« Autosuggestion plays a role in mystical experiences | Main | "Enlightenment" is a meaningless concept »

July 19, 2018


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

For me, if spirituality was to be explained - then this does it. This reflection on simplicity leaves little to say.

In tea culture there is cha tao. And in cha tao there are people who become "saints" of sorts (though without any of the pretense associated with saints in formal religions) to a small number of people. These saint-like people are often given some amount of attention because they are, simply put, really chill and make tea well.

The Chinese are onto something.

This is a beautiful post, thanks. Very Dzogchen. And it is so.

In regards your comment "Recently, like today, which is pretty damn recent, I've been both entertained and bemused by a rash of comments on this blog where people have been arguing about this and that.
I enjoy those sorts of interchanges. Except when I don't.
In those latter times, I try to remind myself of how simple spirituality can be. And how it really isn't necessary to bring in that often-contentious word, spirituality. "

It is worth bearing in mind this is a blog with many comments. If we're not using concepts to communicate, then we're not communicating!

Sometimes people want to discuss concepts, sometimes they don't, these are the natural ebbs and flow of life. Intellect is useful on the meditation or "spiritual" path but only until it is exhausted, before it realises it has reached it's limit & surrenders....admits it's unknowingness.

To remove a thorn, sometimes a thorn must be used. So it is with intellect. Overwhelm the intellect with intellect until it is silenced.

It seems you have reached that space in your recent blog posts.

Lovely. :)

"I have passed 93 years of my life. I walked on this path to find God. Now, I know it was all my misapprehension (bharam). He was present with me all the time, I was mistaken.

Kabir has said: A fish thirsty in water

I find this analogy very funny.

The goal of meditation (abhyas) is to confirm the idea (belief) that God is not (and never was) separate from you. What did I gain (find) from abhyas and satsang? The realisation that this sense of separation was just an illusion.

You should still your mind rather than seeing visions internally."
Faqir Chand's Illuminations, letter to Harjit Singh.



Like when searching the keys of your Lamborghini while they are in yr hand

While not cumming because U follow a football match on TV




Brian you say: "I've been both entertained and bemused by a rash of comments on this blog where people have been arguing about this and that. I enjoy those sorts of interchanges. Except when I don't."

Now there is this post about "Teaching is impossible" and here is a quote from the author... "There was a feeling of tremendous peace and freedom, but that was all".

Made me think, hmm, I enjoyed reading the flurry of differing opinions which kept me very entertained and also learning from these very interesting and knowledgable people commenting here.

Now I am wondering about whether peace and freedom and nothingness would feel so great if we did not have the opposite happening in our lives as well. Life seems to be all about duality.

Can't help myself, have to put a quote because I don't have the literary skills you guys have...

"Without recognising duality, we are missing out on one of the most profound learning tools available. Duality teaches us that every aspect of life is created from a balanced interaction of opposite and competing forces. Yet these forces are not just opposites; they are complementary."

Great post Brian

Simpler has got to be good. Captured well Turan. The way the interaction and association is described is really cool and I remember and appreciate that some beings are especially amazing to hang out with. As Dungeness and tucson (apologies for misspelling your name the other day) recently stated we are already ‘it’. The ocean not the drop. What happens however, (quite often :-)) is that mental activity keeps us thinking we’re the latter and not the former. So why not just more often remember ourselves as the former not the latter? Easier and less confusing than clinging to a system of beliefs that tells us we are ‘separated’ and need to go ‘somewhere’? Mind you if you can practice mindfulness(is there a better term?) and always be present here and now 24/7 one is pretty much enlightened in my view - I guess this must also include having such awareness through the sleep states as well?

A friend lent me an interesting small hardback book the other day. ‘An introduction to Yoga’ by Annie Besant 1908 edition i.e. quite old! Putting aside subsequent history re the Theosophical Society, she talks of the ‘unfolding of consciousness’, a description that sits well with me. Over the years, I feel like I’ve moved in a somewhat circular fashion to now more fully appreciate how I used to view consciousness in earlier days - connected, dynamic, supportive, expansive, evolving. People talk of the long and short paths - some of us can just surrender and be ‘there’ others have to do some traversing before we can get a better grasp of the ‘what is’. Sant Mat has obviously played its part for many of us. I acknowledge this. However it’s (SM - RSSB) reliance on tales of separate souIs, spiritual hierarchies etc just doesn’t make sense anymore - to me the ‘soul’ relates to the totality of consciousness and therefore cannot be a separate entity. I agree with Fakir Chand’s view as stated the other day by Manjit (amongst all the RSSB to-ings and fro-ings) - the majority of visions/experiences are all within the mental sphere. From memory, RSSB alludes to this in the teachings - the physical/astral/causal planes are all within the realm of the mind, so to then must also be radiant forms and the like. Getting a handle on thinking and minimising identification with mind is key in my view. Simplifying our lives helps. Some form of meditation is required.

PS - Manjit - I remember discussing Giordano Bruno in a Philosophy of Science class - wasn’t he the monk who espoused the heliocentric theory some time before Galileo (and got burned at the stake?).

such awareness through the sleep states as well?



Hey Tim, brilliant & thoughtful post, thanks for sharing!

Yes, you more or less have Bruno's story there. Heliocentric theory had been theorised many hundreds of year prior by some Greek or other, and others too. However, he believed in & espoused it based on his occult learning ("Hermetic") & experiences, not some sort of "scientific" process as is suggested by some modern ideologues like Neil Tyson.

He was an interesting fellow, here's some random links about his life that I've skimmed, seem to cover much of it:



Cheers! :)


Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

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

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

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

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

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

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


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