responses! :o)</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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?"</p>
<p>Ah, a nice easy one to start then ;)</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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!</p>
<p>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).</p>
<p>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?</p>
<p>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!</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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!).</p>
<p>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?!</p>
<p>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!).</p>
<p>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 :)</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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 :)</p>
<p>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!</p>
<p>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!</p>
<p> 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!! :).</p>
<p>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!</p>Jen commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b8d2d3f311970c2018-01-27T05:25:15Z2018-01-28T01:07:53ZJenThanks Spencer, I appreciate your kindness and sincerity :)<p>Thanks Spencer, I appreciate your kindness and sincerity :)</p>Spencer Tepper commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b7c9499a09970b2018-01-27T00:36:11Z2018-01-27T03:46:58ZSpencer TepperHi Jen I agree with 90% of the article except the test. The test is actually a version of the...<p>Hi Jen</p>
<p>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. </p>Jen commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201bb09ecd89a970d2018-01-26T21:31:13Z2018-01-27T03:46:59ZJenWhat do you really believe? Take the truth demon test... https://aeon.co/ideas/what-do-you-really-believe-take-the-truth-demon-test<p>What do you really believe? Take the truth demon test...</p>
<p><a href="https://aeon.co/ideas/what-do-you-really-believe-take-the-truth-demon-test" rel="nofollow">https://aeon.co/ideas/what-do-you-really-believe-take-the-truth-demon-test</a><br />
</p>Spencer Tepper commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b8d2d3cd77970c2018-01-26T17:49:54Z2018-01-27T03:46:59ZSpencer TepperBrian, I believe your wife loves you because you say so and I know something about love. But if I...<p>Brian, I believe your wife loves you because you say so and I know something about love.</p>
<p>But if I doubted it, I would only need to get to know your wife better. </p>
<p>Same for God. </p>
<p>There is never a burden of proof. We all believe what we do based on our experience and understanding. </p>
<p>If we want to know more about something, at some point, after reading the reports of others, we must do our own investigation. </p>
<p>Therefore no one should believe you or I, except to gather some information to help their own personal / scientific investigation. </p>Spencer Tepper commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b8d2d3cc1c970c2018-01-26T17:33:34Z2018-01-27T03:46:59ZSpencer TepperHi Brian You wrote "For most people, but not religious believers, absence of any demonstrable evidence that something exists is...<p>Hi Brian</p>
<p>You wrote</p>
<p>"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."</p>
<p>Brian you've based your argument on a flawed premise, that people of Faith believe in something without evidence. </p>
<p>That's false. They have their own evidence. </p>
<p>You switch players in this argument from the believer to the non - believer. </p>
<p>Both hold their views based on their own personal evidence.</p>
<p>You know your wife loves you because of the evidence you see every day, and your interpretation of it. </p>
<p>Same for God. </p>
<p>What you are doing is trying to take the position of God and judging the quality of the evidence... </p>
<p>"they just did that to get something from you...."</p>
<p>"that was just convenient, not special..."</p>
<p>"that was just random chance"</p>
<p>These dismissive judgments aren't fact based at all. </p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>Brian, I'll believe you when you have scientific peer reviewed evidence. </p>
<p>That's just silly. <br />
</p>D.r commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201bb09ecc018970d2018-01-26T16:11:38Z2018-01-27T03:46:59ZD.rYou are not sure that God doesn't exist. You do not believe that God exists. There's a difference. If pushed,...<p>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. </p>
<p>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.</p>Blogger Brian commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201bb09ec9d99970d2018-01-26T05:14:10Z2018-01-26T05:14:13ZBlogger Brianhttp://profile.typepad.com/brihinesSpencer, of course there's plenty of factual basis for atheism. That basis is the lack of evidence for God. Again,...<p>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. </p>
<p>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). </p>
<p>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.</p>Spencer Tepper commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b8d2d39aae970c2018-01-26T03:13:15Z2018-01-27T03:46:59ZSpencer TepperTwo more points about Atheism. The choice of belief is often based on personal choice not hard facts, since there...<p>Two more points about Atheism.<br />
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.</p>
<p> 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.</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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. </p>
<p><br />
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. </p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>Years of such results are found in the scientific literature available on neurology, psychology, and addiction research. </p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>Just pick the most enlightened system of faith and practice you can find. Your brain and your heart will thank you. </p>Spencer Tepper commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201bb09ec9650970d2018-01-26T02:32:06Z2018-01-27T03:46:59ZSpencer TepperHi Brian I'm not sure you have given an accurate account of the range of belief in Atheism. That range...<p>Hi Brian</p>
<p>I'm not sure you have given an accurate account of the range of belief in Atheism. </p>
<p>That range includes not holding a belief in God all the way to firmly believing there is no God.</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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. </p>Blogger Brian commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201bb09ec90c3970d2018-01-26T01:09:17Z2018-01-26T01:09:27ZBlogger Brianhttp://profile.typepad.com/brihinesUm, you do know that atheism means "not theism," right?Atheists don't believe in God because there is no demonstrable evidence...<p>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. </p>troll detector commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201bb09ec8634970d2018-01-25T22:43:22Z2018-01-27T03:46:59Ztroll detectorD.r (troll?) I tried atheism and found it massively wanting, around about 2007. It simply doesn't make any sense to...<p>D.r <br />
(troll?)<br />
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.</p>Spencer Tepper commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b8d2d37451970c2018-01-25T18:18:48Z2018-01-25T20:09:02ZSpencer TepperHi Appreciative! You wrote "or waiting forJesus’s God’s trumpet-like alarm clock to wake us up, or whatever" If you hear...<p>Hi Appreciative!</p>
<p>You wrote</p>
<p>"or waiting forJesus’s God’s trumpet-like alarm clock to wake us up, or whatever" </p>
<p>If you hear that Trumpet, you won't have to wait long. Listening is good. Very good. </p>D.r commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b8d2d36fc3970c2018-01-25T17:12:50Z2018-01-25T20:09:02ZD.rAppreciate Reader, you didn't respond to my post. I wondered why. Perhaps I am beneath you.<p>Appreciate Reader, you didn't respond to my post. I wondered why. Perhaps I am beneath you.</p>Appreciative Reader commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b7c949041d970b2018-01-25T12:59:50Z2018-01-25T20:09:02ZAppreciative ReaderTo : MANJIT Ursula Le Guin fan, are you, then? I too have enjoyed reading her. Most fiction one reads...<p>To : MANJIT</p>
<p><br />
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. </p>
<p> ` </p>
<p>So : Thanks for agreeing to discuss this further, Manjit!</p>
<p>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!).</p>
<p></p>
<p>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? </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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?</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>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?</p>
<p>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?</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>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?</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>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.)</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>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?</p>
<p>.</p>
<p> 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?</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p> ` </p>
<p></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>And don’t worry, absolutely no further follow-on questions from me after this! :-) This is all.</p>
<p>Again, my sincere thanks for taking the time and effort!</p>
<p>(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.)</p>Spencer Tepper commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b7c948ef7f970b2018-01-25T04:48:23Z2018-01-25T20:09:02ZSpencer TepperHi Jen You wrote "This has to be a joke and if not, D.r's 'God' better not reveal himself to...<p>Hi Jen</p>
<p>You wrote<br />
"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" </p>
<p>LOL<br />
Proceed away! </p>
<p>What if God is just the subconscious metaphor, the archetype for something greater than ourselves? </p>
<p>Who has no concept of anything greater than themselves? Scary. </p>Jim Sutherland commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201bb09ec332f970d2018-01-25T02:01:36Z2018-01-25T04:46:25ZJim Sutherlandhttp://eternaloasisofsouls.blogspot.comD.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...<p>D.r.,......are you Certain that your correction of my “ Enchalada” with your “ Enchilada” is the real Deal? </p>
<p><a href="http://www.waystospell.com/how-do-you-spell/encalada" rel="nofollow">http://www.waystospell.com/how-do-you-spell/encalada</a></p>
<p>Jim Sutherland</p>manjit commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b7c948e626970b2018-01-25T01:20:14Z2018-01-25T04:46:25ZmanjitI just finished listening to this podcast, others may find it interesting too. Direct link to download as there is...<p>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!:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.behindtheparanormal.com/assets/para010718.mp3" rel="nofollow">http://www.behindtheparanormal.com/assets/para010718.mp3</a></p>
<p>It's about "life after death", science, consciousness, reincarnation etc, fascinating talk, touches on many of the things in my discussion with Appreciate Reader....<br />
</p>Spencer Tepper commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b8d2d3340d970c2018-01-25T01:11:10Z2018-01-25T04:46:25ZSpencer TepperHi Jim! Yes, you may find a fundamentalist here or there, and in this case one who swears at those...<p>Hi Jim!</p>
<p>Yes, you may find a fundamentalist here or there, and in this case one who swears at those of different beliefs. </p>
<p>It's too bad really. </p>
<p>" 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</p>
<p>Flesh counts for nothing. But modern fundamentalism doesn't believe what Jesus said.</p>
<p>"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.</p>
<p> God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."<br />
John 4:23-24</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p><br />
God isn't flesh, but spirit. And to worship our Father, we do so in Spriit.</p>
<p>"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.”<br />
"Where, O death, is your victory? <br />
Where, O death, is your sting?"<br />
1 Corinthians 15:50-55</p>
<p>This is in direct contradiction to dogma. And this is what has happened to corrupt Jesus' teachings.</p>
<p>And the necessity of a living Christ in every age to help those who seek Him to find Him.</p>
<p><br />
</p>Jim Sutherland commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201bb09ec2f15970d2018-01-25T00:53:36Z2018-01-25T04:46:25ZJim Sutherlandhttp://eternaloasisofsouls.blogspot.comWith all but, Butt joking aside, .......Butt Bumping is a serious Meditative Practice!! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jlw8CxTkyxA Jim Sutherland<p>With all but, Butt joking aside, .......Butt Bumping is a serious Meditative Practice!!</p>
<p><a href="https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jlw8CxTkyxA" rel="nofollow">https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jlw8CxTkyxA</a></p>
<p>Jim Sutherland </p>Jim Sutherland commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b7c948de03970b2018-01-24T22:48:32Z2018-01-25T04:46:25ZJim Sutherlandhttp://eternaloasisofsouls.blogspot.comBlunt, isn’t all of our lives and this Forum a Joke? Nothing really that serious. We are all stuck in...<p>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. </p>
<p>Some of us choose to participate by posting our insanity here..</p>
<p>Jim Sutherland</p>Blunt commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b8d2d32acc970c2018-01-24T22:29:48Z2018-01-25T04:46:25ZBluntJim i hope you know it is a joke. Nothing negative.<p>Jim i hope you know it is a joke. Nothing negative.</p>manjit commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b8d2d3249a970c2018-01-24T21:54:49Z2018-01-25T04:46:25ZmanjitHi Appreciate Reader, Thanks for your kind comments :o) I feel a bit guilty you deleted that post...please feel free...<p>Hi Appreciate Reader,</p>
<p>Thanks for your kind comments :o)</p>
<p>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!</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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!</p>
<p>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!:</p>
<p>"Q: I read a book by a yogi on his experiences in meditation. It<br />
is full of visions and sounds, coulours and melodies; quite a<br />
display and a most gorgeous entertainment..........of what use is<br />
such a book to me?<br />
A: Of no use, probably, since it does not attract you. Others may be<br />
impressed. People differ. But all are faced with the fact of their<br />
own existence. 'I am' is the ultimate fact; 'Who am I'? is the<br />
ultimate quuestion to which everybody must find an answer.<br />
Q: The same answer?<br />
M: The same in essence, varied in expression. Each seeker accepts,<br />
or invents, a method which suits him, applies it to himself with<br />
some earnestness and effort, obtains results according to his<br />
temperamant and expectations, casts them into a mould of words,<br />
builds them into a system, establishes a tradition and begins to<br />
admit others into his 'school of Yoga'. It is all built on memory<br />
and imagination. No such schoolis valueless, nor indespensible; in<br />
each one can make progress up to the point when all desire for<br />
progress must be abandoned to make further progress possible. Then<br />
all schools are given up, all efforts cease; in solitude and<br />
darkness the last step is made which ends ignorance and fear forever.<br />
The true teacher, however, will not imprison his disciple in a<br />
prescribed set of ideas, feelings and actions; on the contrary, he<br />
will show him patiently the need to be free from all ideas and set<br />
patterns of behaviour, to be vigilant and earnest and go with life<br />
wherever it takes him, not to enjoy or suffer, but to understand and<br />
learn.<br />
Under the right teacher, the disciple learns to learn, not to<br />
remember and obey. Satsang, the company of the noble, does not<br />
mould, it liberates. Beware of all that makes you dependant. Most of<br />
the so-called 'surrenders to the Guru' end in dissapointment, if<br />
not in tragedy. Fortunately, an earnest seeker will disentangle<br />
himself in time, wiser for theexperience."<br />
page 457</p>
<p>"Q: ......We have a guru of the Radha-Soami faith....."</p>
<p>A: You have met many anchorites and ascetics, but a fully realised<br />
man conscious of his divinity (svarupa) is hard to find. Saints and<br />
Yogis, by immense effort and sacrifices, aquire many miraculous<br />
powers and can do much in the way of helping people and inspiring<br />
faith, yet it does not make them perfect. It is not a way to<br />
reality, but merely an enrichment of the false. All effort leads to<br />
more effort........</p>
<p>......</p>
<p>The persons who after much effort and penance, have fulfilled their<br />
ambitions and secured higher levels of experience, are usually<br />
acutely conscious of their standing; they grade people into<br />
hierarchies, ranging from the lowest non-acheiver to the highest<br />
acheiver. To me all are equal.........."<br />
I AM THAT, Chapter 64, Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj</p>
<p><br />
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!:</p>
<p>"You will die. You will not live forever. Nor will any man nor any thing. Nothing is immortal.</p>
<p>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?"</p>
<p>Ursula K. Le Guin</p>Jim Sutherland commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201bb09ec212c970d2018-01-24T21:44:33Z2018-01-25T04:46:25ZJim Sutherlandhttp://eternaloasisofsouls.blogspot.comTo 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,...<p>To Blunt who is an educated Harvard Grad in butholes. </p>
<p>.<a href="http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/11/08/harvard-hosts-anal-sex-workshop-entitled-what-what-in-the-butt/" rel="nofollow">http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/11/08/harvard-hosts-anal-sex-workshop-entitled-what-what-in-the-butt/</a> </p>
<p>To D.r. I really think you are an A-Hole, not a Troll. </p>
<p>Do you have any other intelligent Christian comments for me?</p>
<p>Jim Sutherland </p>Jen commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b8d2d319d6970c2018-01-24T20:57:26Z2018-01-25T04:46:25ZJenEveryone arguing about their beliefs. So strange. God, what god, which god, whose god? Its just beliefs! Set yourselves free,...<p>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. </p>
<p>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<br />
</p>D.r commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201bb09ec0e7e970d2018-01-24T19:58:19Z2018-01-25T04:46:25ZD.rJim, I am nearly totally sure you are mentally ill, But I am not 100% certain yet. Do you want...<p>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?</p>Blunt commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b8d2d30d1b970c2018-01-24T19:30:53Z2018-01-25T04:46:25ZBluntFor Jim S. who likes asses and butts. https://youtu.be/RAGcDi0DRtU<p>For Jim S. who likes asses and butts.<br />
<a href="https://youtu.be/RAGcDi0DRtU" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/RAGcDi0DRtU</a><br />
</p>Jim Sutherland commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b8d2d30c65970c2018-01-24T19:21:09Z2018-01-25T04:46:25ZJim Sutherlandhttp://eternaloasisofsouls.blogspot.comO.K., D.r. Are you an English Teacher or a Troll? Jim<p>O.K., D.r. Are you an English Teacher or a Troll? </p>
<p>Jim</p> 777 commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b7c948bd58970b2018-01-24T19:20:02Z2018-01-25T04:46:25Z 777Hi All, These so heartbreaking comments are mostly true, . . in relativity . . I like to add and...<p>Hi All,</p>
<p><br />
These so heartbreaking comments are mostly true, . . in relativity . .</p>
<p>I like to add and I felt it : The sense of everything failing,. . except for LOVE<br />
( 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 )</p>
<p>And absolutely not excluding physical love of all sorts</p>
<p>You know it when it is kind of pure</p>
<p>I m sure many here know the feel that some subjects, some persons, even art, or non art<br />
push your attention to the crown of yr head, ; other items do the other direction<br />
Like Gurinder so clearly AND LOVINGLY described by simple words: but , butt, 69, and no doubt other suggestions adapted precisely to the audience</p>
<p>It comes so precisely to Adi Granth s "Ingrained in us " - Le petit voix<br />
what Buddha said "don't inflate it, that feel"</p>
<p>and it is different in all of us</p>
<p>Therefore there is no universal good or universally bad</p>
<p>Very individual</p>
<p>Two tremendous expressions tmho are</p>
<p>Do no harm, <br />
Don't worry, be happy</p>
<p>And then bliss feels will grow for ever</p>
<p>777</p>
<p><br />
Makes me remember my base philosopy</p>
<p>God made all Souls equal with the promise b; Be happy and I give you all you want</p>
<p>Then some Souls did lose His hand ( Charan said that ) and ( me ) started stealing<br />
from other Souls - no patience untill God made the circumstances to their desire, . . .<br />
so they steal and do harm </p>
<p>Stealing a smile, an apple, a car, a wife, a planet, a galaxy ( then, not possible anymore ) A universe</p>
<p>Now, there is no punishment</p>
<p>We only have to compensate, give it back<br />
That s all<br />
And the mesons, the Higgs particles , the strings, they all adapting to create circumstances on some physical plane to LET US GIVE IT BACK<br />
( plus enjoy 50 fold what we gave )</p>
<p>Then it is ALL done as nice as possible , . . . BUT it must go effectively</p>
<p>Great example of Edgar Cayce > 2 parents asking : Why our 3 kids are all degraded > one blind, one deaf, one cripple<br />
Answer : Because in the dark ages <br />
one did the burning eyes of convicted people, the second did beat them in deafness and the third wa breaking their bones</p>
<p>But why we have this awfull experience to suffer with them</p>
<p>Answer : YOU WERE THE JUDGES</p>
<p><br />
777</p>
<p></p>
<p><br />
</p>D.r commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b7c948bc66970b2018-01-24T19:09:36Z2018-01-25T04:46:25ZD.rIt is Enchilada. Be more specific. Being general is a totally stupid mental position to have.<p>It is Enchilada.</p>
<p>Be more specific. Being general is a totally stupid mental position to have.</p>Jim Sutherland commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201bb09ec0331970d2018-01-24T17:28:49Z2018-01-25T04:46:25ZJim Sutherlandhttp://eternaloasisofsouls.blogspot.comD.r. Asks,...”It would do you better to actually inquire of me what I DO believe before throwing around assumptive accusations.”...<p>D.r. Asks,...”It would do you better to actually inquire of me what I DO believe before throwing around assumptive accusations.”</p>
<p>Me: OK, lay it on us. What DO you believe? About The entire Enchalada? </p>
<p>Jim Sutherland</p>D.r commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b8d2d301df970c2018-01-24T16:47:17Z2018-01-25T04:46:25ZD.rA.R., the way I interpret your comments is that it seems you have a problem with the word "God" and...<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>D.r commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b8d2d30106970c2018-01-24T16:39:30Z2018-01-25T04:46:25ZD.rJim, I don't know if you have trouble reading correctly (and I mean no offense by saying that) but I...<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>As to the "secular" evidence for reincarnation, there isn't that much though there are cases that strongly support it, like Shanti Devi.</p>
<p>I don't agree with you that subjective interpretations should be a good guide to a person's worldview.</p>Appreciative Reader commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201bb09ebf87f970d2018-01-24T14:45:39Z2018-01-25T04:46:25ZAppreciative ReaderYou’re right, D.r, the fact that I myself cannot will myself to believe stuff to order does not mean that...<p>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).</p>
<p>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)?</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>Jim Sutherland commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b7c948a68f970b2018-01-24T14:14:07Z2018-01-25T04:46:25ZJim Sutherlandhttp://eternaloasisofsouls.blogspot.comTo D.r.,.......Here is a New Testament Trivia to debunk, of you can? http://www.vectorpub.com/pdf/TrueAuthorship.PDF Good Luck! Jim Sutherland<p>To D.r.,.......Here is a New Testament Trivia to debunk, of you can? </p>
<p><a href="http://www.vectorpub.com/pdf/TrueAuthorship.PDF" rel="nofollow">http://www.vectorpub.com/pdf/TrueAuthorship.PDF</a></p>
<p>Good Luck!<br />
Jim Sutherland<br />
</p>Jim Sutherland commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b7c948a654970b2018-01-24T14:10:31Z2018-01-25T04:46:25ZJim Sutherlandhttp://eternaloasisofsouls.blogspot.comD.r. Writes to Jim,...”Jim, I don't find your writings about Christianity to be accurate.” Me: HaHa. I sure am in...<p>D.r. Writes to Jim,...”Jim, I don't find your writings about Christianity to be accurate.”</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>As for Gnosticsm haven been debunked in the 4th century, that identifies your Fundamentalst persuasion of so called Christianity .</p>
<p>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 .</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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.) </p>
<p></p>
<p>Jim Sutherland<br />
</p>Appreciative Reader commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201bb09ebf579970d2018-01-24T13:56:57Z2018-01-25T04:46:25ZAppreciative ReaderManjit, thank you for that beautiful response of yours. I’ve read it a few times, and in fact I’ve taken...<p>Manjit, thank you for that beautiful response of yours.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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!</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>So, no further questions from me. Thanks again for your two posts here. Excellent food for thought.</p>
<p>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.</p>D.r commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201bb09ebf575970d2018-01-24T13:56:30Z2018-01-25T04:46:26ZD.rAppreciative Reader, thanks for replying. I noted that you seemed to suggest you were brought up in a religious setting...<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>Appreciative Reader commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b7c948a179970b2018-01-24T13:06:30Z2018-01-25T04:46:26ZAppreciative ReaderHello, D.r. You asked me directly about my “background of belief”. Do please excuse me, D.r, but I’m afraid I’m...<p>Hello, D.r.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>D.r commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201bb09ebede8970d2018-01-24T12:45:18Z2018-01-25T04:46:26ZD.rJim, I don't find your writings about Christianity to be accurate. I remember asking you how you got into eastern...<p>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. </p>
<p>The gospels were not altered by the church in the 4th century. We have manuscripts of the Gospels dated to the 1st century. </p>
<p>Pre-existence, that some early church fathers believed in, has nothing to do with reincarnation.</p>
<p>I'm sure you are aware of the many criticisms of the theory of reincarnation. Or perhaps not.</p>
<p>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.</p>Spencer Tepper commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201bb09ebccef970d2018-01-24T00:08:46Z2018-01-25T04:46:26ZSpencer Tepper"Still, from a Christian perspective you have to believe that Jesus died and was resurrected. " Not really.<p>"Still, from a Christian perspective you have to believe that Jesus died and was resurrected. "</p>
<p>Not really. </p>manjit commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201bb09ebba42970d2018-01-23T19:36:21Z2018-01-23T19:36:21ZmanjitDear Appreciate Reader, Thank you for your kind comments, and I hope you have a wonderful new year too my...<p>Dear Appreciate Reader,</p>
<p>Thank you for your kind comments, and I hope you have a wonderful new year too my friend! :o)</p>
<p>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!)</p>
<p>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!</p>
<p>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?"</p>
<p>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!".</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>There are so many dimensions to answering your question that you can write for years and not cover a single percent of it</p>
<p>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!</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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?!?!!".</p>
<p>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......</p>
<p>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!</p>
<p>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?"</p>
<p><br />
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!</p>
<p>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 :)</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>3) You write: "I’m afraid your “One Consciousness” appears unable to do this! Like some ADHD-afflicted child unable to sit still, "</p>
<p>Haha :o) I can completely understand that, from certain perspectives, this makes no logical sense.</p>
<p>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!? </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.....</p>
<p>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!</p>
<p>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:</p>
<p>"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."</p>
<p>~ Nisargadatta</p>
<p>Cheers!</p>
<p>Manjit<br />
</p> 777 commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b7c9486ba1970b2018-01-23T19:19:32Z2018-01-23T19:19:32Z 777- - "Well, I do too even though God came to me." HE IS THERE ALLREADY You only have a...<p>-<br />
-</p>
<p>"Well, I do too even though God came to me."</p>
<p>HE IS THERE ALLREADY</p>
<p>You only have a trillion layers of asbestos between<br />
to avoid the heat</p>
<p>-<br />
-</p>
<p>777</p>
<p>-</p>Jim Sutherland commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b7c948621d970b2018-01-23T17:16:07Z2018-01-23T17:16:07ZJim Sutherlandhttp://eternaloasisofsouls.blogspot.comD.r., you said you have to believe that Jesus died, and was resurrected, in order to become a Christian, and...<p>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. </p>
<p>Any sane person knows that bodily ressurection is impossible, at least, Biologically. But certainly not Spiritually. </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p><a href="http://eternaloasisofsouls.blogspot.com/2014/01/final-edited-article-edited-by-my.html?spref=bl" rel="nofollow">http://eternaloasisofsouls.blogspot.com/2014/01/final-edited-article-edited-by-my.html?spref=bl</a></p>
<p>Jim Sutherland</p>D.r commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b8d2d2a159970c2018-01-23T14:42:14Z2018-01-23T14:42:14ZD.rAppreciative Reader, what background of belief do you hold then? You said you find it impossible to believe. Well, I...<p>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.</p>Appreciative Reader commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b7c9484d9f970b2018-01-23T13:23:27Z2018-01-23T13:23:27ZAppreciative ReaderTo MANJIT : I’m bumping this up again, Manjit, in hopes of drawing your attention. What you’d said in your...<p>To MANJIT :</p>
<p>I’m bumping this up again, Manjit, in hopes of drawing your attention.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>I’m hoping you’ll see this now and respond to my comment and questions posted earlier. Thanks!</p>Appreciative Reader commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b7c9484bf9970b2018-01-23T12:58:40Z2018-01-23T12:58:40ZAppreciative ReaderTo Karim : Heh, no, certainly not! It would be silly to take personally something so very trivial, so very...<p>To Karim :</p>
<p>Heh, no, certainly not! It would be silly to take personally something so very trivial, so very wholly innocuous and inconsequential!</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Thank you for the good wishes you send me, Karim!</p>
<p>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.</p>Karim W. Rahmaan commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b8d2d21264970c2018-01-22T01:19:46Z2018-01-22T21:30:31ZKarim W. RahmaanOriginally posted by SpencerTepper: to paraphrase, there is a difference between the true power oflightening, which in a single stormcan...<p>Originally posted by SpencerTepper:</p>
<p>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</p>
<p>Peace be with you.<br />
</p>Spencer Tepper commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b8d2d1ec16970c2018-01-21T15:11:02Z2018-01-22T21:30:31ZSpencer TepperHi Karim! You wrote "Is that true 'spirituality' comes from a lifelong practice of not only doing pious acts, vegetarianism,...<p>Hi Karim!</p>
<p>You wrote</p>
<p>"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."</p>
<p>All that. </p>
<p>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.'</p>
<p>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? </p>
<p>Aren't we just place holding that? Like a placeholder card at a banquet, we are keeping that space open for ourselves. </p>
<p>And occasionally get served that meal. </p>
<p>If you perceive it, then did you make that? Was it given to you? </p>
<p>Brian wrote of the joy of seeing a beatiful sunset. </p>
<p>If that happens in meditation, is it any different?</p>
<p>Spirituality is our experience, understood at a higher level. In a flash comes the great insight, the answer, the peace.</p>
<p>If spirituality is anything, it is that. </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.<br />
</p>Karim W. Rahmaan commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b7c9479b93970b2018-01-21T14:54:33Z2018-01-22T21:30:31ZKarim W. RahmaanOriginally posted by AppreciativeReader: We may not share the same religious faith and Guru (RSSBand Gurinder Singh, as I gatherfrom...<p>Originally posted by AppreciativeReader:</p>
<p>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’.</p>
<p>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)</p>
<p>As for us sharing things 'spiritual' that all depends on what you see as Spiritual.</p>
<p>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'.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Good luck in your searches!</p>Appreciative Reader commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b7c94795da970b2018-01-21T13:18:39Z2018-01-22T21:30:31ZAppreciative ReaderQuote Jim : "Jim prefers to think outside of the Box." It is when one's thinking is largely confined within...<p>Quote Jim : "Jim prefers to think outside of the Box."</p>
<p>It is when one's thinking is largely confined within box(es) that one revels in the occasional outside-the-box thought. </p>
<p>(Don't take that seriously, just kidding!)</p>
<p>If you'll permit me, Jim, here's wishing you a happy new year!</p>Appreciative Reader commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b8d2d1e29a970c2018-01-21T12:34:28Z2018-01-22T21:30:31ZAppreciative ReaderDear 777, Thank you for your words. You know, I derive a great deal of inspiration from the first-hand accounts...<p>Dear 777,</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>Appreciative Reader commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b7c94793c7970b2018-01-21T12:25:55Z2018-01-22T21:30:31ZAppreciative ReaderHello, Karim. Yes, that is what I was requesting you to do, share with me the HTML mantras that activate...<p>Hello, Karim.</p>
<p>Yes, that is what I was requesting you to do, share with me the HTML mantras that activate that particular miracle.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>If for whatever reason you do not wish to share that mantra here, that’s cool too, brother*! No issues at all!</p>
<p>Cheers to you!</p>
<p><br />
* 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?</p> 777 commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b7c94785ac970b2018-01-21T06:05:15Z2018-01-22T21:30:31Z 777Dear Appreciative Reader For an rssb satsangi it should be , just before physical death, just jump in the SoundStream...<p>Dear Appreciative Reader</p>
<p>For an rssb satsangi it should be , just before physical death, just jump in the SoundStream </p>
<p>Of course easy when you practiced with great fun many times. <br />
With fun I mean great ecstase once in a while</p>
<p>With rssb just ask for it - You don't need to be a successful meditator - I would almost say : ON THE CONTRARY :-)</p>
<p>A little bit less Ego is a pro</p>
<p>Ramana said :</p>
<p>To know God You must be absorbed in HIM </p>
<p>Can it be sweeter than sweet<br />
Thousands low IQ do it faster than the high IQ here</p>
<p>Wow lucky this is the free chapter : No Preaching I did</p>
<p>777</p>
<p><br />
</p>Karim W. Rahmaan commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b8d2d1cd07970c2018-01-21T03:09:50Z2018-01-22T21:30:32ZKarim W. RahmaanOriginally posted by Jim: Jim prefers to think outside of theBox. 😇 "No aim can be greater than the wish...<p>Originally posted by Jim:</p>
<p>Jim prefers to think outside of theBox. 😇</p>
<p>"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."<br />
-Maharaj Charan Singh</p>Jim Sutherland commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b7c947465e970b2018-01-20T10:41:25Z2018-01-21T02:47:10ZJim Sutherlandhttp://eternaloasisofsouls.blogspot.comTo Karim,...... Jim prefers to think outside of the Box. 😇<p>To Karim,......</p>
<p>Jim prefers to think outside of the Box. 😇</p>Karim W. Rahmaan commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b7c9473360970b2018-01-20T01:53:19Z2018-01-20T02:21:32ZKarim W. RahmaanOriginally posted by Appreciative Reader: how do you do that box thing there? Thanks! Just a little HTML miracle -I...<p>Originally posted by Appreciative Reader:</p>
<p>how do you do that box thing there?<br />
Thanks!</p>
<p><br />
Just a little HTML miracle -I mean magic. I have faith you can figure it out thyself.</p>Appreciative Reader commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201bb09ea43fb970d2018-01-19T12:51:20Z2018-01-20T02:21:32ZAppreciative ReaderKarim, how do you do that box thing there? Thanks!<p>Karim, how do you do that box thing there?</p>
<p>Thanks!</p>Appreciative Reader commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b7c946f778970b2018-01-19T12:49:36Z2018-01-20T02:21:32ZAppreciative ReaderDear Manjit, Hello, once again! Long time! I’m afraid I’m late to this party! So late, that it is likely...<p>Dear Manjit,</p>
<p>Hello, once again! Long time!</p>
<p>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 :</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Without in any way detracting from the beauty of that post, I have to ask :</p>
<p>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?)</p>
<p>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?</p>
<p>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.)</p>
<p>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.)</p>
<p><br />
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.</p>
<p>My best wishes,<br />
--Appreciative Reader.</p>Karim W. Rahmaan commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b8d2d14419970c2018-01-19T12:00:07Z2018-01-20T02:21:32ZKarim W. RahmaanOriginally posted by Blogger Brian: Spencer, you're welcome to yourown fantasies, but not your ownfacts. Send me some links topeer-reviewed...<p>Originally posted by Blogger Brian:</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>The grounds you left out regarding NDEs was that they have only been recorded by 'Clinical Deaths':</p>
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_death#Clinical_death_and_the_determination_of_death" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_death#Clinical_death_and_the_determination_of_death</a></p>
<p>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:</p>
<p><a href="https://hods.org/English/h-issues/documents/ADefinitionofIrreversibleComa-JAMA1968.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://hods.org/English/h-issues/documents/ADefinitionofIrreversibleComa-JAMA1968.pdf</a></p>
<p>But there have been and are peer-reviewed research studies on NDEs, one in fact found in the Princeton catalog:</p>
<p><a href="https://pulsearch.princeton.edu/catalog/10434024" rel="nofollow">https://pulsearch.princeton.edu/catalog/10434024</a></p>
<p>Another I was able to pull up at the Harvard Book Store Website -which has both brief 'Contents', and 'Look Inside' book tabs:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.harvard.com/book/near-death_experiences_understanding_visions_of_the_afterlife/" rel="nofollow">http://www.harvard.com/book/near-death_experiences_understanding_visions_of_the_afterlife/</a></p>
<p>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:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.yalescientific.org/2013/12/the-brink-of-death-a-new-perspective/" rel="nofollow">http://www.yalescientific.org/2013/12/the-brink-of-death-a-new-perspective/</a></p>moon commented on 'Open Thread 11 (free speech for comments)'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201b8d2d114e1970c2018-01-18T21:41:16Z2018-01-19T04:53:05ZmoonBrian wrote: "Whenever anesthesia is given, for example. Bingo! A drug is given and consciousness goes away. Same applies with...<p>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."</p>
<p>.....<br />
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.</p>