« Is a mechanism required for realizing Oneness? | Main | Rules for Reality -- which religious believers ignore »

June 29, 2021


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

“ If existence hadn't always existed, nothing could have arisen within existence. Positing a god doesn't help, since an eternal god is just another way of saying eternal existence. Anyway, there's no proof of any god, while there's plenty of evidence for existence.” - Brian

The question is, is the physical universe all there is? If you extend the limits of your argument to beyond just the physical, you might get a different type of answer.
First you would have to create a new word to replace “exists”.
This word will allow “exists” to include that which we don’t “know”
If we talk about something that is eternal and changeless, it necessarily means it is outside of time. Everything within time changes.
Our normal definition of “exists” would say that such a thing as oneness or emptiness does not exist. So an eternal thing cannot be known by the mind.

The whole argument of whether it (oneness) exists cannot be if any help if exists if defined as we normally define it, because by that definition it clearly does not exist.

Everything here has an opposite. Zero / infinity. Matter / anti matter.
So then why not
Duality / non-duality
Within time / outside time
Within space / outside space

Osho Robbins, to stretch the meaning of "exist" to include everything that potentially could exist reduces the meaning of "exist" to meaninglessness.

Sure, something supernatural, like God, could exist. But there's no demonstrable evidence of this. Likewise, it's possible that invisible fairies are making the plants in our yard grow. But there's no demonstrable evidence of this either.

I realize the attraction of discussing the possibility that supernatural entities exist. Heck, that accounts for a high percentage of the comments on this blog. However, a possibility of something existing isn't the same as that thing actually existing.

Abstractions like "supernatural" shouldn't be confused with actualities.

I'm proud to consider myself part of the reality-based community. Everyone has to decide on their own whether they choose to embrace reality -- which doesn't preclude considering possible additions to reality. Reality just should be the top priority, with possibilities a lesser priority.

I am not a fan of anything supernatural. I don't have any belief in a God,

However, if we are talking about "Existence" and want to consider the possibility of something "eternal" or "changeless" which is what you have mentioned in previous posts on the subject, you cannot even propose to discuss them because by the definition of "existence" they don't exist.

Scientists discuss "Black Holes" and "Anti-matter" even though they break the rules of the rest of creation. They break the rules of maths. In one of the videos I posted, the discussion was about relativity.
If an object is travelling at the speed of light in one direction, and another object is travelling in the opposite direction at say, 1000 miles per second. They will still be travelling at the speed of light relative to each other, not the speed of light + 1000 miles per second.

What I am saying is that if I say that there is something that is outside of time and space, you cannot even think about or discuss the possibility if you immediately say "It doesn't exist".

If you instead acklowledge that perhaps it does exist - but not in terms of how we define existence - then you can at least examine the possibility. Just like the scientists discuss things they will never really know about like black holes and anti-matter.

So I am proposing that there MIGHT BE a different mode of reality. Just as everything here ENDS - in that reality - nothing ever ends - there is just the one thing that remains forever.

The purpose is not to prove it exists - but to examine what this would mean in terms of EXISTENCE. If effect that would become the higher reality - from which everything is created.

One thing is clear - this life ends - so it's not ultimate reality. it is momentary. it is for a short while only.

Allowing for the possibility for something eternal - allows us to examine the possibility of what it would be like.
For instance: I am saying that IF such a thing existed (in the changed definition of the word), what we can say with certainly is that there could not be separate things there, there could also be no movement because movement needs the dimension of time.

So in effect we know from this that the sant mat description of Sach Khand HAS TO BE a lie. There simply CANNOT be a separate being in eternity. There cannot be movement. There also cannot be separate regions, or lords of those regions.

All there can be is ONENESS or emptiness or nothingness. The word used makes no difference, because its only used to signifiy that there cannot be anything separate from the one thing.

From this it can be shown that all religions that believe in a God who is eternal, yet describe him as a being, are saying something impossible.
A timeless thing cannot move. As soon as it moves, it has entered time because only things withing time can move.

There cannot be two eternities or two infinities. If there were, they are no longer eternity or infinity.

This is useful because it can be proven categorically that the bible and the sant mat books are tellind untruths because there cannot be a God character in a timeless spaceless reality.

The state of "losing the ego or the "I" then means to be in the state of oneness: in which there is no subject / object - so it cannot be an experience that happens to an "I".

So that immediately disqualifies the possibility of a person having a mystical experience. If the person experiences a divine entity, it is within duality and cannot be ultimate reality: it is a creation of the mind.
All visions, radiant forms, divine experiences are creations of the mind. They cannot be otherwise.

The evidence God exists is all around us. But the definition we use for God may not be the best one.

What makes plants grow? Water, nutrients? No. They don't make the plant grow. They are ingredients of growth.

What makes the plant grow?

Actualities are all dependent variables.

But what is the true independent variable?

A good scientist won't limit their research to dependent variables.

In fact all research seeks to find and test independent variables.

You pray to God, you gain insight.
You pray to God, you become calm.
You pray to God, you gain strength to overcome obstacles that were overcoming you.

See, it's easy to conduct your own research and get your own results. Results are all around us.

Spence, hopefully your comment above was satirical. There are countless people on Earth who don't pray to God or believe in God and have insight, calm, and strength to overcome obstacles. This includes most people in China, Japan , Europe, and elsewhere who have no use for a God that demands prayer. Plus countless atheists and agnostics.

Anyway, I found your comment amusing. If you intended it to be a joke, you succeeded.

I think Spence means meditation since that is what he does.
So he means

You meditate, you gain insight.
You meditate, you become calm.
You meditate, you gain strength to overcome obstacles that were overcoming you.

Just a guess

Religion and everything related to it can be seen by theologians, Philosophers, sociologists, psychologists etc and questions related to "USE" are answered differently by different disciplines.

The secularization in Europe has little to say about the divine but more if not all the way religion was used.

The same holds for the use of the influx of religious information from the east in the seventies and the meaning it has these days. Those who were lobbyists of it in those days are no often to be found as fierce and proud antagonists.

These days it is not trendy to be religious in general and certainly not as a practioner of an eastern school in particular.

It has all nothing to do with religion, its teachings and teachers, altough they try to make it seen that way but it has only to do with the consumer of religion.

Our houses are no longer coloured in orange, brown and yellow.

Hi Brian Ji
Even if the whole world didn't have an understanding of God, or perceive a need for God, that is not a case for or against God.

And they are not me or you. Their experience can't be used to invalidate yours or mine.

The joke is the simplicity and solidity of my argument.

You see, all of science is discovering and helping us understand different aspects of the creator.

The true independent variable.

@ Spence

Those who have inner experiences that force them to ponder over the source of their experience and theologians, nobody is interested in the divine itself.

For them religion is an social-cultural issue, like politics etc ... or what there is in it for them, their daily problems.

There are consumers of religion and makers.

Existence is an extension of you, Brian. You are the conscious one, inert matter and form is not. You need to up your opinion of your own Self by stripping away the tyranny of mind and matter from your identification. Your pure existence precedes the creation of both mind and matter...they came later in the centrifugal movement outwards and downwards and forced a strained admixture of duality and gravity.

What remains after shedding the cover of mind and matter is you, my friend. All else has its existence IN YOUR UNIQUE LIFE because of you. Without you being present in your existence, there would be no existence or Leela at all. And that describes a state of actionless life without a vehicle to act through or creation to act within...no thanks.

So, you are the one in your own created theater, your battlefield, your laboratory, your Love game.

So Am I.

Love to all.

Let me put this another way, Brian Ji.
If you feel an intimate relationship to all that is around you, if you see that force of Good in all things, even those that seem very bad, if you feel this as a presence, an intelligence, then for you it is natural to think of a creator, to see a creator everywhere you look, and to have that relationship as part of your moment to moment life.

For some people it's very natural. It's just part of who they are and their experience.

But it can only be regarded as a lifestyle, not as the one and only truth.

One and only truths are approached by science. And occasionally science re-writes their own findings. But only because they have uncovered new truths.

Lifestyles are as numerous as the variety in creation. The Lord created all these, and all their Lifestyles. To accept the creation as it is, as the actualities around us, so we must also acknowldge and accept these Lifestyles, atheist and believer.

Love, Bhakti, is a different path, one which also leads to its own truths. A lover will see the creator as a lover.

But Bhakti isn't antagonistic to the path of Truth. They are two different paths to wisdom.

@ Spence

Writers of books do need public that read their books, if there is no longer demand and the writer wants to continue writing he has to change from subject, an subject that is in vogue.

Has nothing to do with anything, truth, science or the divine.

Hi Um
All work generally involves other people, whether co-worker, employer or customer. But the same Truth in you is also in me. So there is within all the basis of cooperation, and collaboration. And generally that is the quality of love, respect, brotherhood/sisterhood /otherhood.

The dark room of human consciousness is flawed, cracks can be found here and there. And fissures of light shine through the cracks. The very flaws in the walls are actually windows to Truth. What we perceive to be flawed human nature are actually the windows to Truth.

A good writer will lovingly detail those flaws, because upon them is the universal light of Truth that shines through the cracks. And that is a universal and timeless appeal, made in the limited language of culture, popular ignorance and time.

So long as we retain, as Brian Ji writes, a respect and awe of the mystery, any writer can find common ground in any age.

@ Spence

Many things I came to understand from my dad

If you like a person you can present flowers to him/her
but .... son!!
not all that offer you flowers have good intentions.

There are those in the church that sit in the front rows and for a reason and that reason is more often than not of social origin.

If I see the pain and difficulty to admit that goes with scholars to admit that their theory was wrong it is in sharp contrast with the ease with which those who wrote once books to promote eastern filosophy now promote atheisme, science etc.

It is remarkable that this chane coincidence with the change in society.

Hi Um
I suggest that in Brian Ji's case the change reflects a deep and highly personal experience about Truth. On the one hand there is scientific truth, which though difficult to obtain, can be shared and understood to a satisfying concrete detail, and which can be accepted apart from an organization or any hint of elitism. Science is not connected to a caste system. It traverses all cultures and raises people beyond cultural and religious prejudice. RSSB promises much the same, but is bound up in the cult of personality required for progress : worship of the Master as the Lord, and while decryig the caste system itself is one. Also Brian and others have not found Baba Ji to be a savory character.

I don't think Brian Ji's choice of subject to write about has anything to do with anything other than his personal appreciation of how others have tried to communicate their respect for Truth. It's a very high standard.

As for me personally, yes I worship my Master, Charan Singh, as the Lord, and see no difference between him, Baba Ji and Jesus Christ. Every challenge I've placed before them has been met. Most of those challenges were the ditches I fell into.

Hi Um
In a world made over by science and technology it is easy to understand the necessity to communicate in the language of science.

As for our personal path of development, that is quite a different matter. There we travel within to explore and understand the mystery within ourselves and our connections to the rest of creation. Psychology is helpful here too.

However, until scientists can create a full personality, or create life, the current understanding of science is limited.

We see arrogance in those who use religion or science to prognostic about life as if they knew what in truth remains a mystery.

But a good scientist and mystic is grounded enough in a deeper understanding and respect for reality to honor and acknowledge the greater mystery before them.

"However, existence stands apart from comings and goings.
If existence hadn't always existed, nothing could have arisen within existence." - Brian Hines

By "Existence", Brian, you clearly don't mean TIME and SPACE, because TIME and SPACE did not exist prior to the big bang, according to the theory.
So then you must mean the same thing that I have been proposing. The state of NO TIME and NO SPACE: which is what I have labelled as the ONENESS / Emptiness / Nothingness.
Your previous argument, where you agreed with AR was that there is no evidence for the NO SPACE / NO TIME scenario. Bot here science says there is!.

@Brian Hines

This was you actual comment:

"Osho Robbins, to stretch the meaning of "exist" to include everything that potentially could exist reduces the meaning of "exist" to meaninglessness.
Sure, something supernatural, like God, could exist. But there's no demonstrable evidence of this. Likewise, it's possible that invisible fairies are making the plants in our yard grow. But there's no demonstrable evidence of this either."

But in this video it clearly states that prior to the Big Bang - there was a state of "No Space and No Time" - the very thing that I was proposing.
I wasn't proposing something supernatural (like God) - I was just saying that a state of NO TIME and NO SPACE might exist. Science agrees with me.

"However, a possibility of something existing isn't the same as that thing actually existing.
Abstractions like "supernatural" shouldn't be confused with actualities.
I'm proud to consider myself part of the reality-based community."
- Brian Hines

Well in view of the Big Bang theory - you might need to review that point of view to bring it into line with what science says.

namely that a state of NO SPACE and NO TIME was the case prior to the Big bang.

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.