« Embrace the Scout mindset, not the Soldier mindset | Main | Update your beliefs often as new information comes in »

May 17, 2021


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

Nice post, Brian. We have options every moment...who follows what impulse? My bet in Vegas is that an individual is either following one's desires OR running away from pain - in any given moment. We do what pleases us physically, emotionally and mentally...and tend to stay away from painful encounters of any nature. Even a person that is chasing "spirituality" is actually pursuing a desire, however intangible or abstruse.

Yes, we absolutely have options and the power of choice every moment. But there is one event that we cannot avert or ignore. It may be possible to "postpone" death but inevitably our life here will be terminated...finis...

I may be weird with regards my own prospects of death. I think about the afterlife a lot because this life is over in a jiffy and "eternity awaits"...what are my choices then when everything and everyone is abandoned?

I can think of a number of reasons why people stick with the soldier mindset. It’s somewhat mind bending to change a belief system which is what forms the way you think. Wanting to belong to a certain group is a big one too. Many completely understandable reasons. It takes a lot of strength, courage and motivation to go against the flow for a while until you reach a place that resonates as true.

However, despite how “comfortable” it might be to stick with what’s familiar and avoid having to ask yourself hard questions, I’m shocked that people aren’t more afraid that they might be wrong. Being afraid to question your beliefs is a sign that you most definitely need to question what you believe in. Questioning your beliefs should help you confirm the truth of your belief system. If not, then time to get brave. Truth IS courage.

When one is stuck in a belief, it doesn’t feel like that to him or her.
Instead it feels like they have “the truth” and they may even feel privileged.
I remember, I used to feel that way right up until the year 2000, when the cracks began to appear in my otherwise perfect castle.
I didn’t just believe, I thought I “knew” that Sant mat was the truth.
It was just a matter of “which flavour”
I was convinced that kirpal Singh was a true master
That tainted my viewpoint
It was only when i hit rock bottom and my life was pretty much over, that I began to face the fact that just maybe I was deluding myself.
Only then did the truth finally dawn that Sant mat was just another belief system.

That was the beginning of wisdom and clear thinking

And the end of seeking some fictional god who resided in Sach khand

Seen with new eyes, it now became clear that guru Nanak and the ten gurus were preaching something else: not the Sant mat that I believed.

"Seen with new eyes, it now became clear that guru Nanak and the ten gurus were preaching something else: not the Sant mat that I believed."


Hello, Osho Robbins, old friend.

This reminds me of that classic atheist's rejoinder to the montheist: "You disbelieve in all the zillions of Gods out there. I disbelieve in just one more."

I fully sympathize with, and agree with, your breaking free of your original belief system. But it seems to me there is another layer that you still need to break free of. I'm referring to Guru Nanak and the ten gurus.

Who cares what Guru Nanak and the ten gurus preached? Why put that on a pedestal? Why not throw that out in the garbage along with the rest?

Have you any evidence that what Guru Nanak and the ten gurus preached is truth? If there is, please share it here, and I will be happy to join you in believing in them and trying to seek out the true meaning of their teachings. I suspect Brian will, as well.

But in the absence of such evidence, you cannot expect us to take seriously what Guru Nanak and his gang of gurus preached. And you'll be well advised to not waste a single minute yourself worrying about what they really preached. Unless there is some conclusive evidence that what they preached is reflective of the actual truth.

"There's no reason why you can't remain close to family and friends who choose to remain within the belief structure you've left behind. But sometimes there's a price to be paid for being independent: ostracism, criticism, shunning."

Empathize with this blog post.

Small disagreement with a small detail here, though: It is sometimes difficult to remain really close to people if your belief system, or the lack of it, differs from theirs. A theist who is so closely wedded to their theism, that those beliefs comprise a major portion of who they are what they do, while it is easy enough for one to remain casual friends with them, but when the relationship is closer that that, then sometimes -- often? -- continuing with as close a relationship becomes ...troublesome, difficult, very difficult indeed.


"Everybody has to decide whether truth is more important than getting along."

Again, I empathize with this.

Actually it isn't quite a dichotomy, as much as a ...trichotomy, is that a word?

At one extreme you decide it is better to get along, and play along.

At the other extreme you plug for the truth, and accept the consequences. Sometimes those consequences are harsher than merely social ostracism within a small social circle. Sometimes those consequences extend to financial loss, to physical threat to yourself and your family, and worse. And yes, one option is to take those risks, and fight the good fight, for the sake of upholding the truth.

As ever, there's a middle ground. That middle ground is where you don't hypocritically play along, nor stand in open opposition, but merely distance yourself from the cacophony of untruth. It is an uneasy compromise, as all middle grounds are, unless one learns to make one's peace with it.

Hi Appreciative Reader
Nice to hear from you.

Good point. Except for one thing.

I am not a Sikh or a Radha soami, or a Buddhist or a follower of any religion.

However, if I read the scriptures of these same religions, they match my viewpoint when understood without wearing the glasses of that particular religion.

If someone writes something - they are making some point. If I understand what they are saying - it may match my viewpoint.
Or I can start with a viewpoint such as “I must meditate or recite scriptures in order to meet god” and make that fit.
That is a belief that I am then trying to find proof of, in order to get confirmation that I am correct, so I can happily carry on with my chosen beliefs.

So in my early days as a disciple that is what I did. I was 100% convinced that my path was the correct one, and the same as what guru Nanak preached.

Upon closer examination, and having taken my glasses off, I find now guru Nanak is saying something else.

Not that I care what Nanak or kabir or bulleh shah says, but, it happens to match my viewpoint after having dropped the previous beliefs

Have I replaced my previous beliefs with a new set of “enlightenment beliefs”?

It will appear so, until the enlightenment dawns on you.

Then you will understand what it means to drop the mind and go beyond all beliefs

The atheist viewpoint is also correct. He asks a believer to prove his god.
His god cannot be proven, so the atheist says there are no grounds to believe.

He is correct.

However the “god” of Nanak (not really a God but a state of realisation that truth is beyond time and space), is not provable simply because it doesn’t exist in matter, energy, space, time.

You could argue that in that case it doesn’t exist. I agree. Because existence means “existing to us with our senses”

Is there any other type of existence?

Nanak says and I also say, there is.

Buy it requires one to drop the idea that existence only belongs to the physical.

It requires a new definition about what “real” means. By my definition, what we see here is only “relatively real” because it is within time and everything within time ends and I don’t call that “real”. It’s only as real as a dream which appears to be real as long as it is happening. Once the dreamer awakens he says it was just a dream. Not that it didn’t happen - it clearly did - but it ended. Everything that ends is only relatively real.
So then “real” can only mean that which never ends (Akal). That is also Nanaks definition in the japji
It doesn’t require a belief
It requires understanding that only the timeless can be eternal.
That ‘eternal’ is labelled as god.
But this is a very different god from what religions teach.
This god has no form, and cannot “do” anything or “judge” or do anything practical because he does exist by our standards.

In order for enlightenment to happen, the first step is to drop all beliefs
Hence the atheist is closer than the believer.
Dropping beliefs is almost impossible because those beliefs are part of the persons identity.

Hence this is the hardest step. In my case, it was a traumatic divorce that triggered it.

The next step happens only if one meets a realised person and is open to his viewpoint. That’s a choice.

However this enlightenment is not another belief because no belief is required. Only openness to understand Time, Space and its relationship to what we call eternal.
It cannot be proven to anyone any more than I can prove a third dimension to something that exists only in two dimensions.
To the two dimensional thing, there is no third dimension.
First understanding happens - then it dawns that “I” don’t exist and that truth is beyond “I” do how can “I” grasp it? Like it was a thing to attain.

I like the distinction between thinking like a soldier and thinking like a scout. People might adopt the most attractive of these for themselves, while actually functioning in a different way than either.

We can become very romantic in our notions of independence and freedom of thought. Who doesn't think they are acting under their own free choice and will? When things go well it is natural to believe "I did it." And when things don't go well it is equally likely that some will cling to the notion that they were forced and that the real culprit for their woes is someone else.

These are simply personas we adopt and adapt. We try to fit an image of our life onto our life rather than accept and understand our life as it exists.

But we are hardly able to correctly check up on who and what we really are by claiming some lifeless narrative picture as our life. When we connect with life, it will be far more immense and rich than any concept or description. And our concepts will become nothing. Our understanding will become more accurate as we become instruments of observation alone. 100% accurate.

To do that we must become something much more and much less than either scout or soldier, as both actually have a self - serving purpose.

To that end that we cling to, creating a comforting narrative to get us through the rough and uncomfortable realities; to the goal of being the hero of our own lives; we write and re-write our narratives throughout life. Let's put down the pen, and the map paper.

The Zen approach would have us relinquish those. Instead of telling, instead of making the map as we want it to be to get to some imaginary objective, we simply accept that we are part of the landscape where we are, which is really everywhere and nowhere, and look and listen without purpose from this one tiny spot. Wherever we are is the starting point and the destination. The whole of our reality is actually within. We don't need to make a map. It already exists. It is the landscape before us and within us.

As It Is, and even As We Wish to See It. Both are good subjects of simple observation. But they are not the same.

"If a child decides to head off in a different religious direction after becoming an adult, they can be made to feel guilty, like they're doing something wrong and letting down their parents."

From reading the thread I was moved on how some people decide to disengage what their parents did to raise them. In my family, I didn't get much grooming except that my dad would throw me a bone every once in a while.

He did impress on us to always try and do righteous actions as most Religions encourage. But other than that I had to create my experiences through rough crowds, learn my own survival methods, and even further my scholarship in islamic study as we never had a stable living situation -moving until my father's death. So I would have killed for parents to arrange most aspects of my life, would have saved me a lot of trouble, scrapes, and burns.

Anyhow, now that I made it pass the life expectancy for inner city black males in the 90s which was 35-37. I was cheerful I also located Baba Gurinder Singh Dhillon to let mre in on his form of Yoga. So I got thrown another bone, and yet it's still up to me to make it work.

GSD encourages people to allow others to find their own path. He never tells parents to convert their children

He says everyone has to choose their own path. I doubt if many followers take his advice, but he at least makes it clear that each person needs to decide fir themselves

Every situation is different but even when a married couple or parents and children belong to the same faith, they often have different interpretations of that particular faith. When my husband and I both followed Sant Mat we still had different views about it. He was very “1.0”
and I was always trying to download the latest version. There are lots of things about Sant Mat that I agree with but also a few key things that I don’t agree with so I don’t consider it my religion/path/faith.

And it hasn’t made that much of a difference in our relationship. I often tease my husband and say that he belongs to a cult. He responds by making fun of my “new age unicorns and rainbows approach” (that’s not accurate but that’s how he sees it). And we’re not mad at each other when we say those things. We accept that we’ve always had different beliefs—even when we both went to satsang.

I think the key reason it’s not a problem for us is because neither of us is trying to convert the other. As long as we live a moral life, our differences of faith don’t matter much at all. Of course, we’re both vegetarian and that helps a lot. That’s really important to both of us.

Everyone has their own individual interpretation of the teachings, but they claim to follow the same Sant mat.
Everyone has their own concepts and their own version.
There are as many versions as there are followers.
And each person gets confirmation that their version is correct, by a simple process of deletion and distortion (these are NLP terms for how we process incoming information)
That means we simply delete anything that doesn’t fit our model, and distort other information to make it fit; and then BINGO - my version is always correct

I think any belief system based on real Compassion, Love, all kinds of it , and hopefully asap
The Sound Current ( which makes the objective subjective ) will do !



I’m familiar with NLP. Tony Robbins was a big proponent of it. Yes, we all have our own filters that create unique perceptions. No two people look at the same object and see it the exact same way.

@ Everyone has their own concepts and their own version.
@ There are as many versions as there are followers. And
@ each person gets confirmation that their version is correct,
@ by a simple process of deletion and distortion
@ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hm, a little judicious "addition" may occur too. I'm reminded of a
couple caring for a sweet grandmother, Ella, who had Alzheimers.
They had just ended a meal with a customary "amen" from Ella's
daughter to which Ella hastened to add: "...and awomen"

To which an RSSB ardent follower man will say “definitely not Ahh women” as he has to avoid such temptations in order to reach Sach khand
And interestingly Islam says you get 1000 virgins once you get to the Islamic heaven

72, not 1000. Allah is Great. He is Merciful. He is Bountiful. Profligate He ain't.

@ And interestingly Islam says you get 1000 virgins once you get to the Islamic heaven

72, 1000 ... what's the diff if it was metaphoric as a more , um, dispassionate
observer might well interpret that bit of hyperbole. Christianity, Hinduism,
Islam, and other religions arguably struggle to hint what internal ecstatic
spiritual experience is comparable with. So they wax poetic and go hyperbolic
in the extreme. Seriously, how else would the religious awakened frame the
payoff to those who have no idea what spirituality is but would jump at a
"virgin lottery" ticket.

Only 72?
And once I am bored with 72?
Then what am I to do?
Do I have to come back down to earth?
And then go back to heaven for a fresh 72?
All these ideas are so crazy.
In Sar bachan too. .....
“What if I get to Sach khand, and sat purush in his wisdom (mauj) decides once again to send the souls away?”
Is the question the soul puts to sat purush.
“Don’t worry, this mauj will not happen again” is the consolation given.

What kind of answer is that?

Surely the soul should reply “well I don’t believe you mr purush, as you don’t have a good track record”

Yes these are all metaphors, but like in the “lion king” when the baboon tells the mother that he explained to her son using a metaphor, she says “OMG - but my son doesn’t understand metaphors - he takes everything literally”

Just like most humans

@ “What if I get to Sach khand, and sat purush in his wisdom (mauj) decides once again
@ to send the souls away?” Is the question the soul puts to sat purush.
@ “Don’t worry, this mauj will not happen again” is the consolation given.

I think the language "once again to send souls away" and "mauj will not
happen again" entangles our analysis in time and space. It suggests the
poor suffering soul is victimized by the mauj; whereas, the mystic says,
in reality, we are God in essence. The "fickle finger of fate" is our own
doing. We, in our current state, have only forgotten it.

The mystic simplifies and babbles to us in our own language. The words
become a play pen to keep us diverted until we follow the mindfulness
path sincerely. Then we discard the metaphor and see not through a
"glass, darkly but face to face" via direct perception.

It is not even our own doing.

Nothing has happened. There is no separation in the first place.

There are no separate souls

Hence no merging is needed

And if there is no separate soul
There is also no karma

And no journey to oneness

It is already the case

Only oneness is

Seventy Two is two for every ten degrees, each a doorway. They surround you. One is loving and attractive. The other, equally beautiful, full of scorn and venom, and terrifying. And both are there, luminescent, nearly transparent, without flaw, like the ghost of Christmas past, to guide you to a single volume of 36 lives from your past. From there you pick the chapter you wish to read. Ten large tomes representing your human history. They are the librarians, the guides to your past in a virtual library, and you were the historian who wrote every word. You were every character. And all the love and hatred they share, you earned. But in all instances, they are your past, not your future. Even the past you are living in right now, naught but a single chapter in a single volume. And everyone you know, in your relationship to them, you wrote that script, you wrote their character. The only one you see when you say, "This is Mary... This is Ram,... This is Bob." You wrote their names, their hair color, their occupations. And they are fulfilling that role perfectly, just as you are fulfilling the role you wrote for yourself long ago. You could claim that now is not the past. But since now is built unerringly from the past, every moment absolutely determined, every action payment for your own, you are in fact living in the past, in one of those lives you elected to visit in your stroll through the Library.

Oops,should read "thirty six large tomes..."

@ And no journey to oneness
@ It is already the case
@ Only oneness is

All dramatically true. But without a mystic's experiential insight and
realization, it rings hollow. A mystic compares our circumstance to
that of a lucid dreamer who shouts "It's all a dream!" to others in his
dream only to awake in the morning and discover all the dreamers
listening to him had disappeared and were part of the illusion. He
had spoken the truth to them without knowing it himself.

What on earth are you talking about, Spence?

There was a time when I used to find this kind of thing ...well, kind of impressive. When I'd come across deep-sounding words that I myself could not understand, I was inclined to put it down, almost always (and barring particular evidence to the contrary in specific cases), to a lack in my own comprehension. The benefit of the doubt, was the default, so to say.

It seems that has changed. I am less inclined, these days, to look on a nonsensical-sounding passages, and imagine there are depths there that I myself am somehow unable to fathom.


Which is not to dismiss things one doesn't understand out of hand. That would be foolish. That would be going to the other end, the other extreme, that is equally as unreasonable as unquestioning acceptance.

The reasonable thing to do, when presented with this sort of thing, is to ask:

What on earth do you mean, Spence? Would you clearly explain?

First: Are you familiar with Islamic theology, and is that the official explanation for the 72 virgins? If so, then per which sect? Per which sura of which book of that sect? Or is that your own personal explanation? In which case, how exactly do you know this?

Second: Quite apart from the provenance of that explanation, that I've asked about above: Would you actually and clearly explain this? 36 degrees of what? Why 2 per 10 degrees? You know, a clear explanation of whats and the hows and the whys and wherefores of what you've said that in that passage?


Pardon me, I don't mean to go out of my way to puncture the flow, or anything like that. I'm just trying to understand what you're saying. If you tell me there's no deeper meaning to this, or that there's a deeper meaning then you can't or won't explain, then I'll not question you in future, and you'll have unfettered access to your soapbox.

But if that actually makes sense, that passage, then I'd like to understand.

(Which, it occurs to me, is actually plugging for the benefit of the doubt, once again. And that, when you think about it, is kind of a compliment. At least I hope you'll take it as such.)


Apologies if that was a joke, that I could not understand.

If all that was was just hot air, put out deliberately, in a spirit of fun, then I can see how my probing might be a downer.

If that's all that was, then I do see how that would be funny, given the larger context of this blog and the kinds of discussions we have here. My literal-minded probing would be entirely out of place, in that case.

Hi Appreciative
You wrote
"It seems that has changed. I am less inclined, these days, to look on a nonsensical-sounding passages, and imagine there are depths there that I myself am somehow unable to fathom."

Probably a safe approach.
It was an allegory. All good allegories refer to ourselves. Elements within ourselves. The angels and demons within. The virgins reflect pure elements of ourselves, the yielding compassion and passion we have for our own life, and the harsh judgment we render upon ourselves, reflected in that of our critics, and these related to the elements of our life, our story.

We are surrounded by the mind. You can call that heaven or hell, but in my allegory it is just a library. The Akashic records, the inpressions we carry. People think these are just their experiences. But built into our very genetics area the experiences, distilled into impressions, of billions of years of development.

As every element of reality, external and internal, are fixed by reality and the unyielding determinism of time and physical matter, we might as well be living in the past. Every event we see has a cause. Now is just a ripple from the past.

In this sense we are all living in, reenacting, the past. And it is the story we have chosen to read, to relive, our of those impressions. It's like watching King Lear or Romero and Juliette enacted in modern times. It is still thousands of years old, still living and re-living in an ancient past, an old script

As for everyone around us, we only know them by the representations our own brain constructs. When we forget about someone, they have been destroyed.

Our situation is unfathomable and can only be understood, if at all, through allegory.

As for those 72 virgins... In ancient calendars there were 360 days, and as you know a complete circle is 360 degrees. Enough for a full circle, a full cycle. Human life has been represented as a cycle of one full year. Youth of spring and summer, age and old age of fall and winter. This leaves exactly two virgins for every ten degrees, every ten days. We are surrounded by the circle, hence the 72 virgins would be paired for every ten day cycle. Between the two virgins the entire span of human emotion, hence one representing unconditional passion, and the other, judgment. They carry us throughout life, changing as we change in each cycle.

Oh, not a joke then.

Not to beat this to death, and if you don't wish to take this further then just say the word and I'll drop this. But in case you are both able and willing to actually take this further, then:

Explain that allegory for me, would you?

Or, better: Just drop the allegory, because it seems to be hindering rather than facilitating communication (with me, at any rate). Could you just try to say what you intended to convey in clearer terms?

Actually that takes me back to what I'd asked in my earlier comment:

(1) What is the basis of your saying this? Are you presenting Islamic theology here, or is this your own personal idiosyncratic take on the 72 virgins?

(2) If the former, then could you present citations, or least approximately -- not so that I can cross-check, but merely so that I may know what is the approximate basis,the approximate source, of this? And if the latter, then how do you come to know this, that this is what the 72 virgins might be about?

(3) Finally, would you just clearly re-state the content of that earlier comment of yours in clearer terms, just convey what you meant to convey in more matter-of-fact terms? So that I can actually come closer to understanding what you're trying to say?

As for those 72 virgins... In ancient calendars there were 360 days, and as you know a complete circle is 360 degrees. Enough for a full circle, a full cycle. Human life has been represented as a cycle of one full year. Youth of spring and summer, age and old age of fall and winter. This leaves exactly two virgins for every ten degrees, every ten days. We are surrounded by the circle, hence the 72 virgins would be paired for every ten day cycle. Between the two virgins the entire span of human emotion, hence one representing unconditional passion, and the other, judgment. They carry us throughout life, changing as we change in each cycle.

Posted by: Spence Tepper | May 22, 2021 at 10:24 AM


Interesting! (I was typing out my earlier comment when you posted this, so we kind of crossed each other there.)

Is this just your own take, or is this the Islamic explanation for the 72 virgins?

In any case, those 72 virgins are what you're presented with AFTER you die, and have accessed Paradise. They're not in the here and now, to my knowledge. Given that, how would this explanation of yours apply?

(Very interesting, by the way. I've never ever come across this kind of an explanation before. Not that that's surprising, Islamic theology is one of the many many many things that I'm quite ignorant about!)

Hi Appreciative
An allegory only works if it resonates with you, helps you think symbolically, and thus tangibly, about elements within you. Everything in your body and brain are your companions. They change with each passing period of your life. And sometimes that change is simply that you see them now for the first time. When you met a new friend, from your perspective, they were just born, just came into being. You may converse with the elements within yourself, but that requires having some common language to understand each other.

Most certainly your companions are already there.

"Life is a foreign language. Everyone mispronounces it."
Robert Morely

Er, sure, agreed about what you say about allegories generally, sure. And we do have commonalities, you and I, in terms of the language we speak, as well as much of our life experiences if not quite all of it. I don't think communicating should be a very difficult thing.

You haven't actually explained anything here, or answered any of my specific questions. You could try, I'm interested.

Like I said, I wouldn't want to belabor if this against your wishes. If you wish to drop this just say the word, I'm cool. Otherwise, like I said, I'm interested.

Gosh, the comments are just as entertaining as the blog post. Since 1972 was such a special year 😁 and resonates with me, I’ve always been fascinated that the number of Virgins in Islam is specifically 72.

The Rule of 72

Islam makes reference to the number 72 in several instances, not just the “Virgins” which was likely mistranslated. (‘Raisins’ not ‘Virgins’) https://globalnation.inquirer.net/163694/raisins-not-virgins-quran-scholars-say

Then there’s this:
“In Islam, 72 is the number of sects or denominations that are doomed to Hell, according to Hadith (Sayings of prophet Muhammad).”


Fundamentalism begins where the appreciation of symbolism ends.

It’s all symbolic!



‘Raisins’ not ‘Virgins’


Interesting. Reminds me of that other (in)famous alleged mistranslation of "virgin", that resulted in "Jesus was born to Mary the young woman" became "Jesus was born to Mary the virgin". At least that's one of the accounts I've read, that explains the virgin birth thing.

As far as "raisins not virgins", that does raise questions, though, right? I mean, why raisins, and why 72 of them? Why would Allah give that exact number of that exact fruit to the righteous in Paradise? And why would the righteous be so very happy to receive 72 raisins, of all things? (I suppose it could, as Dungeness suggests, all be metaphorical, so that 72 raisins might only mean that the righteous would be assured of plentiful stocks of good food in Paradise.)

Hi Appreciative
Am allegory is an invention, prose to describe something in visible terms that is invisible. The allegory of the pair of companions, light and dark, that guide you into heaven, the houris, has a rich history. My spin on it speaks to my own notions about the symbolic representation, even the characters the brain creates to represent inner and outer experience.

As I wrote, everyone you know is only the representation of that person inside you.

They are born when you meet them and they are destroyed when you forget them, from the point of view of your reality.

Which is the only reality any of us will ever know.

And if you remember them again one day, you can say you are seeing things now from a different place, a higher place, maybe one of the heavens.

Maybe your wife is now a new wife. A Virgin you have come to realize is as young and new as your awakening.

But the you that you claim the real estate around the boarders of your physical body, even that we know little of. The brain and body have their own intelligence. The companions within you have their own intelligence, honed from millions of years of evolution.

Uh, well, okay, Spence: but we're talking about nature of allegories now? That specific comment you'd made about the virgins, don't you want to take that further? Those specific questions I'd asked, want to drop them?

I'm fine with dropping them, if you wish, no issues at all. But ... I don't know, your penchant for suddenly veering off from whatever it is we're discussing into these random irrelevancies, is a bit ...disqueting. :---)
("Irrelevancies" only as far as what we'd been discussing thus far, in this case your comment about the 72 virgins. Otherwise the nature of allegories is fair game for discussion, why not?)


As far as the nature of allegory, and for that matter poetry: I've nothing against those things. They're an art form, and can be enjoyed as such.

When they are put to use as explanation, then there's two ways to do this. One is when you're clear in your mind about what you wish to convey, and use this form (poetry or allegory) to communicate. Correctly done, and properly received, that can make for beauty, and for effective (that is, concise) communication of intuition, sure. But in this case, it is always possible to break this down into clearer communication as well. That may take away from the beauty, as well as the brevity, but clarity can always be brought in by using more words.

But the other kind of allegory and poetry? That's when the thing being sought to be communicated is itself not clear. When the very ambiguity that allegory and poetry afford, is the whole point. That kind of obscurantism, that kind of faux depth, I"m not a fan of.

(At least not if what we're looking for is some kind of an explanation, as opposed to merely art for art's sake. As for as art for art's sake, sure, form over substance is one way to go, absolutely. Is that what we've got here? I'm fine with that, if we're clear that that's the case.)



Apparently you and I are not getting harems full of virgins in the afterlife. Apparently all we'll get are a bag each of raisins, that we can keep chewing on for eternity.


Haven't had even one conversation in Satsang with references to the Islamic religion? They usually go off into Christianity, Judaism, Sikhism or Hinduism. What a treat!

To respect the thread, I will firstly add that it's been hard for me to keep a 'scout' attitude when I still have problems comparing Quranic texts with other texts e.g. the Holy Granth.

On the Holy Quran going into the chapter where it describes in detail, virgins in paradise, just before it there contains a great warning:

"..which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny? Blessed be the name of thy Lord, full of Majesty, Bounty and Honour.."
-Holy Quran (Yusuf Ali) 55/77-78

The Holy Granth shares a similar warning:

"Why should I forget my Beloved? He is the support of my very breath of life.

The perfect beings perform devotional worship to Him. The silent sages serve Him through the Guru's Teachings.

His lamps are the sun and the moon; the One Light of the Destroyer of ego fills the three worlds.

One who becomes Gurmukh remains immaculately pure, day and night, while the self-willed manmukh is enveloped by the darkness of night."
-Sri Guru Granth Sahib pg. 489

Hey Osho
Always good to read your comments - there are no separate souls - I hearya.
Taking a ‘Scouldier’s’ view I’d say the belief in separation is the Big Daddy of all myths.

“ Apparently you and I are not getting harems full of virgins in the afterlife. Apparently all we'll get are a bag each of raisins, that we can keep chewing on for eternity.” - Appreciative Reader

Hey - wouldn’t that be funny? You go to the Islamic paradise, have a chat with Allah and or his only prophet, and head to your bedroom, looking forward to your 72 (downgraded from 1000) virgins. You’re relishing and looking forward to it and when you get there - all that’s on the bed is a bowlful of raisins.
You count them and there are exactly 72.
I just hope you’re into raisins.

Are the 2 Singh brothers from Ranbaxy and GSD’s assistant Sunil Godheami still in prison? GSD was asked to submit his taxes which he submitted privately, what happened after that? Did this story just die down as GSD is so powerful and well connected?

Nick Ny,
It seems nobody knows..
Because no reactions on your questions..
I am thinking about it too now and then...
Itś strange anyway, anyhow that nobody seems to know..

Brian, do you know? It’s rather eerie that 2 prominent figures who were in prison all this time have no news mention anywhere. Sunil Godhwani who is GSD’s right hand was in prison all this time but now. nobody is talking about him. GSD was supposed to submit his tax documents and the Supreme Court was looking into the money trail from the Singh brothers to GSD, but now for the last few months, there is no mention of this news either....so what’s going on?

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

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

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

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

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

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

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


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