« Three comments show absurdity of "karmic blaming" | Main | Nirvana: the moment reactivity stops »

November 17, 2018

Comments

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

Hi Appreciative:

You asked me to weigh in on the Bible's definition of soul as eternal or created.

The Bible has two terms it uses for soul. The indestructible Spirit (Pneuma) and the Psyche (Mind) and both of these are found in both testaments.

Mind has been translated as individual soul, and that is created and destructible. There is the Soma Psyche (the body of the mind) which is transformed into Spirit (Logos and Pneuma in the New Testament), indestructible.

Or raised in the Word of the Old Testament, (the Memra (the Holy Spirit)).

We are raised from one to the other. So what is that "we"?

That is the "I" that Saint Paul says was taken up to the third heaven. The "I" that has a heavenly body as well as a physical body. Leaving one, St. Paul spends time with Christ in the other. And then returns here. "They shall enter and return".

That indestructible "I" is spoken of but never defined in the Bible.

When St. Paul says the body is raised from perishible body to imperishible, the Greek does not always say flesh into Spirit.

In one of the most famous bible citations Paul says we are sown into a body of mind that is perishible (Soma Psyche) and raised into a body of Spirit (Soma Pneuma)

"It is sown a natural body (body of mind...soma Psyche) and raised a spiritual body (soma Pneuma)"
1 Corinthians 15:44

And Paul goes on to write that we have both of these. They both exist.


Note this specific point:
""It is sown a natural body (body of mind...soma Psyche) and raised a spiritual body (soma Pneuma)"
1 Corinthians 15:44

What is that one thing that is common to both...the seed that is sown?
We are sown into a body of mind, and that into a body of flesh.

We are raised into a body of spirit.

But what is that "we" that exists in all three?

That is indestructible, from God, and never fully defined in the Bible.

It was always there...it will always be, but it is clothed in different robes. one of flesh, another layer of mind, and one of spirit.

Trolls can throw Poop Balls and hide behind their pseudo Avatars thinking they have a free Licence to do so.

I don’t mind getting critiqued or insulted, or called all of the names I have received here, but don’t expect me to engage Trolls, unless I have their Name, or at the very least, know they are even Satsangis or Ex Satsangis.

Other wise, don’t waste your time on me.

Jessie was one of the most aggressive Trolls ( not to me), but we knew who he was . He never hid, and haven paid his Dues as an Initiated Satsangi, plus being married to an Indian Wife surely allowed his comments to be considered on a forum of Exsatsagus and Atheists.

Jim

@ Spencer - i agree with what you say above , however Brian must stamp out racism on here. I won’t say anything more on this matter!

Hi Arjuna

I've been telling myself not to comment anymore on this blog but what you have just said "Brian must stamp out racism on here" has triggered me once again! And then I think oh what the hell, I'm getting old now and probably not far from total senility or even death, so here goes...

Your comment is highly provocative and then you say that you won't say anything more on this matter... so you just felt like dropping a shite bomb stirring things up a bit about a very sensitive issue ?!

Please give some examples of what people have said on this blog that you call "racism".

Jen asked Arjuna,.....Please give some examples of what people have said on this blog that you call "racism".

Me: Jessie was the most Racist Poster, especially against our Indian Brothrts and Sisters.

Vinny is Brutal.

We need to call a Spade s Spade.

But truthfully, we are ALL Racists, we are just bias to our own.

Hi Jim,

I started out not liking Jesse and then after awhile got to know and understand him. It always takes some time and communication with another to see who and what they really are. He was a straight talker and spoke his truth which is good in my opinion.

People who haven't been targeted as being racist don't realise how difficult it is. Its almost like sometimes I think well I might as bloody well be a racist if I am going to be accused of such just because of the country I was born in.

You guys have no idea what its like to be judged as a racist simply because I have a white skin and was born in South Africa. When I first came in contact with New Zealanders and Australians I was stunned when I was confronted with "if I knew were a South African I would not have spoken to you", even "I hate South Africans" to my face.

Judging someone by the country they were born in is a good example of racism. Its a fucked up world and I'm so over it.

Vinny:

I actually took the time to look back at what our Church brothers and sisters were referring to in your comments. And I must admit I didn't read these until now.

You wrote:

"Why this monkey osho robbins has become dumb now??? Is he doing a google search again??? He is behaving like a typical Hindu /Moslem /Sikh bastards do. Jump like monkeys after reading the leftovers knowledge of Christian Innovators. He hasn't done anything to prove he is different from the breed of ..."

"Now look at the idiotic behavior of this man, he does some google search and starts jumping like monkey after getting half baked answers. He should again watch the video Hindus,Moslems and Sikhs are all bastards" and weep after that."

..

I've counted approximately a dozen such comments.

The point you were trying to make about energy, I supported. But you lost it all in this vitriol.

So that is very sad. Because bigotry is a huge turn off.

OK, I admit it, the first time I saw you write this I laughed. It was so ridiculous. Just like Donald Trump. I thought you were going the the extreme without actually believing it yourself. Just to get a reaction.

But when he became President, I was shocked and am still in grief.

So, the first time, I get it, you were being sarcastic, and we could forgive your racism.

But after the tenth time it gets old and actually hateful. When you repeat these hateful comments that is purposefully being unkind to Osho, and not particularly nice to the rest of the world either.

What you wrote won't bring the world together.

Adolph Hitler tried the same tactic: A few words that had some merit buried in hate. Well, hate buried the world.

So in the future, instead of copying and pasting the vitriol over and over, just please leave it out.

And to my Church colleagues, I will point out that Vinny's first comment had no vitriol at all. But apparently this sort of language got your attention.

So if you attend to it, you reinforce it. Take a look at the sequence of Vinny's comments for yourself. The more you attended to Vinny's racist remarks, the more racist they became.

There's a lesson there. One that Mr. Trump apparently has learned.

Let's teach Vinny another lesson, by agreeing never to reactively comment on his comments when they include personal attacks.

Do we need Brian to do this? Or can each of us exercise a modicum of self control?

Vinny, you will be speaking to air in the future, dismissed as irrelevant, if you continue in this way.

If you are trying to provide a mature comment, then please act like a fucking adult!



Quote Jim:
“@Appreciative Reader,.... (…) acting like a little Puppie Dog humping their legs and getting all excited that you pee on their pant legs (…) Hope you aren’t offended! ”


Not in the least, Jim. Your comment had me ROFLing away in mirth, as I pictured you earnestly sitting at your computer or your phone, typing this out. It was truly entertaining, reading that would-be repartee of yours.

There are those who spend their life seeking the elixir of youth, either literally or figuratively. You know better. Instead of youth, what you do is make the best of your God-given talents, and aim for infantilism instead.

Instead of ranting against an unheeding providence for having made you stupid, you’ve embraced your stupidity. You’ve been cursed with the intellect of a ten-year-old, but instead of moaning about it and letting it make you feel inadequate, you own it, and lustily celebrate it. I admire that.

I remember the last time I’d clearly shown up your idiocy here, with clear cogent argument, what you’d done is to respond to my arguments by calling me “cat’s poop”. This time it is, let’s see, “ Puppie Dog humping their legs and getting all excited that you pee on their pant legs”.

That’s the spirit, Jim! Many is the time people will have called you stupid, because stupid is what you are. And many is the time, going forward, that they’ll call you a fool and an imbecile, because a fool and an imbecile is what you are. Never ever let them get you down. So you’re stupid, so what? Show the same spirit that you do here, and stand up straight like a man, straighten your spine, and look them in the eye, and then go ahead and thumb your nose at them, and cross your eyes, and screw up your face into funny grimaces at them.

Yeah, that’ll show ’em! That’ll learn ’em to mess with Jim!


“ (…) B.Min., M Min., Th.D.”


That's simply hilarious, how you earnestly parade your string of Mickey Mouse “degrees”.

In the course of your illustrious academic career, did they never teach you how to spell ‘puppy’, or teach you when to use capital letters and when not?

I love how you’ve taken your “Puppie Dog” comment to a whole meta level, even if unintentionally. These amazing would-be insults, I simply love how you couch them in not only the mentality and the vocabulary of a ten-year-old, but actually the spelling of a ten-year-old, as well as the kind of capitalization that a ten-year-old might employ, provided they were slow for their age.

God bless you, Jim, you of the illustrious “degrees”.

Oh yes, you even have a “Th.D”, don’t you? Do you call yourself “Dr. Jim”, then? Do people laugh at you when you do that?

I have taken the time in the past to clearly and cogently respond to you. I’d best not do that with this particular comment of yours, right? Instead, allow me to match wavelengths with you, and, in addition to these delightful pleasantries already exchanged, let me thumb my nose right back at you, and stick my tongue out at you, and say to you: “Yaaah, you’re stupid, Jimmy, and you’re ugly! And you speak funny too! And what’s more, your Mommy picked you up from the garbage can when you were little, and that’s why you stink so! Nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah! ”



Quote Jim:
“Jessie was the most Racist Poster, especially against our Indian Brothrts and Sisters. ---- Vinny is Brutal. ---- We need to call a Spade s Spade.”


Thank you for that clear and unequivocal admission. Thank you for, as you say, calling a spade a spade.


But that isn’t quite the full story, is it?

You have yourself clearly denigrated Osho Robbins -- not contested his views and arguments, but actually thrown unprovoked insults at his person based on information about his personal life, that you’d managed to get your paws on.

In fact, this kind of personalization is a recurring habit of yours. You do the same right here, in your previous comment addressed to me, and I've seen you do this plenty of times before this. Your earlier personal insults against Osho Robbins, that I referred to, were merely an egregious example of a clear pattern of behavior.

All of this is clearly documented here, and I have clearly produced this evidence in my comments about this at that time.

Your present admission and acknowledgement of another’s personalization and racism does not absolve you of that past guilt. Especially when your admission and acknowledgement is very clearly more of the weather-vane variety, than an unalloyed act of conscience.


You know what this weather vane is, that I refer to here, don’t you, in this context, I mean? Let me explain:

A weather vane is an entity that notes that Jesse has made distinctly racist comments, but does not speak out in protest. This entity, it subsequently sees Appreciative Reader protest Jesse’s racism, but no, it doesn’t speak out in support, why on earth should it? Then, some months later, the weather vane notes that Vinny is posting a series of unmistakably racist comments, but no, it still does not speak out in protest. After that, this entity, this weather vane, sees Appreciative Reader speak out again, this time against this racism of Vinny’s, but again it keeps mum, our weather vane.

Finally, it sees other members on this board gradually start taking note of this blatant racism. It sees Arjuna chime in clearly against racism, not once but twice. Then it sees Spence, hitherto unresponsive and even defensive, now starting to be swayed by Appreciative Reader’s arguments. That’s two people already who are starting to side with Appreciative Reader’s POV, and three people in all who are now taking a stand against racism. Now our protagonist, this weather vane, sees these changes starting to happen right in front of its eyes: it notes that the weather has started changing, because that is what a weather vane does, it takes note of the changing weather.

At this point, the weather vane realizes that this may be an opportune moment to free its poor little conscience, muzzled up all this while, and to set it loose to do its job. The weather vane decides that now might be a great time to try to position as some kind of apparently proactive ethical stance what is, in fact, no more than some wholly opportunistic virtue-signaling. And so, at that point, this entity, this weather vane, sits up straight and, in ringing tones, announces that a spade must be called a spade; and finally, at long last, it ends up speaking up in against the racism of Jesse and of Vinny.

And that’s the weather vane for you! Nice, no?

Oh yes, Jim, it is transparently clear exactly how it ticks, what passes for a mind with you.


Nevertheless, and for all that, I do appreciate your having made this unequivocal admission and acknowledgement, and thrown in your weight -- such as it is -- behind my own comments and my own views about this unprovoked personalization and racism here on this blog, as expressed in the comments of both Jesse and Vinny. Thank you: better late, and with mixed motives, than never.



Quote Spence:
“Hi Appreciative: ---- You asked me to weigh in on the Bible's definition of soul as eternal or created. (...)”


Spence, thanks for those three comments of yours.

But actually what I’d requested you to weigh in on there was specifically the Jewish idea of the soul, as opposed to the Christian one.

My impression is that it is Christianity that brought into focus all of this emphasis around what happens to the soul after death, and in the herefter. Jewish tradition, as far as I am aware, does not make much of a song and dance about this: I think it simply takes for granted that one is to obey the Yahweh-God’s wishes and orders, without clearly spelling out why one is to do that (other than some nebulous promises about a passingly happy life here on earth). On the other hand, I suppose it does promise all kinds of misery if God isn’t obeyed, so well, I suppose that would be motivation enough, not to get on God’s wrong side. But anyway, all of that, the nebulous carrot and the more ominously threatening stick, is to do firmly with the here and now, not the hereafter, and is not really dependent on the concept of some “soul”.

What does Judaic tradition actually say about the hereafter? I’m afraid I’m yet to read any of the actual holy books of Judaism (except, obviously, bits and pieces of the Old Testament). As such I speak from ignorance, and my views on this are no more than vague impressions that may be wrong.

I understand that Judaism also has a distinct mystic tradition that is somewhat at odds with mainstream Judaism -- much like Sufism and mainstream Islam, or, for that matter, in earlier times, Gnosticism and mystical Christian traditions vis-a-vis what ended up becoming mainstream Catholic Christian doctrine. At least that is my somewhat vague impression.

Given your Jewish heritage, that you’ve spoken of here, and given your general interest in things spiritual/religious, I was wondering if you might know this: whether you might know what, per Jewish beliefs, happens to the soul after one passes on; what happens to it one is obedient to God, and what if not; when God created this soul, and whether the soul exists till the end of eternity. That sort of thing. The Judaic version (as actually taught and believed), not the Christian one.

Dear Osho Robbins,

I notice you haven't responded to my comment addressed to you, posted yesterday.

One can hardly blame you for exiting this noxious environment, given these blatant personalizations and name-calling, but I hope my own comment did not contribute towards your exiting this discussion?

I did express clear disagreement with your line of argument, but that was because I simply could not fathom why you weren't able to see what was so clear to me. And while I referred to some specific arguments you'd forwarded against another poster, this applies to many other things you've said here as well. Hence my question/objection.

It could be that the error is mine, and that I'm the one missing something. Perhaps it might be that you were speaking from some specific RSSB perspective that I'm missing.

Anyhoo: I know from experience that you're not one to be fazed by objections and arguments, not even when those go against you.

As such, any response you may wish to make to the specific objections I'd expressed, I'd be happy to read.

My best wishes to you!


This is the comment of mine that I was referring to, in case you've simply missed it in this whole flurry of comments :
https://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2018/11/the-absurdity-of-believing-there-is-sach-khand-heaven.html?cid=6a00d83451c0aa69e2022ad3a35c1f200d#comment-6a00d83451c0aa69e2022ad3a35c1f200d

Hi Appreciative
The Jewish tradition actually mirrors the Christian one. There is a spiritual tradition underneath the legal and cultural overlay.

While St John and Jesus talk of the Logos, the Greek word for the divine Word, which at that time had mystical connotations for holy spirit, in the Jewish tradition is the divine Name of God, or the Word the Lord uttered that created this creation. The Lord breathed the breath of life into Adam (which just means Man /Woman in ancient Hebrew) Listening to that Name brings spiritual bliss:

"O magnify the Lord with me, and let us exalt his name together."
PS 34:3


Blessed is the people that know the joyful sound: they shall walk, O Lord, in the light of thy countenance.
In thy name shall they rejoice all the day: and in thy righteousness shall they be exalted."
PS 89:15

Also in the old testament beliefs about life after death range from atheism (Job and to some degree Ecclesiastes) all the way to the mystic experience of being brought home to the heavenly regions to marry God (the Song of Songs).

Job and Ecclesiastes actually contain some of the finest and most beautiful arguments for Atheism in recorded literature.

Hi Appreciative

You might find it interesting to know that Philo, the Greek Jewish Rabbi who lived around the time of Christ (but did not know him) also taught at length about the divine Logos that takes the form of a human being to stand as the intermediary and guide between humanity and God.

@ Jen - hello.

I think Jim reads me better than anyone on here - he summed up exactly what and who I meant to have made racist remarks.

I merely commented that Vinny made remarks that Brian should have censured - that is all.

@ Jim - thank you. I genuinely like you. You make sense on here and have wrote things which have made me think

@ Arjuna,

Originally you said: "@ Spencer - i agree with what you say above , however Brian must stamp out racism on here. I won’t say anything more on this matter!"
.....
Jim replied: "Jen asked Arjuna,.....Please give some examples of what people have said on this blog that you call "racism".

Jim continues: Me: Jessie was the most Racist Poster, especially against our Indian Brothrts and Sisters.

Vinny is Brutal.

We need to call a Spade s Spade.

But truthfully, we are ALL Racists, we are just bias to our own."
.....

You now say in your latest post: "I merely commented that Vinny made remarks that Brian should have censured - that is all."

If you feel the need to call out racism on this blog it would have been better to be more honest and direct, like Jim says "call a spade a spade", and mentioned Vinny's name in the first post and then leave it up to Brian.

Hi Appreciative:

You asked about the hereafter in the OT.

"What does Judaic tradition actually say about the hereafter?"

Here are some citations referring to both everlasting life and the kingdom of heaven, as witnessed by the Saints.

"10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
11 Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore."
PS 16:10-11


"23 Nevertheless I am continually with thee: thou hast holden me by my right hand.
24 Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel, and afterward receive me to glory.
25 Whom have I in heaven but thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee.
26 My flesh and my heart faileth: but God is the strength of my heart, and my portion for ever."
PS 73: 23-26


"15 As for man, his days are as grass: as a flower of the field, so he flourisheth.
16 For the wind passeth over it, and it is gone; and the place thereof shall know it no more.
17 But the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children's children;
18 To such as keep his covenant, and to those that remember his commandments to do them."
PS 103: 11-18

"7 The Lord shall preserve thee from all evil: he shall preserve thy soul.
8 The Lord shall preserve thy going out and thy coming in from this time forth, and even for evermore."
PS 121:7-8


"10 All thy works shall praise thee, O Lord; and thy saints shall bless thee.
11 They shall speak of the glory of thy kingdom, and talk of thy power;
12 To make known to the sons of men his mighty acts, and the glorious majesty of his kingdom.
13 Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and thy dominion endureth throughout all generations.
14 The Lord upholdeth all that fall, and raiseth up all those that be bowed down.
15 The eyes of all wait upon thee; and thou givest them their meat in due season.
16 Thou openest thine hand, and satisfiest the desire of every living thing.
17 The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works.
18 The Lord is nigh unto all them that call upon him, to all that call upon him in truth.
19 He will fulfil the desire of them that fear him: he also will hear their cry, and will save them.
20 The Lord preserveth all them that love him: but all the wicked will he destroy.
21 My mouth shall speak the praise of the Lord: and let all flesh bless his holy name for ever and ever.
Psalm 145:10-21

@ Jen - when I wrote my posts I was tied very- I am still recovering from my adventures so yes I should have been more clear!

Now that I am clear let me be direct ! Yes Brian has allowed some idiots (and there are millions of such souls) to express their “racist” viewpoints via making mind based or so called scientific points and Brian shouldn’t have that. He even accused me of bullshit in one post or bullshit being called out etc. But said not a word about the people who made unsavoury remarks!

If atheism means lack of love and compassion to all regardless of race and creed - then I leave such souls to their own energy points to punish them! And no astheist beliefs don’t make you more in tune with nature and the universe - that’s bullshit - love does!

Say no more - be polite and nice - doesn’t cost anything. Some of us believe in God !!! End off!! And not in some Dead Poets type of intellectual clap trap as to what may exist or may not exist!!

Much respect as always

Vijay

@ Jen that was my middle name Vijay “it means victory” even though I have not won anything ha .

I just want people to love each other that’s all. And I meant no offence to you or Brian. Just stressed my view that people should be nice to each - there is anough grief in this world.


Take care

Hi Arjuna

You wrote
"If atheism means lack of love and compassion to all regardless of race and creed - then I leave such souls to their own energy points to punish them!"

LOL! OMG that is clever and hilarious!

@ Spencer - is not God love?

Anything which denies God cannot be an embodiment of Love but a mere a fake shadow - what say you?

Hi Arjuna
Yes, God is love. That is all God is. But so much love, so totally love, that it can take some time for these dried out sponge minds of ours to be brought back to life.

Hello Spencer - beautiful that was 😀

Well, all I see here on this blog is the opposite of "love", just people spewing about the "lack of love". Its a crazy world guys and no-one is ever going to change it from hating to love.

Its the way its been designed, different races of people fighting with each other, animals eating animals, people eating animals, life living off life, nature is cruel, so get it together and stop preaching about "love". It ain't going to happen.

This "God" stuff is just a belief people cling to. This God that people speak of seems more like a "Devil" to me, its Kal (the negative power) who created this mad and crazy place, get over it peeps.

I always seem to manage to stop the comments on a thread, like people are gobsmacked into silence because of that Jen person ranting away again!

Although I don't see myself as a satsangi any more, for over 50 years now, I have been a strict vegetarian and teetotaller and don't take mind altering drugs and live such a moral life I might even be almost perfect lol. I live this way because I wan't to escape this nasty world and not have to reincarnate here again. Even though there are doubts in an afterlife there is always hope that my spirit will continue to evolve in other life forms in other dimensions, if they exist. So, I guess, we all have our beliefs and live in hope for something better.

Hi Jen
It's good for your memory of you don't smoke pot (unless you have pain, nausea or seizure disorders, then you should consider it)
www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/young-peoples-memory-imp

And Arjuna, also one of the most effective methods in treating PTSD is meditation for some people.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-ptsd/meditation-may-help-ease-veterans-ptsd-symptoms-idUSKCN1NW2GB

It's all a path and we are each traveling where we need to be.

Hi Spence,

OMG or probably in my case, OMnotG, I'm experiencing an awakening moment. As always been trying to figure myself out and thinking that maybe I am an existentialist, just been reading about the philosophy of Existentialism and found a youtube about "Being and Nothingness". Its only taken me 73 years to find something that makes sense and works for me!

Introduction to the existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, with an emphasis on Being & Nothingness

Sartre in Ten Minutes (9:59)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ba3kvofvyg


Thanks Spence, I do appreciate your friendliness and kindness :)

Jen,
In that video Sartre surprisingly often (not always) sounds very Buddhistic.. not the kind that is religious with karma, reincarnation and all that, but zen-like without the robes, koans, incense, rice, shaved heads and sutras.

Existence.. just this, now. That's it. The rest is abstraction and interpretation.

I like a zen cartoon book called "The Upside Down Circle" by Zen Master Gilbert


@Jim
You say that souls were created but they don’t perish. That means they had a beginning but not an end.
That is not possible.
What has a beginning MUST have an end.
That which has NO END also CANNOT have a beginning and we call it “Eternal”
Either something is part of MAYA (has a beginning and an end)
Or it is part of the ONENESS, in which case it is timeless and has no beginning and no end.
It cannot be both.
Our universe will end one day, and it also had a beginning.
Our body will end one day and it had a beginning.
God will not end and he had no beginning.
So god is called eternal.
The soul being of the same essence of god, must therefore also be eternal.

The attributes of an ETERNAL thing are:
No beginning, no end. Timeless. Doesn’t change. No movement.
No ‘thinking’; no mind; no good/bad notions etc (as these are mind related)
@AR
Here is the basis of my statements about eternity / end / endless etc
And why that which has a beginning MUST have an end, and also why
That which has no end also has no beginning. .
My main classifications are:
(1) Everything WITHIN time and space
(2) Everything OUTSIDE of time and space
So, (1) refers to everything that exists in the world. It is objective and can be examined.
(2) Is non-objective. It is conceptual. It is abstract. We understand it only through abstraction. You cannot study it because it cannot be seen or experienced. It is not “real” by our standards in the objective world. But it is also not taken on faith. It is in a different category. It is an abstraction.

Everything in category (1) has FORM, a beginning and an end.
It has a beginning and an end.
It Changes. Can you point to anything that has a beginning but no end? No
Can you point to anything that has no beginning and has an end? Again no.
Everything, no exceptions, has a beginning and an end.

Everything in the second category is an abstraction. It is the oneness.
No time, no space. Because it is beyond time and space, it makes no sense to talk about a beginning or an end. Neither exists. It makes no sense to talk about a form, or individuality, or things, or beings etc. It makes no sense to talk about past , present or future.

This is the reason why the idea of a Sach Khand is absurd.
The only real Sach Khand has to have the attributes I listed above for in category 2.
The idea of ‘recognizing’ is impossible for many reasons:
There is no mind, there cannot be anyone to recognize. ‘Recognize’ only happens in duality not in oneness

Hi tucson,

You say: "Sartre surprisingly often (not always) sounds very Buddhistic".

Yes, thats exactly what I thought as well and like you say without the religious type conditioning.

He talks about: Human existence is about being in a fundamentally free and responsible predicament. Also, when we run away from freedom because of the belief that we are not free to choose. Instead of freedom and responsibility we make excuses.

Exact opposite of religious beliefs including Sant Mat which keep us restricted.

Hi Osho:

You wrote:

"No time, no space. Because it is beyond time and space, it makes no sense to talk about a beginning or an end. Neither exists. It makes no sense to talk about a form, or individuality, or things, or beings etc. It makes no sense to talk about past , present or future."

Beyond time and space may not be "no time, no space" could be the complete whole of all of it.
And there may be several layers or regions of that. Your sense that the two are independent of one another entirely is false. Brian makes the same mistake all the time, so you are in good company.

Every triangle built in this world has its pattern in an abstract world, the world of concept.

No equilateral triangles actually exist here. Only in that abstract world. But to understand it, we make models here. And those models do take up space and exist in time. The conceptual ones don't actually exist in this space or this time as we know it, but there are laws that exist there in that world, and equilateral triangles take up dimensional space there and their consideration may take up time as well. However, in that space infinite things can exist in a single space, and the size can grow to infinity or shrink to infinitesimally small parameters; and the entire space, including this creation, all our past and future, can be seen in a single point that shrinks to non-existence of time, or where a single tiny moment can be held eternally present.

And understanding that, just like the lows of mathematics, we use that abstract world to understand a flawed version in this one. Most of the artificial creations of this world start there. And who can say if the natural creations in this world also don't have their model their? Fractals are such an example.

Einstein flew upon a beam of light, in that conceptual world as a youth, to understand how light functions in this one. He could move as if he had no matter, at the speed of light, and view things around him, and discover the detailed operations of light from that place. He could stop a moment of time as long as he wished to consider what was going on where.

The conceptual world is eternal. Triangles will always be there.

This world is ephemeral. Triangles are being built and are wearing out and being destroyed here all the time (though they are not true triangles). Many of the triangles in nature actually are more perfect approximations of the ones humans have made, but in our greatest efforts we have occasionally exceeded that mark.

The two are intimately connected. Within every beam of light in this world is the reflection of what Einstein rode upon in that other conceptual world. All mathematics was created spending time there studying that place. Mathematics itself is a model of a perfect ideal that IS that place, and which we use to describe the imperfect functioning of this place.

Now consider worlds so abstract we are not normally aware of them, but through meditation we can become aware of them. Those worlds are eternal. They function strictly upon laws, and our ability to focus on those, know those inside and out, are what opens the doors to those worlds.

Imagination was a gateway drug for Einstein as a youth, into that conceptual realm. And he discovered truths there first, then expressed them mathematically. His mathematics described THAT perfect abstract world, but applies also to this flawed one.

And we can go there also.
So, what is eternal can birth a reflected version in this world that is temporary.

The conceptual world has all of time and space, as much or as little as we wish, and time can move in any number of ways. But if we wish to do as Einstein did, we intimately respect the laws we know that can also work in that place, in order to then discover the actual laws we do not understand that also effect this world. So there is imagination and mental focus as a gateway to a place that runs more perfectly upon fixed laws than this place.

Finally, let me point to the basic foundational teaching of Sant Mat on this subject, which Sawan Singh wrote about so often: Self realization before God realization.

No one can understand higher regions even at the conceptual level, until they have made some progress within, and that requires a perfect self-examination, self-contemplation from the objectivity of a fully awake and detached view. Meditation is the means to develop that view.

When you understand who and what you really are by direct experience, what is really within you, then you have the foundation to see what else is beyond you.

And then you will find going within yourself, into that tiny self, in that tiny brain of ours, that actually this world is just a fragment within that much larger place, both in time and space.

Time and space here are just imperfect expressions of a complete whole there. A complete whole that is both eternal and outside time. Time itself, as Saint Paul eloquently wrote, was made for us, for this place.

Even here time doesn't actually exist, if you understand it correctly. We are living through a sequence of fixed moments and falsly perceive it is in motion.

Our movement creates the illusion of time.

As I wrote earlier, while you are on the train moving on a single dimension of time (a sub-atomic string of your singular point of attention...that's all consciousness is..one tiny tiny point) the world outside your sensory window appears moving. But when the train comes to a rest stop the world appears to have stopped. And stepping off the train the entire diorama appears fixed and in place. Movement was always just an illusion. Or more precisely, your movement though thousands of thousands of points of fixed reality in every tiny moment.

Finally, Osho, let me comment on the good news of our escape!

When you realize you are just a single infinitesimally small one-dimensional point of attention, that this is all the consciousness you are or will ever be here, and that you are moving through experiences, then you will discover that you aren't actually attached to any of it. In that moment you will start the path of spreading apart those millions of versions of reality you are moving through and find that pure energy that fuels them all. You are going to see the light of the projector in the instant your eyes are off that screen. For that, heightened attention is necessary. Meditation practice can give you that.

Then there are other surprises. You create the next moment. When your mind is on a path, that determines which of the millions of realities you move through. The train is moving in one direction, but should that direction change even the slightest, the entire train track rebuilds itself instantly and you are moving with equal speed down an entirely different track into a different life, and every second is taking you through millions of different realities again, than the set you were moving through before.

You go where your attention goes, and you are the driver, once you realize this. Once you can view it from a separate position. And that happens when you wake up and realize that actually you are much more than that one point of attention. You are watching yourself from a different point, as if you were two people. And in an instant you see that actually you are an infinite number of "Osho's" moving through thousands of different, similar versions of Osho moment by moment.

But being that one point while you are here, in this dimension, actually means you aren't attached to anything. "You" aren't Osho. You are wearing Osho. You get there by attachment to Shabd, and Shabd practice.

@ Jen - seen some crazy things in this world - all I can do is try and become love.

@ Spencer - thank you

@Arjuna
Anything which denies God cannot be an embodiment of Love but a mere a fake shadow - what say you?

They can
because they are not serious in denial

777


777, your theory is demolished by this indisputable fact. I know many atheists, and I also know many believers in God. Both groups are composed of loving people, by and large.

Some of the most compassionate, loving, caring, and charitable people I know are ardent atheists who love deeply. For example, one couple in their 80s, one of whom has significant health problems, spend countless hours helping homeless people in my town, Salem, Oregon.

So you are completely wrong when you and Arjuna claim that atheists can't be loving people, or that atheists are not serious in their denial. You two are living on a planet that doesn't exist, because here on Earth, both atheists and believers in God are loving people.

@Spence
I wrote
"No time, no space. Because it is beyond time and space, it makes no sense to talk about a beginning or an end. Neither exists. It makes no sense to talk about a form, or individuality, or things, or beings etc. It makes no sense to talk about past , present or future."

you wrote:
Beyond time and space may not be "no time, no space" could be the complete whole of all of it.
And there may be several layers or regions of that. Your sense that the two are independent of one another entirely is false. Brian makes the same mistake all the time, so you are in good company.

my reply:
Your whole theory makes no sense, and is full of dogma and beliefs about shabd, regions and meditation.

On what basis do you assert that my assertion about them being independent is false?


Hi Osho
My only basis is experience.

When the flashes of light change into flurries, then lightening bolts attendant with sound, and then all time stops Amidst such a lightening bolt just long enough for you (your attention, whatever you want to call it) to pass between stationary moments, then that's not theory. To see the light between distinct moments of time, and as it becomes more constant, as the duration of binding light lengthens, and the moments of time slow down, these are experiences, not theory. Then you see that these discrete moments of time are all static. It's only when you attend to them with focus that the movie starts up again and the flood of light moves into the background.

This is why I advocate practice. Then you and I can share and compare experiences under different circumstances,different choices of focus, etc...

Hi Brian
You wrote
"777, your theory is demolished by this indisputable fact. I know many atheists, and I also know many believers in God. Both groups are composed of loving people, by and large."

Brian you need to read what 777 wrote more carefully please. He was not agreeing with Arjuna. He was gently disagreeing

Here is the exchange again

" @Arjuna
Anything which denies God cannot be an embodiment of Love but a mere a fake shadow - what say you?

They can
because they are not serious in denial

777"

They CAN embody love because they are not seriously in denial. They judge going on the basis of their experience. That'not denial. So yes the(Atheists) CAN be an embodiment of love.

This is what 777 was writing.

@ Spencer - In way there is no such thing as an asthiest! As they have a soul - which is an embodiment of God who is Love.

Therefore an asthiest can show Love by default - even though their mind via the huge humongous karma or sin - deny them that acknowledgement! Ego - Brian proved that by stating that 777 and I are from a different planet! Brian’s planet must be further than mine than lol. Sorry couldn’t resist

This post is getting wicked and cool.

@ Spencer - think I will practice as I want to see this with my souls own eye (or whatever facility I have to see).

Fascinating - this post may have tipped me into practicing more 😀

Thank you

Spence, I heartily disagree. You're misreading the comment to defend 777's and Arjuna's insult to atheists. You quoted the interchange, but you didn't correctly describe it. Arjuna said "Anything which denies God cannot be an emodiment of love." So someone who denies God, an atheist, cannot be an embodiment of love -- which is totally wrong.

777 then claimed that those who deny God aren't serious in their denial. So he added to the insult by saying that atheists really believe in God, not being serous about their denial. Which is also totally wrong.

" @Arjuna
Anything which denies God cannot be an embodiment of Love but a mere a fake shadow - what say you?

They can
because they are not serious in denial

777"

@ Brain - how have I insulted asthiests! Bit strong don’t you think??? I display nothing but kindness to people who meet me!

And stop picking on 777 all the time!!!

Get over yourself man!!!

Have a good day


777 then claimed that those who deny God aren't serious in their denial. So he added to the insult by saying that atheists really believe in God, not being serous about their denial. Which is also totally wrong.

Hi Brian,

I thought there was a sub-genre (hard?, soft?... nuance escapes
me) of atheism which doesn't deny God, just declares there's no
evidence to support a deity and so remains at least somewhat
agnostic about it.

That flavor at least would coincide with 777's "not being serious
about their denial", wouldn't it... and insult-free?

Quote Spence:
“Hi Appreciative ---- The Jewish tradition actually mirrors the Christian one (…) ”


Spence, thanks very much for those further four posts of yours!

Like I’d said to you earlier, I wasn’t really aware of the spiritual traditions within Judaism. It appears from your comments that that tradition is rich in theological/philosophical speculation and discussions, including, I was surprised to see, even an atheistic tradition. That’s very interesting!

Two observations, if I may:

  1. First, I see that you’ve concentrated here on the Old Testament. Would you be aware of the contents of other mystical works down the ages, other than the Bible (OT) itself, works whose focus is on mysticism, but which are nevertheless firmly part of the Judaic tradition? I know there are these traditions, and whole schools of books and treatises, but I’ve never read them myself, nor even reviews on them, not yet.

  2. And second: You show in your citations how the “Name” or “Word” is very close in meaning and application to the RSSB “Shabd”. But no doubt this is only your personal interpretation, that is, not an interpretation that people, observant Jews and rabbis and scholars, actually believe? Or would you say this is generally accepted/believed?

    (You do mention Philo. That might be worth checking up a bit myself. Thanks for bringing up that reference point!)



Quote Jen:
“People who haven't been targeted as being racist don't realise how difficult it is. Its almost like sometimes I think well I might as bloody well be a racist if I am going to be accused of such just because of the country I was born in.

You guys have no idea what its like to be judged as a racist simply because I have a white skin and was born in South Africa. When I first came in contact with New Zealanders and Australians I was stunned when I was confronted with "if I knew were a South African I would not have spoken to you", even "I hate South Africans" to my face.

Judging someone by the country they were born in is a good example of racism”


Dear Jen,

Will you permit me to clear up some misconceptions and misunderstandings here?

No one is accusing you of racism, Jen, not even remotely so. To my knowledge no one ever has, here on this blog. Certainly never ever me.

I have always found your comments gentle and kind and courteous and considerate, and often very informative too, with interesting links to actual research. I’m sure most other regulars here would concur.


You’re right, no one can understand the plight you describe, of being falsely accused of racism, who hasn’t themselves experienced this. Nevertheless, we can at least appreciate that this has distressed you, and further we can and do appreciate the unfairness of it.


That said, Jen, racism is really a thing. Here’s how you may perhaps find it useful to look at this:

You know, it is very unfair for someone to be unfairly accused of being a murderer (or for that matter a thief), and to be so maligned all their life, for no fault of their own: but nevertheless, that does not mean murder itself is a myth, nor theft, right? While there are people who’ve been unfairly accused of murder (and theft) -- which is very unfair, and very unfortunate -- nevertheless there also are actual murderers (and actual thieves)! Correct?

Just because some innocent people may have been falsely implicated in accusations of murder and theft, surely that does not mean that every person who is being called out for their crimes of murder and theft are necessarily innocent, right?! You cannot possibly extrapolate the actual innocence of a few falsely indicted victims into concluding that all murderers and all thieves are actually innocent, can you now?!

Likewise, racism is really a thing, absolutely. (Again, no one is accusing you personally of this, not for a single moment.)

The two people who’ve been accused of racism here, we’re not pointing fingers at them on account of the country they’re from, or the color of their skin, or any of these incidentals. No, we’re calling them racist because the comments they have themselves posted are very clearly racist in nature. There’s incontrovertible evidence here, against one in this thread itself, and against the other in other threads, and both clearly documented.

I don’t see why you’re identifying with those two. They’re actual racists -- in so far as their comments here, at any rate (beyond their comments here obviously I don’t know about them) -- not unfortunate victims falsely maligned, like you have been.


So, Jen, please, don’t you feel bad about this! I assure you, this isn’t about you at all, in any way or form!!

Quote Arjuna/Vijay:
If atheism means lack of love and compassion to all regardless of race and creed - then I leave such souls to their own energy points to punish them!


Hello, Arjuna.

That's a surprising thing to say, apropos of all that has gone on here in this thread.

One person has been shown to be clearly racist here, in this thread itself, and another's racism (documented on a different thread) has been referenced. Neither of these are atheists. Both are actually theists, one openly so, the other a closet theist whose closet theism has been clearly exposed here.

Further: Three posters' abusive behavior here -- that is, in posting comments that do not address others' arguments but attack their person -- has been referenced here. Two of them are the same as the two above, while the third (none other than our Jim) also is clearly a theist.

From a discussion about the racism of two theists, and the abusive posting of three theists, how on earth do you go to speaking of the "lack of love and compassion", not of theists but of atheists?!

That makes no sense at all!



Quote OshoRobbins:
>@AR
Here is the basis of my statements about eternity / end / endless etc
And why that which has a beginning MUST have an end, and also why
That which has no end also has no beginning.


Hey, Osho Robbins! Glad you're back here! :--)
.

My main classifications are:
(1) Everything WITHIN time and space
(2) Everything OUTSIDE of time and space
So, (1) refers to everything that exists in the world. It is objective and can be examined.
(2) Is non-objective. It is conceptual. It is abstract. We understand it only through abstraction. You cannot study it because it cannot be seen or experienced. It is not “real” by our standards in the objective world. But it is also not taken on faith. It is in a different category. It is an abstraction.


Okay. Your categorization seems internally consistent, I agree.


Everything in category (1) has FORM, a beginning and an end.
It has a beginning and an end.
It Changes.


No, not necessarily.

Yes, everything changes, but that is a non sequitur. I don't think it necessarily holds that everything in category 1 necessarily has to have a beginning and an end.


Can you point to anything that has a beginning but no end? No


Yes, actually. Our universe itself! (Like I said in my original comment.)

Apparently our universe originated in a Big Bang, and will likely go on forever, expanding at an ever accelerating rate. (Of course, no one can possibly be sure of this. But this seems to be the consensus amongst cosmologists.

So yes, we do have something here that -- probably -- does have a beginning but no end.


Can you point to anything that has no beginning and has an end? Again no.


Agreed. No such thing IRL, to my knowledge.


Everything, no exceptions, has a beginning and an end.


Well, there's the universe itself.

So I'd re-word that as "Everything, WITH THE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION OF THE UNIVERSE ITSELF, has a beginning and an end."


Everything in the second category is an abstraction. It is the oneness.
No time, no space. Because it is beyond time and space, it makes no sense to talk about a beginning or an end. Neither exists. It makes no sense to talk about a form, or individuality, or things, or beings etc. It makes no sense to talk about past , present or future.


Yes, but that does not mean it is eternal! We don't know "it" even exists at all!

In fact, we can think of an "abstraction" as a construct of human thought, an artefact of human consciousness and intelligence: and, as such, this abstraction can be thought to "exist" only as long as human thought itself exists.

And, in as much as we humans ourselves have a beginning and an end, so do our thoughts also: as such, all "abstractions" we've thought up do have a beginning and an end.

We can imagine something eternal: that does not mean that thing, that ONE, actually exists. If it doesn't exist, it cannot possibly be anything, and not eternal either.


And if you're thinking merely of existence-in-abstraction, then sure, I can conceive of a universe (either a separate universe, or an alternative speculation about our own universe) that existed forever, had no origin, but which will end in a Big Crunch singularity -- you know, the exact obverse of actually beginning in a Big Bang and expanding forever, which is the current consensus. So, in as much as I can conceive of this abstraction, this abstraction does exist.

True, my abstraction of this alternative universe has no evidence, nor even consensus in terms theoretical likelihood. But then nor does your One.

Which takes me back to my original objection/argument in that comment of mine.


@ Osho,.......
You might consider educating yourself some what, on how John Calvin taught the existence of God. I owned his 22 Volume Set of Commantaries until 2011 when I had to leave them in California before I moved East. They are massive, and form the Platform for Reformed Theology, in the Christian Churches. John Calvin’s Teaching of Predestination, Election, and Reprobation coincides very well with Sant Mat Karma and Reincarnation being Marked after birth to return to Heaven ( Sach Khand), or to be damned to reincarnste back to earth as a Reprobate , or unmarked to feturn Home as a Prodical Son.
I read all of the New Testiment Commentaries, when I was in the Ministry, and these Commantaries were responsible for sealing my Faith in Eternal Security of the soul. My Seminary Master’s Degree Thesis on Eternal Security is on my Blog, in case you still need a lttle more convincing whether you are one of the Marked Elect, as Osho, or are Osho The Reprobate , who will never be allowed to come to the Knowledge of The Truth, as Osho, and are destined to reincsrnste back here again as either an Elect soul, or a Reprobate again.

Here is a Link to the 22 ol. Set of Calvin’s Commantaries.

https://www.amazon.com/Calvins-Commentaries-Set-John-Calvin/dp/0801024404?SubscriptionId=AKIAILSHYYTFIVPWUY6Q&tag=duckduckgo-ipad-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=0801024404

Jim

On racism and ant semitism
the most damaging to
the victims
and even more than his Kampf
is the "Protocols of the elders of Zion" already mentioned by Jim

In Egypt It was transformed in a kind of tv-documentary Storie ( 12 weeks / series )
and totally broadcasted 3 times ( that was before SISI )
It is indeed vitriol in pastery,
Myself, . . I like good statement, doctors, lawyers bankers
and Jazz players , ( never heard one that was not jewish )
like btw so many classical artists
I think (lets be racist) they have the perseverance
to do the 20 000 hours study
I appreciate jewish people minus & greedy 5% and this is 15% with other groups
but of course also in greed these 5% are more successful
When I see a beautiful or very good performance on TV
I ask my wife ( who is good in 'faces' ) is she/he jewish
and her answer is often YES
btw : We are not ourselves, I am glad because I m not so harsh drilled
by my parents

B)
Yes pure atheists don't exist . . is was I wrote and ment and I'm convinced

5 years ago karma did put me in a hospital
and they gave me a room with a man , about 75 yrs old
who was told he had less then a day to live

He was crying all the time
He couldn't withhold to me that , telling me that he had done nothing then
wrong and selfish and nasty stuff all his life
and atheist ( not that I am associating that combination here)
and thought he was going to hell

One visit hour to come for him
I told him about Love that multiplies itself in the giver exponentially
and that even a love_sucker_ignoramous
by giving it away can became a Love_billy_gates , . . . very fast
and he understood it,
and that he could use that visit repair some wit Love
At least he could try

Then they replaced me with excuse to have put me in that room
( after all I wasn't sick at all, just broke a little - but I was grateful about that night overthere)

He understood immediately - faster than lot of guys and dolls overhere

Yes, Brian ""atheists"". do a lot of good works, especially at the end
see the hospitals with names on top

777

ps and again
averse from all these sophisticated high celestial definitions
I like :
Love is the Desire to DO good to another living. . . .

@JIM wrote

"or unmarked to return Home as a Prodigal Son"

I LOVE THAT ONE

( while dancing the tango all the time , . . . on HIS Tune )

777

Hi Brian
You are mistaken.
You wrote
"Spence, I heartily disagree. You're misreading the comment to defend 777's and Arjuna's insult to atheists. You quoted the interchange, but you didn't correctly describe it. Arjuna said "Anything which denies God cannot be an emodiment of love." So someone who denies God, an atheist, cannot be an embodiment of love -- which is totally wrong."

I was not defending Arjuna's question. You accused 777 of agreeing with it and that was in error. Here you make the mistake of thinking that I read in agreement with Arjuna 's question and as I had indicated I' m not.

Then you proceed to make another misinterpretation of a very simple statement.

"777 then claimed that those who deny God aren't serious in their denial. So he added to the insult by saying that atheists really believe in God, not being serous about their denial. Which is also totally wrong."

Brian, denial as in subconscious denial. Denial as in a defense mechanism.

777 was stating that these atheists who are making an honest claim that they really have no evidence of God are not in denial of their experience. This is their honest self-disclosure. Such people can be as loving as anyone else.

And this is what I'd written.

"They CAN embody love because they are not seriously in denial. They judge going on the basis of their experience. That'not denial. So yes the(Atheists) CAN be an embodiment of love.

This is what 777 was writing."
Furthermore, if you read Arjuna's statements before and after this exchange you see that he is all about equality and brother / sister hood. His question was innocent.

Your effort to vilify those who hold different views substantially limits the veracity of your statements.

Otherwise, Atheism itself has a lot going for it, not the least of which among sincere atheists, the desire to irradiacate all the false beliefs that stands in the way of true brotherhood / sister hood and loving kindness to all.

As I'd written earlier, the books of Job and Ecclesiastes are largely Atheist manifestos. And they are beautifully written.

In the book of Job, we learn that Job is actually a good man. But in a series of arguments with the clergy he dismantles every popular argument for God, including the one you liked, that this is a fair world. It is a stunning rebuke of religion in a whole series of arguments by a man even "God" acknowledges is a very good person.

Appreciative Reader,

Thank you so much for this: "So, Jen, please, don’t you feel bad about this! I assure you, this isn’t about you at all, in any way or form!!"

I've learned a lot from everyone on this forum, so many different points of view, and I've still got so much more to learn :)

Hi Appreciative!

You wrote
"And second: You show in your citations how the “Name” or “Word” is very close in meaning and application to the RSSB “Shabd”. But no doubt this is only your personal interpretation, that is, not an interpretation that people, observant Jews and rabbis and scholars, actually believe? Or would you say this is generally accepted/believed?
(You do mention Philo. That might be worth checking up a bit myself. Thanks for bringing up that reference point!)"


Philo." On Husbandry " is a good start to learn about the Judaic mystic teachings about the Logos.

https://www.loebclassics.com/view/philo_judaeus-husbandry/1930/pb_LCL247.109.xml


Also the Jewish Encylopedia comments on the Logos and the Memra nicely

"In the Targum the Memra figures constantly as the manifestation of the divinepower, or as God's messenger in place of God Himself"

Note the Targum is the Aramaic Translation of the scriptures..

And...

"Thy word, O Lord, healeth all things" (Wisdom xvi. 12); "Thy word preserveth them that put their trust in Thee" (l.c. xvi. 26"

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/search?utf8=✓&keywords=Memra&commit=search


Whereas the Memra is the word of God, much like the Logos, which is the local presence of an infinite God, and dwells with humanity, the Shekinah is the light of God's that dwells with humanity...

"The term "Shekinah," which is Hebrew, whereas "Memra" and "Yeḳara" are Aramaic, took the place of the latter two in Talmudand Midrash, and thus absorbed the meaning which they have in the Targum, where they almost exclusively occur. Nevertheless the word "Shekinah" occurs most frequently in the Aramaic versions, since they were intended for the people and were actually read to them, and since precautions had therefore to be taken against possible misunderstandings in regard to the conception of God. The word "dwell" in the Hebrew text is accordingly rendered in the Targumim by the phrase "let the Shekinah rest" (e.g., Ex. xxv. 8; xxix. 45, 46; Num. v. 3, xxxv. 34; Deut. xxxii. 10 [R. V. "he compassed him about"]; Ps. lxxiv. 2). Onḳelos translates "Elohim" in Gen. ix. 27 by "Shekinah"; and wherever the person, the dwelling, or the remoteness of God is mentioned, he paraphrases by the same word.. "

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13537-shekinah

More on the divine name from the Jewish Encyclopedia...

"the name of God is more than a mere distinguishing title. It represents the Hebrew conception of the divine ...Yhwh's angel will lead and give victory to His people, who must yield reverent obedience, for, the Lord says, "my name is in him." The devout Israelite will not take the name of a false god upon his lips ...God shall choose out of all your tribes to put His name there" (Deut. xii. 5; comp. I Kings viii. 16, 29; ix. 3; Jer. vii. 12). The Temple is "the place of the name of the Lord of hosts, the mount Zion""
From the Jewish Encyclopedia
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11305-names-of-god

"8 Seek him that maketh the seven stars and Orion, and turneth the shadow of death into the morning, and maketh the day dark with night: that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: The Lord is his name:"
Amos 5:8

" 2 The Lord is my strength and song, and he is become my salvation: he is my God, and I will prepare him an habitation; my father's God, and I will exalt him.

3 The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name."
Exodus 15:3

Note in Exodus 15 :2 the Lord is described as a song.

From the above

" His name is the Lord. "

"The Lord is His name"

The word "lord" in Hebrew is a title, not a name and not Yaweh (which is also used to refer to God, but actually means "I am that I am" and is also not a formal name.)

These OT passages equate God with His Name, as if the Name, the Memra, is in fact God.

@ Spence,........
You might consider starting your own Blog and save all of your past detailed Posts in Brian’s Church so you can access the material Archievies for future debates among Skeptics, etc.

You obviously must KNOW that Spence Tepper never thought up all those Posts! Most of them surely were Channeled from a Higher Source!

I am not suggesting you quit posting here. I am just suggesting you keep your own Blog as an Archieve so you have a Library to retrieve certain information in the future, so you don’t have to keep writing the same information over and over, as you encounter new seekers,

Cheers,
Jim

Thank you for those references, Spence!

I enjoyed reading your posts, but the links you supplied were kind of heavy going. (I'm not complaining, reading the original -- even in translation -- is always heavy going, generally speaking.)

Wikipedia seems to hold that first, Philo seemed to subscribe to some kind of a Platonic idea of Forms, and that his Logos was apparently one of the many "intermediary beings" (albeit the "leading" one) that bridge the ideal world with our world; and second, that Philo himself apparently did not receive mainstream acclaim by the rabbinic orthodoxy, not during his time, nor later.

Incidentally, I was not aware that Yahweh literally means "I am who I am", which is your interpretation, and which interpretation is indeed borne out in that link you supplied. Although I note that Wikepedia describes Yahweh as probably an ancient warrior deity, which idea only later evolved to a more metaphorical and abstract interpretation.

But that's just by the bye, what I've said, no more than interesting alternative interpretations that I've no more than glimpsed now, and don't really hold any views on yet -- after all, a Wikipedia-fueled browse cannot compare with the more detailed reading of the originals that you've obviously gone through.

Like I said, my reading is woefully inadequate -- more like non-existent -- when it comes to the Judaic texts (as opposed to Christian interpretations), and my understanding is that Judaism abounds in interesting speculations and analyses, outside of the actual OT, that is. Note to self: Must remedy that lack, one of these days.


But yeah, absolutely, it is interesting that you find references to Shabd even in those very ancient Judaic texts. Even if that interpretation isn't mainstream, nevertheless that is still very interesting.

Thanks for sharing!


Hi Everybody

Wikipedia can be adapted
Would be such a blessing
if the APPLE was replaced with a STEAK

Jews : a chosen people ?

YES
I'm told and kind have seen
that Melchizadek initiated Abraham
into the Shabd

Also Solomon is a Saint

Yes some where chosen but a minority
as Moses found that out particularly

Often these chosen people do disappoint
Now hundreds of orthodox guys try to find out
what was the point

Imaging one of them being initiated by a Saint
THAT would be much more risky than with the Khalsa Sikhs

So the exers here, do some Bajan, . . . Dhyan will be difficult actually
do it all the time
Every time you shoot a Simran Round , IT will bless
And when you hear the sweet LOGOS , you day ( life ) is made
You will be fine and without death ( who_so_ever will assist there )


777


@ Spencer - I am nothing but about brotherhood and sisterhood.

I did not insult atheists - if I did I apologise as they have the divine essence of the lord within them. That’s essence makes them do good things in this world.

Denial of god just leaves us barren - the mind is dangerous especially when followed unguarded.

All the best

Hi Appreciative!
Thanks for taking a look. Judaism has existed for such a long time that it's almost like shopping on Amazon with the broad variety of different spiritual, cultural, ethical and legal notions.

When you look at the midrash, the commentaries, you will see debates that were never resolved about God and right conduct. Atheism included. Because in the Jewish faith human beings cannot know God directly.

Maimonedes, the 12th century Jewish scholar who wrote
"Give a man a fish, fed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, fed him for a lifetime"

also said famously

"learn physics before attempting to learn metaphysics. Until you do, discussing it is a waste of time."

If there were one book I'd recommend from the Bible it's the book of Job. It's breathtakingly beautiful, and establishes for all time legitimacy of many of the tenants of Atheism.

As for God calling himself "I am who I am" that is in the old testament, when Moses speaks with God.

If you understand it correctly, it's a blisteringly sardonic comment on human stupidity wrapped in a zen teacher like comment.

God had just given Moses the commandments, including such basics as don't kill, don't steal, don't lie, and then, as if these weren't self - evident, Moses asks God, "OK, so whom do I say gave me these commandments, so they will believe me? When people want to call out to God, what name shall I give them."

God (easily irritated) replies, "Just tell them I am who I am!"


And Moses asks again, something to the effect..
" Huh? How do I say that?"
And God says, "Just say" I am " gave me these for you all to follow!"

Yah, the OT presents not so much an angry God, but a frustrated parent given to hyperbole trying to get his kids to take responsibility for themselves. And this is why mastering Atheism is a crucial step to spirituality, because it is first establishing our personal responsibility to own our actions and our duty to decide right from wrong as best we can for ourselves, and take responsibility for those decisions.

Hi Jim
Thank you for the complement.
I'm not a great conduit for these things. There is something fine about expressing something I learned long ago and letting it go. I live on the earth, half in the mud. So I live honestly and in anonymity. And without responsibility for others, except my son and my sisters. I can hardly manage my own.

As for what I've written here, well, it's all Brian's property to do with as he pleases.
Besides I change positions all the time and enjoy the freedom to do so.

Hi Arjuna
We may not be able to argue with God, to take our frustrations with life to God.
But we can argue with Brian. Almost as good.

@ Spencer - yes and may God give us strength and grace to argue with Brian.

With the creator on our side - Brian has zilch chance and I know in my heart of hearts he will come though this crazy faze he is going through and be a greater a disciple than me 😀

But in the meantime - he gets as good as he gives lol 😀

Hi Arjuna
This may sound strange, but when I argue with Brian, I feel I am arguing directly with Master, and that Brian is my chess oponant, with Master standing behind him, His hand gently upon Brian's shoulder. Brian and I have absolutely nothing to learn from each other, but here we can practice for will in the midst of these man - made positions and opinions.

When Brian decries Sant Mat, or what RSSB has become, I cannot help but hear Majaraji expressing an important side of things.

And Master is giving me a means directly to argue with Him, to confront God directly on the wonderful and terrible conditions here.


"practice good will in the midst of these man - made positions..." auto spell.

@ Spencer - don’t confront God - not a smart move my brother!

We have been here many time before and let’s practice and get the hell outta Dodge!

I have seen war and what men do to each other - we are base animals! The Lord has given us some insight into how to go home! Let’s go! We can discuss these things if they are off interest on the way home ! I don’t want to come back here! Ever

Hi Arjuna
You wrote
"let’s practice and get the hell outta Dodge!"

God that's clever! I'm with you bro!

@ Spencer - I meant it - let’s go beyond mind!

Thank You Spence
That was really interesting & confirming Melchizadek

Now, . . the idea is that a new temple will do it . . . No way
Meditation via a Saint will do it , even on/in your toilet ( bathroom)

Sekinah

The emperor (Hadrian) said to Rabbi Joshua b. Hananiah, "I desire greatly to see thy God." Joshua requested him to stand facing the brilliant summer sun, and said, "Gaze upon it." The emperor said, "I can not." "Then," said Joshua, "if thou art not able to look upon a servant of God, how much less mayest thou gaze upon the Shekinah?"(Ḥul. 60a). Rab Sheshet (c. 300) was blind, and could not perceive when the Shekinah appeared in the Shaf we-Yatib synagogue of Nehardea, where it rested when it was not in the synagogue at Huzal. In the former synagogue Samuel and Levi heard the sound of its approach and fled (Meg. 29a). The Shekinah tinkled like a bell (Soṭah 9b), while the Holy Spirit also manifested itself to human senses in light and sound

---------------------

Amazing and much more there. - Most is about the proctor Brahma/Yahweh


777

@Arjuna I don’t want to come back here! Ever

I have to. . , . . I was asked and said Yes, . . whole heartily
I was so spoiled in this life, can't say No
You come too. ?
Will be FUN and hard, both

777

@ 777. Hello and trust you are well.

I’ve had a tough life and am boxing my way out of this domain. Where life is but a fleeting spark of love and then pain.


The way out is in! Let’s go home -I don’t care what the athiests say or people who want to know God’s attributes demand to know ! Let’s go back from whence we came.

All the very best as always

So far, . . so Good

Quote Spence:
Hi Appreciative!
Thanks for taking a look. Judaism has existed for such a long time that it's almost like shopping on Amazon with the broad variety of different spiritual, cultural, ethical and legal notions.


Apparently, yes. I wasn't aware of this, really, that Judaic tradition is this eclectic and wide-ranging. I'd imagined -- wrongly, it seems -- that it is all monolithic-ish, with some offbeat non-mainstream "spirituality" thrown in for variety.


As for God calling himself "I am who I am" that is in the old testament, when Moses speaks with God.

If you understand it correctly, it's a blisteringly sardonic comment on human stupidity wrapped in a zen teacher like comment.

God had just given Moses the commandments, including such basics as don't kill, don't steal, don't lie, and then, as if these weren't self - evident, Moses asks God, "OK, so whom do I say gave me these commandments, so they will believe me? When people want to call out to God, what name shall I give them."

God (easily irritated) replies, "Just tell them I am who I am!"


Heh, nice!

I was aware of that "I am who I am" story, obviously, but did not know that Yahweh literally means just that. At least per one interpretation (wiki presents alternative views).

And that humorous touch you inject here, that is well appreciated!


Yah, the OT presents not so much an angry God, but a frustrated parent given to hyperbole trying to get his kids to take responsibility for themselves.


In this case, yes. But in general, NO! I can think of many, MANY instances -- and so can you, I'm sure, they're so commonplace -- where the OT presents God as some nasty, horrible, sadistic, mean ogre, who has one and only one thing going for him, the fact that he is kind of powerful. So the OT, in sum, paints God in the colors of a bully, an ogre, in fact a monster!

But that said, I take your point, as far as this particular instance. I like the humorous picture you draw of an irritated God put off by Moses's denseness.


Hello, Osho Robbins:

I wonder if you've read my comment, linked here?
https://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2018/11/the-absurdity-of-believing-there-is-sach-khand-heaven.html?cid=6a00d83451c0aa69e2022ad37e1ea2200c#comment-6a00d83451c0aa69e2022ad37e1ea2200c


I do hope you don't mind my keeping on arguing against your POV, or now in bringing this up again!!

Look, I come here primarily to learn from others -- Brian as well as other commenters -- and to exchange views. As such I view disagreements on ideas not as conflict, but simply discussion. Unlike many others I've seen, both here and IRL, I personally welcome being proved wrong, in fact I'd actually prefer it, as that means I'm learning something new. More bang for my buck (that is, for my time spent here) that way.

I've got the feeling -- from your past comments -- that you're a kindred soul, as far as this willingness to be proved wrong, and this welcoming of disagreement and willingness to discuss all sides of an issue. Hence this particular post of mine, bumping up my previous comments.

My apologies if bringing this up again was in any way unwelcome to you. My intention was not to embarrass you.

Hi AR
I asked:
Can you point to anything that has a beginning but no end?

you replied:
Yes, actually. Our universe itself! (Like I said in my original comment.)
Apparently our universe originated in a Big Bang, and will likely go on forever, expanding at an ever accelerating rate. (Of course, no one can possibly be sure of this. But this seems to be the consensus amongst cosmologists.
So yes, we do have something here that -- probably -- does have a beginning but no end.

My reply:
It is in the nature of everything in the physical universe that it changes and eventually expires or ends. This applies to every individual thing you can point to.
It might take a long TIME, but everything that is within time is necessarily changing.
You might point to a rock in your back garden – and say quite rightly that it’s been exactly the same over the last 50 years, and even say it doesn’t appear to be changing.
However, we’re not talking about 50 years or even 50 million years. Eventually it too will deteriorate and change. Nothing remains the same.
You say the universe itself will never end. Put that aside for a moment, there is no single object you can point to that had a beginning but no end, because that is the nature of everything that is in time and space.
Now to answer the question of the universe, you cannot make the statement that it will NEVER end because never is a long long time.
Imagine you dive down into the atlantic ocean, looking for the end of the ocean. You go down for 10 metres and come back up.
“WOW – it’s endless” you say. Then you go again and this time you go down for 100 metres and still don’t find the end.
Now you say “Well it’s definitely endless”
And so on.
However, the end of the ocean might be a 10 metres further than any distance you might travel. So you can never say with certainty that the ocean is endless. If you DO get to the bottom of the ocean, then you can certainly say “Yes, it is finite as I have reached the bottom of the ocean” However, you can never say the opposite with certainly. The best you can say is “I’ve looked and gone for X metres and have not yet found the bottom of the ocean.”
Like the rock example, all you can say is that “I’ve been looking at the rock for 50 years and it is still there in exactly the same form in 50 years” You cannot say it will remain there forever, because forever is a long time.
You cannot say with any degree of certainty that the universe will stay around forever for the same reason.
So I am asking about certainty not a theory of cosmology.
The premise is this:
Everything that changes, eventually ends (expires). And the corollary which is that only that which never changes will never end.

I then wrote:
“Everything in the second category is an abstraction. It is the oneness.
No time, no space. Because it is beyond time and space, it makes no sense to talk about a beginning or an end. Neither exists. It makes no sense to talk about a form, or individuality, or things, or beings etc. It makes no sense to talk about past , present or future.”
You replied: Yes, but that does not mean it is eternal! We don't know "it" even exists at all!
In fact, we can think of an "abstraction" as a construct of human thought, an artefact of human consciousness and intelligence: and, as such, this abstraction can be thought to "exist" only as long as human thought itself exists.

My response:
Yes, we don’t know if it exists. That is true. I would go even further, and say we know it does NOT exist.
Because the meaning of “Existence” refers to things we see and experience in the physical universe.
The ONENESS clearly does not exist in our definition. And this is as expected as it does not exist physically. In fact you cannot know or experience the oneness. If you could, it would not be oneness, there are already two for experience to happen.
You can have a realization of Oneness but you cannot experience it.
What is the difference between realization and experience?
Imagine a world in which there are no reflective surfaces. No mirrors. In this world, I ask you “do you have eyes? How do you know?”
Clearly you cannot see your own eyes. So how do you know you have eyes?
You know you have hands as you can see them. You know you have feet as you can see them. How do you know you have eyes?
The answer is: You know because you can see.
The faculty of seeing is the proof. You know you have eyes, without seeing your own eyes, because you have the ability to see.
In the same way, you don’t see or experience oneness. It’s not an attainment. It is an insight.

this is getting long so i will stop here.

@AR
I apologize for not giving a complete reply and for the delay in replying. Time spent on here is a bit limited at the moment. And yes, your comments are always welcome, and I am happy to reply and have an honest exchange of ideas regardless without any addiction to being right.

@AR
I came across a paper by Hawkins "the beginning of time"
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

The last four paragraphs:
What does the no boundary proposal predict for the future of the universe? Because it requires that the universe is finite in space, as well as in imaginary time, it implies that the universe will re-collapse eventually. However, it will not re-collapse for a very long time, much longer than the 15 billion years it has already been expanding. So, you will have time to sell your government bonds, before the end of the universe is nigh. Quite what you invest in then, I don't know.

Originally, I thought that the collapse, would be the time reverse of the expansion. This would have meant that the arrow of time would have pointed the other way in the contracting phase. People would have gotten younger, as the universe got smaller. Eventually, they would have disappeared back into the womb.

However, I now realise I was wrong, as these solutions show. The collapse is not the time reverse of the expansion. The expansion will start with an inflationary phase, but the collapse will not in general end with an anti inflationary phase. Moreover, the small departures from uniform density will continue to grow in the contracting phase. The universe will get more and more lumpy and irregular, as it gets smaller, and disorder will increase. This means that the arrow of time will not reverse. People will continue to get older, even after the universe has begun to contract. So it is no good waiting until the universe re-collapses, to return to your youth. You would be a bit past it, anyway, by then.

The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation. The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again. However, the contracting phase, will not have the opposite arrow of time, to the expanding phase. So we will keep on getting older, and we won't return to our youth. Because time is not going to go backwards, I think I better stop now.

So the universe being eternal is questionable.

@AR
does oneness really exist?

Imagine you are a magician.
you have a coin in your right hand and nothing in your left.
You show the audience both hands.

the coin is a thing but the "nothing" is not a thing, but it is distinct from the coin.

does "nothing" exist?

Well, no, because it's not there.
Yet everyone will agree that the left hand has nothing in it
and the right hand doesn't have nothing - it has a coin.

The oneness is like the nothingness. You could even say it is the same.
Obviously "nothing" does not exist as a thing in the objective world, as it is the absence of all "things" - by definition.

So it would be quite accurate to say "God does not exist"
just as it is accurate to say "nothing does not exist"

because "nothing" or "oneness" does not have the attributes of a "thing" that exists.

In fact it has no attributes.

So in effect I am saying that you come from nothing and you will go back to nothing, and you ARE nothing even now, although right now you appear to be a "thing" merely because you have a body and you have created an "I" that has identified with the body.

In the above, replace the "nothing" with SHABD and you have the sant mat and advaita teachings.

here, I'll do it for you

So in effect I am saying that you come from SHABD and you will go back to SHABD, and you ARE SHABD even now, although right now you appear to be a "thing" merely because you have a body and you have created an "I" that has identified with the body.

The only issue with using a word like shabd or God is that the mind immediately thinks of it as a thing that has to be attained. The mind gives it attributes.

hindu scriptures call it "neti neti" or "nether this nor that" to emphasize that it is not a thing, but he absence of all things, which really means nothing.

Enlightenment is the realization that you are nothing and there cannot be two nothings, so you can also call it the ONE. You don't attain or achieve it or experience it. You just an insight into the fact that you are nothing. That's the end of everything. You can't be greedy anymore and ask for a 69 bedroom mansion in Sach Khand, because what you will get is nothing. You won't even has a "Yourself" which is required in order to possess. You cannot possess as there is no "You" to possess.

The Ego or the "YOU" is needed to hang things on. You can hang your religion, your family, your guru, your god, your money, your accomplishments, in fact everything you are trying to achieve can be hanged on it.

All your life you are hanging and hanging things on it. Now you get extra greedy and want to hang enlightenment on it too.

But it can't be done, because enlightenment means the hook you were hanging all these things on has suddenly disappeared. And it ain't coming back. You can't fix the disappearance.

That is why I said enlightenment has no benefits as it is the ultimate "non-benefit"

Of course and you make it into a benefit by saying you get peace of mind etc, but what good is that when the one to enjoy the peace of mind has disappeared,

By the way I don't mean a literal disappearance. Everything outside remains the same. The body, the mind, etc still remains. Just something profound has happened and you cannot explain it - and any attempt to explain it has to fail.
Osho wrote 1000 books to explain it and utterly failed, as everyone does.

So what is the point of getting this enlightenment?
Firstly you don't "get it" as such and secondly there is no "point"
"points" got left behind long ago.

Dear Osho Robbins,

Thanks much for those three comments. And apologies for what does, on re-reading, qualify as borderline hustling!

Nice article from Stephen Hawking. Great man, that, at more than one level. I enjoyed reading that article: as much as the mind-bending ideas discussed, one enjoys his characteristic sense of humor!

Actually my understanding is that the universe-running-out-of-steam idea, presented here, is dated. (Stephen Hawking has himself, famously, totally reversed his own earlier position more than once, and on more than one issue -- this flexibility is, after all, one of the hallmarks of science). It is my understanding that the dark-matter-and-dark-energy hypothesis has, in the past few years, laid to rest that particular scenario that that quoted article describes.

Here’s another article -- a more ‘popular’ article -- that discusses some of these ideas: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/stephen-hawking-s-almost-last-paper-putting-end-beginning-universe.


But what the hey, let me not pretend to an expertise in cosmology and physics that I do not in fact possess! You’ve made your point wonderfully well, complete with evidence from one the most respected names in science. :--)

Absolutely, that lecture of Hawking’s clearly speaks of the Universe coming to an end, and even discusses specifics of how that end might look like. As you say, the idea of an eternal universe does look questionable, basis this lecture.


And, more importantly, you rightly point towards an opening of faculties that subjectively allow perception of things not otherwise perceived. This portion of your comment:

"What is the difference between realization and experience?
Imagine a world in which there are no reflective surfaces. No mirrors. In this world, I ask you “do you have eyes? How do you know?”
Clearly you cannot see your own eyes. So how do you know you have eyes?
You know you have hands as you can see them. You know you have feet as you can see them. How do you know you have eyes?
The answer is: You know because you can see.
The faculty of seeing is the proof. You know you have eyes, without seeing your own eyes, because you have the ability to see.
In the same way, you don’t see or experience oneness. It’s not an attainment. It is an insight."


Lovely comment, that. Thank you.

That “insight” that you speak of can only be subjective, and therefore not claimed objectively; but then you’re not doing that, at least not now in your discussion with me, so I myself have no grounds to complain! :--)

I fully accede to your point, Osho Robbins, except that it is ultimately a subjective point. Subjective points do not sit well in arguments and proofs, those latter are properly the domain of objective evidence; and subjective points of this nature are perhaps better suited to gentle instruction to receptive seekers, not logic-studded argument forced down unwilling throats (given that subjectivity is ultimately personal). That may have been what led me to interject in that discussion of yours with the others here.

Anyway, nice talking. Apologies for dragging you off from your RL preoccupations with my compulsive argumentation!

@AR
Great response from you. Your comments are always appreciated.
even if I dont reply immediately.

This is how an interaction should be; with the focus on the issues raised.
And with no addiction to being right.

Just as a matter of interest, what is the latest view of cosmologists as to the end of the universe?

My view (not as a cosmologist, but just as me) is that if something is changing it will one day be destroyed or change form.


By its nature, enlightenment is subjective. It happened to me as I was a receptive seeker.
And in the objective world no such thing can exist.

Many things we value are also subjective; Love; Peace; friendship to name a few.

We all have our feet in both worlds: objective and subjective. Each has their place

Hi Osho
You wrote
"The oneness is like the nothingness. You could even say it is the same.
Obviously "nothing" does not exist as a thing in the objective world, as it is the absence of all "things" - by definition."

Let me offer a different definition.
Nothing really is nothing.
But Oneness is everything : the space, the object, the empty space and the non - space.

The empty space isn't the space, isn't the object. It is just one part of the whole.

The whole thing is the One.

At any time someone claims "it's this... It's not that" they are in dualism. Not Oneness.

And when someone claims "I can't describe the oneness, I can't say specifically what it is or isn't. It is all of what is, and all of what isn't. And I'm not sure what is or isn't, only what I can see is or isn't, and what I can see isn't the whole.. But maybe once in a while, like hiking to a mountain top, I see what appears to be the whole world under me.... But I know I'm just seeing from my perspective, though it is higher than my normal view... And generaly whatever is our isn't is laid out for my view.

Or, the person who understands Oneness might ask "what isn't oneness?" that's oneness.

Hi Osho
You asked
"Just as a matter of interest, what is the latest view of cosmologists as to the end of the universe?"

Oscillation. Think of a sine wave. What is above the median is visible matter. What is below is anti-matter. The sine wave races back and forth but the total volume is the same. Just oscillating. And our current creation, just one lap of the sine wave. Creation is the wave cresting. Dissolution is the wave reaching back to the median, and the alternate dark matter universe is the mirror opposite.

Now imagine that this sine wave is a great bungi cord in a great game of hop scotch, or a guitar string being plucked in a lively song. Whipped to its extreme zenith, the potential energy stored pulls the creation back to its beginning state and further, into its dark matter parallel. And so the cycle continues.

The string of bungee cord is all of spacetime and stars and planets of the creation, above the line. At the median it is infinitesimally small, infinitely hot pure mass. As it moves out from the median all timespace is expanding.

While it may appear the big bang staryed as a single point, the trajectories suggest several points of origin.


Spence, actually, what you said in the comment above isn't true. The prevailing opinion among cosmologists and astronomers is that the universe is not only expanding, but the expansion is accelerating. This means that in the far distant future the universe will experience a death of sorts (assuming a universe can "die").

You presented an outmoded view in your comment. Suggestion: do some Googling before expressing an opinion on something you're not an expert in, An oscillating universe is in tune with ancient Hindu myths, but not with a moderns understanding of the universe.

Wikipedia puts it this way:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_an_expanding_universe

Observations suggest that the expansion of the universe will continue forever. If so, then a popular theory is that the universe will cool as it expands, eventually becoming too cold to sustain life. For this reason, this future scenario once popularly called "heat death" is now known as the Big Chill or Big Freeze.
-------------------------
Space.com says:
https://www.space.com/3746-dark-future-predicted-universe.html

Over the next 100 billion years, dark energy is expected to accelerate the most distant galaxies and stars in the universe beyond the speed of light, meaning that they will be invisible to future observers. Some objects once visible at half the universe's current age of about 13.7 billion years are already invisible from the farthest vantage points, and in about 10 trillion years, only the local cluster of galaxies, including our own Milky Way, will be visible, researchers said.

"The future is bad," Krauss told SPACE.com. "A universe with dark energy is the worst of all possible universes for the long-term future of life."
------------------------------
And an astronomer writes on Forbes:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jillianscudder/2017/08/29/astroquizzical-accelerating-universe/#7fe4064d6cb5

Over a long enough period of time, this increasing speed of expansion means that the density of objects within the Universe will decrease. If every galaxy is increasingly distant from every other galaxy, images of galaxies outside our own Milky Way will also become increasingly out of date, as the light travel time also increases. If we pursue the increasing isolation of galaxies to its logical extreme, we arrive at an end-of-Universe scenario called “heat death”.

Heat death arrives when a galaxy runs out of gas to form new stars, and the stars which remain are overwhelmingly either very faint red, brown, and black dwarf stars, black holes, or neutron stars. With no new gas able to arrive into the galaxy, the galaxy must end its star formation. Once the remaining red dwarfs and other stellar objects radiate away the last of their heat, and the entire Universe has reached a single, even temperature, we have arrived at the death of heat in our Universe. This is currently our Universe’s forecast for its eventual end state - and a direct consequence of having such a large amount of Dark Energy, pressing our Universe outwards into an ever-faster expansion.

Hi Brian:

Thanks for you comments. Actually the cyclic theories do match all available data and are among the most current theories being considered.

Your comment that oscillation is outmoded is not actually indicated in the citations you provided.

Here is some current description of this

"Although the cyclic model differs radically from the conventional big bang–inflationary picture in terms of the physical processes that shape the universe and the whole outlook on cosmic history, both theories match all current observations with the same degree of precision. However, the two pictures differ in their predictions of primordial gravitational waves and the fine-scale statistical distribution of matter; experiments over the next decade will test these predictions and determine which picture survives."

https://www.accessscience.com/content/cyclic-universe-theory/YB090037


Here Princeton cosmologists explain why the cyclic theory is more parsimonious / occam's razor like because the big bang, with the necessary additions for inflation, freezing, etc has become too much of a patchwork.

And the Cyclic theory corresponds to and reinforces string theory:

"What led you to consider a new theory?

"Answer:
"We were motivated by the fact that, over the last few decades, more and more elements have had to be added to the Big Bang Theory to make it consistent with what we observe. To explain why the universe is so uniform, we had to a new feature called inflation. To explain the formation of structure, we had to add dark matter. The recent discovery that the expansion of the universe has begun to speed up has required the addition of something called dark energy. Each of these elements have been added one by one to make today’s Big Bang Theory a kind of patchwork of disconnected ideas. Furthermore, in the background, there has been the disturbing notion that the big bang is the beginning of everything – something that has never been successfully explained by fundamental physics.

"We wanted to see if a completely different history of the universe is possible in which all the elements fit together in a tight and natural way. Furthermore, we saw recent developments in fundamental physics – namely, string theory – offered a radically new view of the big bang itself – not as a beginning but rather as a collision of two parallel worlds along an extra invisible dimension. Much to our surprise, we found we could use this picture to reformulate the history of the universe – recovering all the successful predictions of the conventional Big Bang Theory."

http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/endlessuniverse/askauthors.html

Most recent evidence appears to actually favors this cyclic model, though that evidence is very initial, still it is compelling:

"A paper by Roger Penrose, Daniel An, and Krzysztof A. Meissner presents powerful observational evidence of anomalous individual points in the very early universe that appear to be sources of vast amounts of energy, revealed as specific signals found in the CMB sky. Though seemingly problematic for cosmic inflation, the existence of such anomalous points is an implication of conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC), as what could be the Hawking points of the theory, these being the effects of the final Hawking evaporation of supermassive black holes in the aeon prior to ours. Although of extremely low temperature at emission, in CCC this radiation is enormously concentrated by the conformal compression of the entire future of the black hole, resulting in a single point at the crossover into our current aeon, with the emission of vast numbers of particles, whose effects we appear to be seeing as the observed anomalous points. Remarkably, the B-mode location found by BICEP 2 is at one of these anomalous points."

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/08/evidence-that-universe-has-infinite-cycle-of-big-bangs-from-very-early-black-holes.html


Hi Brian!

Just to help bring you up to speed, Paul Steinhardt, one of the contributors to the Inflation theory, is one of the principle authors of the Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC) model cited in my prior post. Here he expresses in detail his initial concerns, and his rejection of cosmic Inflation, even though he himself helped develop it.

"But my concerns really grew when I discovered that, due to quantum fluctuation effects, inflation is generically eternal and (as others soon emphasized) this would lead to a multiverse. Inflation was introduced to produce a universe that looks smooth and flat everywhere and that has features everywhere that agree with what we observe. Instead, it turns out that, due to quantum effects, inflation produces a multitude of patches (universes) that span every physically conceivable outcome (flat and curved, smooth and not smooth, isotropic and not isotropic, scale-invariant spectra and not, etc.). Our observable universe would be just one possibility out of a continuous spectrum of outcomes. So, we have not explained any feature of the universe by introducing inflation after all. We have just shifted the problem of the original big bang model (how can we explain our simple universe when there is a nearly infinite variety of possibilities that could emerge from the big bang?) to the inflationary model (how can we explain our simple universe when there is a nearly infinite variety of possibilities could emerge in a multiverse?).

I have to admit that I did not take the multiverse problem seriously at first even though I had been involved in uncovering it. I thought someone would figure out a resolution once the problem was revealed. That was 1983. I was wrong. Unfortunately, what has happened since is that all attempts to resolve the multiverse problem have failed and, in the process, it has become clear that the problem is much stickier than originally imagined. In fact, at this point, some proponents of inflation have suggested that there can be no solution. We should cease bothering to look for one. Instead, we should simply take inflation and the multiverse as fact and accept the notion that the features of the observable universe are accidental: consequences of living in this particular region of the multiverse rather than another.

To me, the accidental universe idea is scientifically meaningless because it explains nothing and predicts nothing. Also, it misses the most salient fact we have learned about large-scale structure of the universe: its extraordinary simplicity when averaged over large scales. In order to explain the one simple universe we can see, the inflationary multiverse and accidental universe hypotheses posit an infinite variety of universes with arbitrary amounts of complexity that we cannot see. Variations on the accidental universe, such as those employing the anthropic principle, do nothing to help the situation.

Scientific ideas should be simple, explanatory, predictive. The inflationary multiverse as currently understood appears to have none of those properties."

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/physicist-slams-cosmic-theory-he-helped-conceive/

Spence, the cyclic theory is definitely not the mainstream view of modern cosmology. Sure, it is a possibility, but the evidence argues against it being true. Here's a link to the Hubble telescope public site, along with an excerpt from the page "Fate of the Universe." The cyclic theory relies on a Big Crunch followed by another Big Bang, but as you'll read, the scientists on this site say the crunch theory is ruled out by current evidence.

http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries/dark_energy/de-fate_of_the_universe.php
--------------------
These same concepts apply to the expansion of space. That expansion was launched in the Big Bang, and ever since then, each bit of matter in the universe has been attracted to every other bit by the force of gravity. This should have been slowing down the expansion.

Before the discovery of dark energy, scientists had two models of how the universe's expansion would work. In one scenario, there would be enough matter in the universe to slow the expansion to the point where, like the baseball, it would come to a halt and start to retract, everything crashing back together in a "Big Crunch."

In the other scenario, there would be too little matter to stop the expansion and everything would drift on forever, always slowing and slowing but never stopping — like the spaceship. The galaxies would drift apart from each other until they were out of view. The universe would continue growing larger as countless generations of stars faded and died out. It would end in a vast, dark, and cold state: a "Big Chill," if you will.

...With dark energy, the fate of the universe might go well beyond the Big Chill. In the strangest and most speculative scenario, as the universe expands ever faster, all of gravity's work will be undone. Clusters of galaxies will disband and separate. Then galaxies themselves will be torn apart. The solar system, stars, planets, and even molecules and atoms could be shredded by the ever-faster expansion. The universe that was born in a violent expansion could end with an even more violent expansion called the Big Rip.

So out of the three scenarios for the fate of the universe — re-collapse to a Big Crunch, expand ever more slowly to a Big Chill, or expand ever faster to a Big Rip — we have managed to narrow the possibilities down somewhat.

Evidence has ruled out the Big Crunch. The Big Chill is probably the least that will happen. Whether or not the universe goes all the way to a Big Rip depends on what dark energy really is, and whether it will stay constant forever or fade away as suddenly as it appears to have arisen. And that we do not yet know.

No matter which scenario is right, the universe still has at least a few tens of billions of years left — which leaves us plenty of time to look for the answers.

Also Brian, there is recent doubt about the evidence of cosmic accelerating expansion.

https://m.phys.org/news/2016-10-universe-rateor.html

The fact that it was decelerating and then began accelerating points to the problems with an over simplistic linear model.

Also, problems with heat death include assumptions that the universe behaves like a uniform noble gas, that energy can only dissipate, and both of those pre-1930s Lord Kelvin thermodynamic laws have been proven to have limits by the subsequent reverse evidence of the birth of new stars.

Also assumptions about theoretical dark matter, more recently dark energy, do not have enough observational data to explain the acceleration. And these theories are beginning to fall apart.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2018/09/21/the-dark-matter-crisis/#.XAdDEx5ME0M

However, it is just as likely that as the universe expands and the gravitational pull from the center weakens over the greater distances, the net pull of local gravitational pockets on the edge may then form new star clusters and a series of black holes and dark matter at the edge of the Galexy that will then pull matter from the old center only to be pulled into a series of new gravitational centers that will have the mass to coalesce and crunch around that new center. The current evidence of acceleration could be the product of this pull to the edge taking place.

And that sypports CCC.

And just to show that occasionally the creation lends a hand when you are trying to make a point, this article reports a discovery, published yesterday, that supports what I wrote above

https://phys.org/news/2018-12-discovery-complicates-efforts-universe-expansion.amp

Basically, one of the key measures used to prove the universe is accelerating actually shows the accretion (absorption) of matter as well.

What has been claimed as evidence of a universe moving towards entropy / heat death, could just as readily be the accretion of matter into new stars instead.

Thank you universe!
Good timing!


What has been claimed as evidence of a universe moving towards entropy / heat death, could just as readily be the accretion of matter into new stars instead.


Could you just chalk it up to the cyclical play of
Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva? A simple church-y
metaphor for the "cosmology challenged" :)

(Uh oh, I suppose this may not make it past
moderation)

Hi Dungeness
I have to agree with Brian on this point: If seeing the earth is round and merely one planet among many circling the sun ; if seeing the earth as one star among many ; of seeing this universe expand, contract and expand again, all from the inner vision of spiritual travel were in fact truth, it would be useless compared to the objectivity of science.

With no more than a moment's Google search I can find verified fact representing the work of thousands of keen minds who dedicated themselves to confirming the details in an objective way anyone can see, and subjecting themselves to the withering criticism of their peers. These scientists are rock stars.

As for inner experience, that is just for us, to confirm our connection and progress. All the science in the creation can't replace our inner experience. But it isn't science for anyone else but ourselves. And while it is a sheer pleasure to enjoy (gas clouds from deep space remains one of my favorites), it is valueless to humanity or discussion.

Considering what these scientists dare to imagine and work tirelessly to test, and their struggle with the requirements of complete transparency and honesty, I say again, Rock Stars!

The cost of objective science is expensive, but it is human mind's best example that we are no longer merely imaginative beasts telling stories to each other.


The cost of objective science is expensive, but it is human mind's best example that we are no longer merely imaginative beasts telling stories to each other.

Hi Spence,

Yes, bravo. In so many ways, science represents the
brightest and best of our efforts to find truth. Far from
being dismissive, I was just laughing at myself because
my feeble intellect can't keep up.

But, in some ways, I suspect the imagery of Brahma,
Vishnu, and Shiva may depict remarkably well the
picture of our universe that is emerging. Imagination
is often the gateway to the profound.

@Spence
you wrote:
As for inner experience, that is just for us, to confirm our connection and progress. All the science in the creation can't replace our inner experience. But it isn't science for anyone else but ourselves.

my reply:
Exactly how does your inner experience confirm your connection and progress?
Maybe you see light. Or have inner visions.
Read what faqir chand says

It was at this point when Faqir asked himself: "What about the visions that appear to me? Are they a creation of my own mind

Reference :
http://www.integralworld.net/lane46.html
Plenty of people have inner experiences. They prove nothing.
1. The RSSB initiate sees his own guru inside
2. The Ajaib singh follower sees Ajaib
3. The Darshan singh followers sees Darshan
4. The faqir chand follower sees faqir

Which one is following the true path? Or are they all right?

Hi Osho
You wrote
"Plenty of people have inner experiences. They prove nothing.
1. The RSSB initiate sees his own guru inside
2. The Ajaib singh follower sees Ajaib
3. The Darshan singh followers sees Darshan
4. The faqir chand follower sees faqir

Which one is following the true path? Or are they all right?"

You are attempting to use objective criteria to evaluate someone else's report of their internal subjective experience..

But I had written

" As for inner experience, that is just for us, to confirm our connection and progress. "

You will have to apply that criteria to your own experiences and make that determination for yourself.

It isn't transferable.

That's what subjective experience is.

When Einstein imagined what it would be like to travel on a beam of light, that imaginary experience turned out to be highly accurate, and actually revealed to him a few of the secrets of the universe. A revelation of reality that came from inner experience. His entering that realm, through disciplined focus, actually was the source of his brilliant insight.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/opinion/sunday/the-light-beam-rider.html

The entire history of the development of mathematics took place in that inner realm.

So even subjective experience, disciplined, can take us to a very deep and accurate understanding of a portion of reality.

When is imagination illusion? And when are we actually witnessing an accurate model of reality, reflected in subjective experiences?

I suggest that only the individual themselves has the possibility to know the answer.

And I would further argue that every great design or creation we have in this world, that arose from a mastery of the laws of art and science, came first through that inner place.

We should all go there and make great art, find great inspiration, rather than depending upon some one else's report. Or dismissing that place as irrelevant.

Hi Osho
I tried to answer your question a couple of hours ago but it must be in editorial Pergatory. I imagine Brian does need to eat and sleep and do other stuff occasionally than just get notifications that folks have entered comments.

Brian, if you are going to moderate comments can you also clean up my typos? My auto spell is a train wren.


Thank you...

OK Osho, let's try again. I think I can do this more economically.

You wrote and asked me

"Exactly how does your inner experience confirm your connection and progress?"

Glad you are interested in internal experience.

Test it under different conditions for reliable repeatability, journal and read the journal a week later, six months later and years later.

Lay out the conditions you think led to the vision or experience and try it again.

Try to find verification in science or the writings of others for what you see, hear and feel. If you find it, that's a good step. If you have the experience more deeply with practice, that suggests progress in the experience.

Control over the experience reflects connection to it.

What did it prove? That what you did generated that result.

No repeatability? No independent verification in literature?

A nice vision, a lovely subjective experience, your subconscious mind encouraging you to keep trying, keep giving, keep listening, keep working.

You wrote
"Maybe you see light. Or have inner visions.
Read what faqir chand says"

I don't want to judge anyone else's experience. I like his humility. If he knows other people's illusions what about their insight?

How can anyone know what is actually going on inside someone else's head?

Do you believe him? Why?

Einstein also had imaginary visions that turned out to be more acurate than even he understood at the time.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/opinion/sunday/the-light-beam-rider.html

So it can go both ways. Your Mileage May Vary.

You wrote

"Plenty of people have inner experiences. They prove nothing.
1. The RSSB initiate sees his own guru inside
2. The Ajaib singh follower sees Ajaib
3. The Darshan singh followers sees Darshan
4. The faqir chand follower sees faqir

Which one is following the true path? Or are they all right?"

Whichever one you can prove for yourself.

@Spence
You are confusing and intermixing two distinct processes.
1. Using the IMAGINATION to get insight.
2. Doing mantra meditation or shabd meditation to try to still the mind and get a vision of the inner regions
These are two completely different processes.
The first is what Einstein was doing in order to play around with the concepts of time and space, in order to get new insights.
The second is what the disciple does, hoping to make “spiritual progress.” If he has a vision of his guru (whoever it is), he takes it as confirmation that his guru is true and his path is correct.
Let me quote what you wrote

Test it under different conditions for reliable repeatability, journal and read the journal a week later, six months later and years later.
Lay out the conditions you think led to the vision or experience and try it again.
Try to find verification in science or the writings of others for what you see, hear and feel. If you find it, that's a good step. If you have the experience more deeply with practice, that suggests progress in the experience.
Control over the experience reflects connection to it.

What you are describing has nothing to do with the process Einstein was engaging in.
Let me quote faqir again

Faqir asked himself: "What about the visions that appear to me? Are they a creation of my own mind?

The disciple is meditating and giving meaning to the inner visions. That is why he is so happy when he eventually gets one. He feels the vision confirms his path.
When you wrote at the end “Whichever one you can prove for yourself” what are you really saying?
That all the gurus are true? Then why do they fight? Why are Kirpal initiates saying he is the true master and RSSB is fake, and vice versa?
Everyone feels their path is the true path. You do too, which is why you will argue your point of view.

@Spence
You wrote:
You are attempting to use objective criteria to evaluate someone else's report of their internal subjective experience..
But I had written
" As for inner experience, that is just for us, to confirm our connection and progress. "
You will have to apply that criteria to your own experiences and make that determination for yourself.
It isn't transferable.
That's what subjective experience is.

My reply:
No. The disciple is having a subjective self-created experience, and giving it an objective meaning.
The objective meaning is “my experience proves that my path is true”
If an RSSB initiate goes to a kirpal satsang, others will ask him why he is going there, the assumption being that RSSB is the true path, not kirpal’s.
So again, what exactly does your inner experience confirm for you?
And connection to what?
If you accept it’s created by your own mind, then you also accept it doesn’t objectively prove your path is true.
You are saying that every religion is true for that person because they feel it is so from their experience.
This IS delusion.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

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

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

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

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

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

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

Welcome


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