Truth is all-important, in mysticism and everywhere else

Sometimes a comment is left on one of my blog posts that leaves me with a WTF (what the fuck) feeling. Meaning, I can't begin to understand where the commenter is coming from.

Here's a recent example that starts off with a quote from a post of mine.

>>If mystics claim to find a new reality, they need to prove it<< WHY? WHY do they need to prove it? No mystic owes anything to anybody.

Wow. The answer to that all caps Why is one-word obvious. Truth.

Truth is why a mystic needs to back up their claim of finding a new reality with solid proof. Reality belongs to everyone. Reality is the home of everyone.

No one gets to spread falsehoods about my home, which is your home, which is everybody's home -- reality.

Now, I understand that truth is taking a beating these days.

Here in the United States, a majority of people who belong to one of our two major parties, the Republican Party, have shown they don't give a shit about truth.

They wrongly claim that election fraud is widespread. They wrongly claim that the Capitol insurrection on January 6 wasn't carried out by Trump supporters. They wrongly claim that Georgia's new election laws are intended to expand voter turnout rather than suppress it.

Obviously I don't claim to always speak the truth or live the truth. Like everybody else, I make mistakes all the time when it comes to understanding things. 

But I've always pointed myself toward truth, even if I fail to reach it much of the time. Intention is all important when it comes to truth. Much can be forgiven if someone sincerely aims to embrace truth, rather than pushing it away.

One of the first posts I wrote when I started this blog in 2004 was called "Just have faith." Here's an excerpt that I still heartily agree with.

Here's how to tell the difference between true faith and false faith: Imagine that you are standing in the middle of a bare windowless room. Two doors lead out of the room. Both are closed, but can be opened with a turn of the doorknob. The doors are marked with signs that describe what awaits on the other side: (A) Reality, (B) Belief

After you open a door, you have to walk through it. The door then will shut and you never will be able to leave the place you have entered.

Choose Reality and you will know things as they really are, from top to bottom of the cosmos. You will know whether or not God exists and, if so, the nature of this ultimate divinity. You will know whether death is the final end of your existence or if it is the beginning of another form of life. You will know whether there is a meaning to the universe beyond what human beings ascribe to it.

Or, choose Belief and you will know only what lies within the confines of your current suppositions about the nature of the cosmos. For the rest of your life you will be confident that what you believe to be true, really is. Any evidence to the contrary will not make an impact on your mind. You will remain doubt-free, faithful to the beliefs you now hold about God, creation, life, death, and the purpose of human existence.

Which door would you choose to walk through?

Before answering, consider carefully the potential ramifications of your choice. Reality is an unknown, a mystery. It could be frightening or fabulous, painful or pleasurable, warmly loving or coldly uncaring. Do you want to embrace absolutely real reality? Or would you rather hold on to your beliefs about what is real?

Someone with the type of faith extolled by the Church of the Churchless would unhesitatingly choose Door A and boldly stride into Reality. For their faith is not in anything particular, but is a faith that truth can be known, should be known, and, indeed, must be known.

Getting back to the comment about mystics not owing anything to anybody when it comes to making a claim about having found a new reality, back in 2006 I talked about the need for questioning such claims in "With God, from 'I believe' to 'I know' is a huge step."

Here's the core of that blog post. The A.H. Armstrong quote comes from my book, "Return to the One."

If you say to me, “When it comes to God, I don’t know,” we’re comrades in unknowing. Grab a chair and belly up with me to the clueless bar.

If you say to me, “When it comes to God, I believe…,” we can have an interesting conversation. I probably won’t agree with you, but I enjoy learning about other people beliefs, or lack thereof, in a higher power.

If you say to me, “When it comes to God, I know…,” we are going to have a really interesting conversation. For once you say “know” rather than “believe,” my skeptical radar sets off a Dogma alert! Dogma alert! siren inside my psyche.

I don’t expect reasons for beliefs. They’re your business. Just like sex, whatever turns you on. Go for it. But also just like sex, beliefs need to remain personal if they are to be unquestioned.

As soon as you say, “I believe _____, and you should too,” there’s going to be a stiffening of my argumentative spine. I’m pleased to be given advice by someone who is more knowledgeable about something than I am. However, that something needs to be objectively real, not imaginary.

And beliefs aren’t real, even though lots of religious people seem to think that they are.

Going further, some people actually claim that they know the nature of God or ultimate reality. Now, this requires some serious questioning. A claim like that, why, it’s amazing. I mean, in the entire span of recorded history there hasn’t been a single clearly evident, unquestionable, plain-as-day revelation about God or the divine.

So if you tell me that you know for a fact that God exists, or that God is such and such, or that God is realized in this particular fashion, then I’m going to be super-duper interested in how you’re able to back up that astounding assertion.

I want you to lay your cards on the table. Face up. All of them. Show me your four aces. And let me know in detail, exactly, precisely, how you were able to come up with that winning hand.

Of course, I know that this won’t be possible. If you’re just bluffing, and don’t really know about God, then you’ll be empty-handed. But even if by some miracle you truly are God’s bosom buddy, you still won’t be able to lay any material proof on the table.

I’m pretty confident about that, because nobody else ever has been able to do so, and I’m willing to bet that this run of “busts” will continue.

So, please, please, please. Pretty please with blind faith crumbs on top. If you write or talk to me and go beyond “I believe…” when speaking about God, bring your best stuff. Show me the money, as the saying goes. The proof.

I’ve shared this quotation before, but it’s worth sharing again. To my mind, classics scholar A.H. Armstrong hits just the right tone.

When claims to possess an exclusive revelation of God or to speak his word are made by human beings (and it is always human beings who make them), they must be examined particularly fiercely and hypercritically for the honor of God, to avoid the blasphemy and sacrilege of deifying a human opinion.

Or, to put it less ferociously, the Hellenic (and, as it seems to me, still proper) answer to “Thus saith the Lord” is “Does he?,” asked in a distinctly skeptical tone, followed by a courteous but drastic “testing to destruction” of the claims and credentials of the person or person making this enormous statement.

Comments

[um]

Why?

Why do people always question teachers and teachings?

Why do they never discuss and question themselves as seekers, as initiate etc?

Why making others responsibly for one's own thoughts, feelings and decisions.
outsourcing personal responsibility.

The motivation to ask for initiation of this or that path, from this or that teacher, are to be found in the mind of the person that asks for initation and nowhere else and so are the motives to turn ones back upon the same.

Nobody forces a person to go into a particular bookstall, roam the shelfs selectively, and pick a book .... nobody is responsible for the effect of the content but the reader.

What have the writer, the owner of the bookshop etc etc. to do with us?

We search what we want
We search what WE want
we search what we WANT.

we are responsible for that search and nobody else.

[um]

>> When claims to possess an exclusive revelation of God or to speak his word are made by human beings (and it is always human beings who make them), they must be examined particularly fiercely and hypercritically for the honor of God, to avoid the blasphemy and sacrilege of deifying a human opinion.>they must be examined particularly fiercely and hypercritically for the honor of God, to avoid the blasphemy and sacrilege of deifying a human opinion<<

That is the modus operandi of the political Islamic groups .... to fight for the honor of God.

[Appreciative Reader]

">>If mystics claim to find a new reality, they need to prove it<< WHY? WHY do they need to prove it? No mystic owes anything to anybody."

-------

Why? Here's why.

No reasonable person believes random things. A reasonable person only believes things that they have evidence for, evidence of whatever kind.

So that, when a reasonable person is asked why they believe what they believe, then the reasonable person is able to clearly discuss the evidence that has led them to believe what they believe.

It isn't a question of some "How dare you question me, how dare you demand evidence of me" thing here, not at all.

If you're a reasonable person, then you already have sound evidence for the things you believe in.

Therefore, when asked to produce evidence for the things you believe, then that's not a big deal, you're merely producing the evidence that you already have, and that's already available with you.

-------

Therefore, if you refuse to produce evidence for your beliefs, whether mystical or otherwise, then that necessarily implies one of three things:

(1) You simply do not with to engage with the person asking for evidence. And you can do that, sure, that is your prerogative entirely. But that does raise the question, as to why you started discussing your beliefs at all. Although again, sure, no one can dictate to you the extent of your engagement; absolutely, you can choose to discuss these beliefs, and then simply refuse to discuss the evidence that led you to your beliefs, if that's what you want to do. Your prerogative, absolutely.

(2) You realize, while discussing, that the particular beliefs being discussed you have no evidence for. At which point, you can either get rid of those beliefs, or else do the cognitive-dissonance thing. Which you choose to do is, again, your call entirely, because after all you're beholden to no one.

(3) You're not a reasonable person, and are given to believing things for which you don't have satisfactory evidence.

[um]

@ A.P.

I opp for the last option .... but why remains the question.

It also distracts from the point I was making and have been making many a time, that questioning a person or something, that has its mental roots inside, will never bring an answer, thayt can bring the question to an end.

Questions, discussions etc about the existence of metaphysical issues, can only be solved where they are born.

Both faith and love, are not based upon proof, they arte a personal gift and give purpose and direction to life.

They cannot be made by effort or understanding or judging something or someone as deserving, these are all things of the "heart".

If they are not there, they are just not there ... accept it but do not blame others for the lack of one own faith, devotion, love etc.

The discussions about things and persons other than oneself are endless. They can be simple or eloquent, it doesn't matter, in the end they only speak of that person, not of the things discussed. It speaks of how he or she sees the world and the things related to it. Given that being the case ... the search for truth should start within the person questioning other things than himself.

So prior to discussions about apple pies, the maker, its origin and its place in the universe, one should research and question one's own heart. and answer the many questions .... Why for heavens sake do I xxxxxx.

Of course discussions are more palatable than such an introspection as coffee is a better drink than water .... but in the end clear water is the best.

[Appreciaitve Reader]

Hey, um.

----"I opp for the last option .... but why remains the question."

Actually, it will depend, won't it? You can't opt for some option, not in some generalized manner. I suggest it actually is one of these three things; and which it is will depend.

I don't mean this as some kind of indictment, just my way of explaining (or at least, of suggesting an explanation that sounds reasonable) what at first blush appears kind of not-easily-understood.

----"questioning a person or something, that has its mental roots inside, will never bring an answer"

Do you mean, questioning a person about their words and actions that have their root in their subconscious, that their conscious is not aware of? From their blind spot, so to say?

If that's what you mean, and if that actually does happen to be the case in some instance, then sure, I agree.

----"The discussions about things and persons other than oneself are endless. "

It can be, I agree. But it doesn't have to be that way.

If both parties are willing, the explainer to explain and the explainee to understand, then it is merely a question of fashioning a mode of discussion that can adequately convey what there is to convey.

You do, in practice, often arrive at impasses. That is undeniably true. I guess that is because either the one explaining does not wish to explain, or even if they want to explain they do not want to take the necessary trouble; or the explainee does not really want to understand, or at least does not want to take the pains necessary to understand; or because their mode of discussion is wanting.

People often are islands. But they don't necessarily have to be. At least I don't see why.

----"the search for truth should start within the person questioning other things than himself."

Wise words, um. Amen to that.

[um]

@ A.R.

>>"questioning a person or something, that has its mental roots inside, will never bring an answer"

Do you mean, questioning a person about their words and actions that have their root in their subconscious, that their conscious is not aware of? From their blind spot, so to say?

If that's what you mean, and if that actually does happen to be the case in some instance, then sure, I agree<<

What I mean is very simple .... whatever we do, is motivated.... from buying a book in a particular shop, from a particular writer to opening up for the things others say, asking for initiation etc.

We have conditioned free will and we have free choice.

Although the choices can be triggered through an outside catalyst, it is never caused by it. Reason why the catalyst can never made responsible, or questioned. .... doing so is like asking a tree why one is walking in the forest.

[Ron Krumpos]

Mystics are so aware of the limits of human forms of expression that most do not even attempt to portray what they experienced with all of their being and which has transformed their lives.

[Manoj]

Interesting....
Question everything leave nothing.

There's alot of so called God men around who think they know it all when in reality they ain't got the faintest.

Take goody two shoes GSD and the whacky rs cult. Full of BS and shovelling it out like its going out of fashion.

Being a sheep from this heard ain't getting you anywhere, but the slaughter house.

So ask those questions they tell you NEVER to ask at those so called full of crap Q&As of GSD and see for yourself the truth of the enlightened bull shit youve always been fed.

And if that doesn't help, do yourself a favour and ask good old Google baba about that very old, bad GSD baba.

Sometimes...
Truth is all-important, in mysticism and everywhere else

[Spencer Tepper]

If Truth is the destination, we must acknowledge that we aren't there yet. And so rhetorical questions made from a pre-conceived version of truth is just another form of false logic pretending to be truth.

Until we know Truth we must look to history and science to see that science is so very rigorous precisely because what truths have been discovered are often counter-Intuitive. Very Very few people get behind a new idea. Far more get behind the status quo.

And this is why logic and reason, limited to the premeses we agree upon, and not to unproven truths yet unknown, can be a barrier to truth also. Logic and Reason may not be logical or reasonable compared to Truth. They may be nothing more than history, the status quo raising it's ugly head to prevent progress.

Because reason and logic require a set of agreed upon premeses, those can be popular beliefs and prejudices They are not necessarily truth. They may be what people tell themselves are the truth. Changing one single agreed-upon premise can alter the result.

Logic is a prostitute who will assume any position for a fee.You merely pay her in prejudice, hatred and bigotry you insist are the truth.

But she can do incredible things for you if you pay her in interest, in openness, in a blank slate, like an unfolding flower. If you become innocent.To learn like a sponge, to absorb what is happening as it is, not as we are. That's a tall order. So see things from outside our own old prejudices, our old conditioning. Very disciplined practice required. And Faith. Faith that what you don't know is more important than what you do. Faith that practice of putting today's thinking aside and really looking openly, as a pratice, towards...what? Towards the void, the mystery, will unveil Truth.

Faith.

For that, Faith is essential. Faith, unfortunately, is largely independent of reason and logic, except faith in the Status Que, in prejudice. But the Status Que is actually the enemy of any new Truth.

If reason is old thinking, ...
Faith is independent of reason.

[Spence Tepper]

Faith is the gateway to Truth.
Faith in the pratice of unknowing and observing, of focus, and love.
Why love? Because love is our focusing tool, naturally buit in. And where love is, higher love, then hatred and anger, prejudice and the status quo of old assumptions we held as truth, have no quarter.
And so Faith, love and practice are more important, from where we are, from this place of ignorance, in order to move forward towards Truth.

If reason and logic cease to be the servants of the status quo, and instead become the servants of faith in an open mind, and love, higher love without object, perhaps we will actually learn something new.

To most people Love is an intermediary. Love is the servant between us and others, an other things.

But a higher love is no intermediary. We are all part of it, one and the same. It is beyond reason. It is alive. It is all life in its purest intent.

Faith, love and practice are greater than truth, when we say truth is what we conceptualize. They are the servants of Truth.

[Appreciative Reader]

Quote um:
"Although the choices can be triggered through an outside catalyst, it is never caused by it. "

What's the difference, um?

I mean, sure, I accept that there's no unconditioned absolute free will, that everything you'll do is predictable to the smallest detail if only you had full God's-eye perspective of the entire world including the insides of your own brain. I'd say that's a trivial tautology, if you subscribe to a materialist paradigm.

But, given that you do admit of free will, albeit, as you say, "conditioned free will", how exactly do you differentiate between something acting as catalyst for something else, and something causing something else? Wouldn't that just be semantics?

(If you're saying X causes Y, but Y is also caused by many other causes other X, then that's fine, I agree. But in that case I'm not sure how that might support your argument here, because your "catalyst" is also a cause, if only one amongst many others.)

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

Quote Spence:
"And this is why logic and reason, limited to the premeses we agree upon, and not to unproven truths yet unknown,"

Which is why science relies on evidence. Relying on unalloyed logic and reason is what the philosophers of old were given to doing, which is why they didn't get very far from their collective navels (compared to the massive strides made by science, once the scientific method was devised and perfected).

As for faith? I don't see what that has to do with anything at all.

[um]

@ AR
>>But, given that you do admit of free will, albeit, as you say, "conditioned free will", how exactly do you differentiate between something acting as catalyst for something else, and something causing something else? Wouldn't that just be semantics?<<

Well AR what to say?

In the story of Laila and Jamun, his friends did, out of respect and love for their friend, their utmost best to convince him not to marry Laila. According his friends she was the least person in town to be married with, for many different reasons. When finished he said: Friends I do respect and appreciate your the good will towards me and save me from making a wrong choice .... but .... you should see her through my eyes.

Obvious AR Jamun had something his friends were not able to generate.

Christ, just to take an example, said : Love they enemies.
He was not interested in the enemies or their evil behaviour, he was interested in the mental and spiritual welfare of the person he spoke to. He pointed at the possibility of that gift of love also to those that are hardly to be experienced as catalysts for love.

Obvious AR Christ spoke of an human capacity to give to whomever one wants.

[Appreciative Reader]

I'm not sure how that ties in with (that lack of) free will, though?

[um]

@ AR

Never mind. have a good cup of coffee.

It is not about free will, conditioned or not but about free choice and the realisation that our abstract gifts in terms of love, devotion, attenention focus etc etc are a gift, free gift and not caused by an catalyst.

So now I am going to the kitchen to make myself a coffee

[um]

@AR

If your attention is DRAWN towards an painting or something, the question arises if there is an "drawer" in the painting and if so how does he/she operates on you and not on the person standing next to you.

These are all semantic, to use your words.

The fact of live is simple ... we are given life, not that there is an giver but we are just alive. Being alive consciousness, time, attention are all our birth rights. We are all free to spend these precious things at whatever we deem fit to spend on. Like money we can give it away only once and we have to bear the consequences of giving our attention to whatever we wanted.

No religion or philosophy can change that simple fact but those things can be used to determinate what choices to make.

We all live a narrative ... there is no escape.... and the narrative or game we play is selfmade.

The sooner a person wakes up and understands that freedom of choice, the better.

[Uchit]

Truth now that's a novel idea that RSSB Sangat need to become familiar with.

We have a bent baba, an actor on a stage, blatantly lying to his sangat, spinning his fake illusion of a perfect "guru" and so called godly reputation to keep his sangat totally deluded, trapped, thinking that they've found the second coming of christ. Yet out side that illusion , GSD is desperatly trying to surpress his true nature, a greedy , dirty old man, that cares about no one but him self. Beware of his so called RSSB sponsored agents on this site, that love to shovel RSSB propaganda through the back door - especially the ones that think they know it all. This is nothing but Kaal, the trickster, trying to cover all his basis.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Appreciative
You wrote
"As for faith? I don't see what that has to do with anything at all."

Faith that what you don't know is more important to discovering truth than what you believe you know.

For some, what is unknown doesn't exist. They claim no evidence (yet) is proof that something doesn't exist. They have no faith in the unknown. How will they discovery any new Truth?

Science is a wonderful history heralding the value of discovery. And that is a history of people believing in the power to discover something new they don't know yet.

DNA is a great example. Rosalind Franklin's brilliant xray pictographs of reflected rays bouncing off DNA gave Crick and Watson the evidence they needed to construct a model that the evidence supported. First it looked like reflections of a helix... No... A double helix! Imagination and evidence created in a moment a brilliant flash of insight. It didn't hurt their paper was one of the shortest and clearest in research history. Too bad they didn't give Franklin the co - authorship (and the Nobel prize) she deserved. Without that xray Crystalography (bouncing xray light off crystalized dna) there would have been no discovery.

We are discovering all the time. That's where the truth is. We must have more faith in what we do not yet know, than what we know, if we are going to find Truth.

Because it won't look the way we think it should. It won't make sense to us today because it's outside of our experience.

You can't think you're way to Truth. You can think your way to a well defined investigation that uncovers truth.

Back to DNA, today why know its more than just a double helix. That was just the beginning. There are a number of different structures within that overall structure. We know this because we are discovering more, because others chose to look deeper. They realized the double helix couldn't explain it all. They had faith in what was yet to be discovered. Faith enough to put forth the effort.

Scientists carry that faith for decades, even when their long sought evidence remains out of reach. Still, they are learning. And what they are learning is more important to them than what they thought they knew.

[Appreciative Reader]

Faith, as you describe it here, Spence, seems to amount to perseverance, and following a hunch, and doggedly following one's inspirations, but accepting such as reality only when actual evidence is found for it.

I cans see how that kind of "faith" might help people succeed at whatever it is they've undertaken.

Sure, that kind of "faith" I can get behind, absolutely.

[Uchit]

@Spencer
@We are discovering all the time. That's where the truth is. We must have more faith in what we do not yet know, than what we know, if we are going to find Truth.

Following faith blindly without questioning, is like being a total fool . Faith in what we do not know is dangerous, especially on the inside. You have know idea who you are dealing with.
Just look at our own experience in the physical world, do you really know the true intentions of a person who is a stranger. Do we really know GSD, and the manipulative RSSB cult. The foolish make Judgements based on appearances, which is an illusion, a facade , a construction that someone wants you to believe and wants you to see, all for their own benefit. This way the foolish surrender themselves, give total faith in them and become a puppet all for their daily dose of love and light to keep them sedated and totally hooked. The clever person would question everything, test, and trust no one so easily. This way they will find the true intentions. Spenser, you have been caught out again for deceiving the readers on this site totally intentionally, you are an RSSB agent, and working for the wrong team aka Lucifer. Question those demons that are guiding you. Stop doing there bidding. Why don't you leave your satsangs for RSSB centres, as your master says misery loves company. Stop trying to do GSDs job of recruiting lost souls into the fake light, you won't get any prizes.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Uchit:

I'm not sure why you are bullying me, but I don't appreciate it.
You are welcome to share your opinion of any organization and my philosophy.
But you are not welcome to make personal slanderous remarks about me.
"Spenser, you have been caught out again for deceiving the readers on this site totally intentionally"
Not true at all, and terribly unkind.

[um]

@ Uchit

Most things we do, if not all and everything we do in life, have an uncertain outcome, because they involve variables that are not in our hands to control and are for that reason dangerous.

Think for a moment what all can happen by participating in public transport or traffic.
The news papers relate, day in day out, what can go wrong.
Yet people walk, drive a car, take a bus, train or airplane to go somewhere.

We vote for an office, but how do we know, what the person we vote for is going to do after getting that office?

Or ...people love to have children ... but what do they know about the person that is going to come?

The list is enless .... life is dangerous. ... for all creatures
Just look how a bird is feeding himself, ... always in fear of being grasped by a cat or other animal.

[Uchit]

@sponsor, your RSSB guru , GSD, has been indirectly bullying sangat for eons, it's about time he faces his own karma. He has bullied the poor farmers in near by land, bullied his own misses into her death, bullied his nephews in taking billions of pounds. If I see that you are telling half truths, that don't make sense, and manipulate people cunningly and subtly towards RSSBs teachings, I will call these lies out. The deliberate disinformation that those entities are feeding you is dangerous. Man up and deal with those entities that are telling you sweat little lies. If you can't face the heat, then get out of the kitchen.

[Dungeness]

@ you have been caught out again for deceiving the readers on this site totally intentionally,
@ you are an RSSB agent, and working for the wrong team

Brian, isn't there a CofC policy to rein in these vitriolic screeds and
personal attacks by name? I thought the churchless etiquette was
"challenge ideas rather than attack other commenters".

[umami]

"So if you're a believer in some form of religion, mysticism, or spirituality, this is where you can put your "praise God," "praise Guru," or "praise _______" comments"

Blanket insistence that Guru is literally Satan, Lucifer, The Devil or "kaal," hypnotizes audiences, deceives with demon entities and enslaves souls is no less mystical magical than blind praise. It's mumbo jumbo and belongs in the Open Threads!

[Ron Krumpos]

“...most beautiful and profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and most radiant beauty - which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive form - this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of all religion.” Albert Einstein

Notice that he said "which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive form." That is one reason why mystics cannot 'prove' there is an ultimate reality.