An entertaining message about RSSB from Dibloggenes

I love to get emails from people who are having doubts about the religious organization I belonged to for 35 years, Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB). When a message is written in an entertaining fashion, I doubly love that email.

Here's what someone who wants to be known as Dibloggenes had to say to me, along with my response.

For those who aren't familiar with some terms in the message, Gurinder Singh Dhillon is the current RSSB guru who has been in a lot of controversy. Tara was a frequent commenter on this blog some years back who was a well-informed and eloquent critic of RSSB and Dhillon. Kal is how RSSB refers to the Devil, or Negative Power. Charan Singh appointed Dhillon to be the successor guru before Charan died.

Hello, Brian:

As these things are wont to do, I came across your Church of the Churchless blog re Gurinder Singh Dhillon one day after I decided to try reconnecting with satsang after 20+ years of non-involvement. Does the Lord loveth a cheerful heart or what?

 

I think if I had read material like this when I was still participating it would have been shattering, but at this stage, I am 100% on-board with the Theosophists: "There is no religion higher than Truth."

 

I am fine with discovering my inclination to return either was 1) a blinding flash of spiritual illumination that you, Tara and Kal are trying hard to derail, or, 2) a wholly unproductive idea that confirms the value of my long-ago separation from the fold.

 

A couple of questions, if you would indulge me:

• • Is there a page that covers your journey away from RSSB?
  • What are your thoughts now, if any change from the blog posts I saw of a couple of years ago?
  • Do you think it is worthwhile for others to still post and respond on your blog re these topics or do you feel everything has been said that is germane, and one either stays or bails?

I immersed myself in all the back and forth chatter that your blog offered and I will say, at this point, my default position is this is not a case of the guru picking his nose/huddling in a hut with a nubile young woman/asking a disciple to eat a corpse, all to dissuade the unworthy lukewarm.

 

My draft opinion is that, as those in this lineage predicted, RSS Beas has become a religious institution, heir to all the foibles that entails, and that it no longer should be looked to for spiritual guidance or comfort.

 

Not to excavate everything now, but the most troubling thing to me that a rogue guru calls into question is an almost infinite regression of perfect saints and their judgement/insight.

 

If Gurinder is not kosher, so to speak, that means Charan didn't have insight re a worthy successor, and if that's the case, you just keep running back in the hall of mirrors for the whole line. If you're going to claim an uninterrupted line of perfect gurus, you can't have this kind of seeming corruption of the teachings in the leader. Who's guarding the gurus?

 

My thinking is now to continue as I have in the intervening decades and simply chart my own course, reflect on the words of the best who have come before, and avoid the third-party risk that trusting someone who claims spiritual intermediation brings along with the promises made.

 

A sincere thanks for posting your thoughts on this, at least to me, important topic...and also to Tara, in absentia. Like Jamie Dimon, you're doing God's work : ))

 

Well, I really like the idea that I'm doing God's work by promoting an atheist point of view on this blog, since that would show what I've always suspected -- that God doesn't believe in herself. 

 

But after consulting another form of divinity, the Great God Google, it appears to me that I shouldn't be compared to Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JP Morgan, but to Lloyd Blankfein, the CEO of Goldman Sachs.

 

LONDON (Reuters) - The chief executive of Goldman Sachs, which has attracted widespread media attention over the size of its staff bonuses, believes banks serve a social purpose and are doing “God’s work.”

Regarding the questions I was asked by Dibloggenes, this was my response.

 

I’ve written a lot about my journey away from RSSB. One attempt is here, which includes some links to previous attempts:

 

https://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2019/03/my-definitive-answer-to-why-i-left-radha-soami-satsang-beas.html

 

My attitude toward RSSB hasn’t changed in the past few years. I give RSSB little thought, writing about it mostly only when someone else brings it up, or there’s some news in the Indian press about Gurinder’s financial and other troubles. 

 

As I sometimes observe, if I was a lapsed Mormon, I’d be writing about what I didn’t like about the Mormon Church. Since I spent 35 years as an active RSSB member, I use RSSB as an example of what can go wrong with religion.

 

Good question, whether everything has been said on my blog that is germane. Probably. But since I’m addicted to blogging, and I enjoy sharing my thoughts about philosophy, science, neuroscience, and all that, I keep on with this blog, which I started in 2004 — about a thousand years in blog years.

 

The cast of characters keeps changing, meaning the frequent commenters. Strangely, or maybe not, many of those commenters are fervent RSSB devotees. I’ve stopped trying to understand why.

Comments

[Karim W. Rahmaan]

(@ Original Thread)
"Regarding the questions I was asked by Dibloggenes..

..I enjoy sharing my thoughts about philosophy, science, neuroscience, and all that, I keep on with this blog, which I started in 2004..

..Strangely, or maybe not, many of those commenters are fervent RSSB devotees."

That neuroscience stuff is great. I won't go into all the details, but due to a medical malpractice in my teenage years. I suffered a period where I lost my motor functions. A procedure had left me injured. And by the time my mother got me away from that facility, I couldn't talk but could still hear. I was extremely hard to formulate a thought, yet I could still see. My mom even had to bathe and spoon feed me as something went neurologically wrong. And for the next two years, I spent in meditation.

I didn't know of the RSSB method back then, but had been practicing a method from the Yellow Emperor's Inner Canon, Nei Ching. At first I thought I would never be able to adequately formulate my thoughts as it felt like I was there by also stuck behind a emotional wall.

By and by I meditated on a lit candle. And regained a few functions. I regained my speech. Later, after initiation I found it was very similar to the candle method -easier too. So I continue to use the RSSB method to help clear my mind!

[Appreciative Reader]

"My draft opinion is that, as those in this lineage predicted, RSS Beas has become a religious institution, heir to all the foibles that entails, and that it no longer should be looked to for spiritual guidance or comfort."

..........To be fair, Dibloggenes, that reasoning does not invalidate the entire lineage, it only invalidates the particular stream that leads to GSD.

In these pages, a commenter, Mike His-second-name-escapes-me-at-this-time, who used to comment here frequently some years back, had linked to his homepage, which contains a pretty cool and clearly painstakingly collated pictorial representation of all the different lineages, starting from the founder. The straight-line lineage that leads to GSD is just one strand, there are plenty of others within that broad “lineage”.

What I'm saying is, that GSD turned out to be a crook clearly means that this specific, narrow, linear lineage's a dud, sure. But that doesn't speak to the rest, not necessarily, at least not following on the fact of GSD's avarice and crookedness.

----------

"Good question, whether everything has been said on my blog that is germane. Probably. But since I’m addicted to blogging, and I enjoy sharing my thoughts about philosophy, science, neuroscience, and all that, I keep on with this blog, which I started in 2004 — about a thousand years in blog years."

Your blog's a invaluable resource, Brian. And long may you thrive, and your blog as well!

Have you said everything there's to be said about RSSB? I would say not, because while you’ve said a lot, but then new stuff does keep coming up, every once in a while; and engaging with that new stuff with the base of this whole enormous knowledge-capital around RSSB represented by your blog, that adds a certain heft to any such engagement and analysis that random news stories and random magazine/website analyses don't quite manage, not even when the big guys like Bloomberg get to it. (Although of course the Bloombergs of the world have their own strengths, in terms of on-the-ground reportage for instance. Not a question of either-or, but of both. My point is, your blog still is very much relevant, extremely relevant, and no doubt still has lots to say, specifically about RSSB I mean to say.)

In any case, and as you say, RSSB is only a very small part of the whole story, and entirely incidental to the larger story. The larger story is the exploration of "spirituality", however defined, but firmly rooted to rationality and science, and firmly eschewing all kinds of woo. That is a mix not easily found! (Because you look for spirituality, you generally end up with woo! And you go for rationality and science, and you find people running miles away from spirituality. This perfect confluence of the two that you've built up here, spirituality in the truest sense on the one hand, and rationality and science on the other, both of them together, that's priceless, quite literally.)

And, as you say, as far as that larger story, there's lots, lots, lots more that can be said, and discussed. Lots, That larger story's only just started, I would say, even despite all of these many years' worth of excellent stuff that you've already put into it!

[Appreciative Reader]

Williams. Mike Williams. I think. Not sure if that's his actual name, or a pseudonym, but that's the handle he used.

[Brian Hines]

Karim, it's wonderful that meditation has benefitted you so much. So sorry to hear about your health problems as a teenager. That must have been really tough to deal with.

Yes, the RSSB meditation approach is good. It strikes a balance between concentration (on a mantra) and open awareness (just being aware of what is one's consciousness after the mantra no longer is repeated). I still continue to meditate in that fashion, because really those are the only two options.

Either concentrate on one thing, like a mantra, the breath, a candle (as you did), or whatever, or remain in open awareness on everything available to consciousness. Each has its own benefits.

In everyday life, I've stopped repeating a mantra, as that distracts me from whatever I'm experiencing or doing. For me, mindfulness, which basically is open awareness, is more effective at keeping me in the present moment as much as possible, not thinking too much about the past or future.

One thing meditation and mindfulness have shown me is that my conscious mind isn't necessary for much or even most of what I do each day. Meaning, deeper levels of the mind seem to control my intentions, actions, and such. This fits with conclusions of neuroscience.

[Dungeness]

@ AR [ What I'm saying is, that GSD turned out to be a crook clearly means that this specific, narrow, linear lineage's a dud, sure. But that doesn't speak to the rest, not necessarily, at least not following on the fact of GSD's avarice and crookedness. ]

Sigh... in fairness where's proof of GSD's crookery beyond the
hyberbolic screaming headlines of tabloids. In every instance
the investigation has turned to the "usual suspects" -key actors
in GSD's orbit. Attorneys, relatives, financial advisers, even the
odd rogue insider are all in this drama's whodunit cast as well.

Of course, a juicy subplot that conjures up images of GSD
masterminding a criminal cabal will be well received too. But,
only a small group. After all, too many crooks spoils a good
conspiracy theory. You need an easily identifiable bad guy (or
a suspicious racial type for instance) amid an adoring flock of
innocent sheep. A hated "one" is best for a gripping drama.
You need hard evidence? C'mon, don't complicate this.
Everybody knows he's guilty!

[Sonya]

I honestly can’t believe that I actually believed in RS Sant Mat.

Really. Sometimes I wonder how I could have been so foolish. It’s almost embarrassing.

[Appreciative Reader]

Hi, Dungeness.

I did say "avarice and crookedness". Even if we grant that the criminality isn't actually proven in a court of law, but the crookedness, the deviousness, seems a surer thing. And the avarice is probably fact, and beyond argument, wouldn't you agree? That avarice, that ambition, that naked greed on behalf of oneself and one's family, while probably okay if you or I were afflicted with it, is I'd say incompatible with claims (made by others on his behalf) of absorption in mysticism; and without that absorption in mysticism, which in any case the man lays no claim to himself, surely his position as preceptor of a mystical school/movement is utterly untenable, even leaving aside the criminality per se?

[Dungeness]

@AR [ I did say "avarice and crookedness". Even if we grant that the criminality isn't actually proven in a court of law, but the crookedness, the deviousness, seems a surer thing. And the avarice is probably fact, and beyond argument, wouldn't you agree? ]

Hi AR, I haven't followed the twisty, financial drama depicted in the tabloids.
I do remember being surprised when he directed the sell-off of an RSSB
charitable hospital but then the exact circumstances weren't disclosed
either. Particularly, the input of advisors with whom GSD conferred or if
it was in fact his decision alone and was made peremptorily.

As for his avarice, all I can say is that seems to me similarly fraught
with complexity and unknowns. I'm no apologist but it's frightfully
easy to project a fantasy about someone's behavior without being
a "fly on the wall" during their critical conversations. Especially in
this era of the corrupt "baba" when so many appear and evince
far more egregious behavior.

'

[Dibloggenes]

I thought I would follow up my original post to Brian (above) with some bit of explanation, to be followed tomorrow by a short version of a personal credo: my current position on the Big Picture. I know the world waits for this with real anticipation : )

I make no pretensions about knowing the level of moral turpitude or even legal liabilities the actions of GSD suggest. I based my conclusions only on what I personally know, or can reasonably conclude from the available narrative. More than that, I believe, is asking too much of the non-illuminated, of which I am one.

1) I have lived over the past number of years using the guide that accumulation of wealth should be like bailing water from a sinking boat. Once my comfort and reasonable needs have been provided for, the excess is pent-up energy that I get to expend to benefit those who haven't been as fortunate. A family that accumulates $250M in wealth in a few years of low-visibility business activity, that provisions 20-year olds with a Mayfair lifestyle, seems to me to be far from that ideal. It doesn't really matter to me the fine points of avarice vs criminality. To accumulate that shows a preoccupation with wealth that seems to me to be incompatible with Sant Mat principles.
2) If you're a guru in a line of perfect gurus and you decide to toss out fundamental teachings that launched the line, I would think it needful to provide the rationale for the chaos that causes. No Kal? No Sach Khand? No wonder sincere satsangis' thoughts drift to the next installment: No guru? While I acknowledge this may be a parallel to the Zen master applying the stick to an acolytes' head, it also may indicate a rupture in the quality of the teachings. I don't know which. I choose not to trust to chance on this. As I said above, the concept of third-party risk is well worth keeping in mind even when not discussing financial analysis. Introduce someone between you and the One and you now have to be right about two BIG THINGS. You have doubled your chances of getting it all wrong.
3) I happen to believe that Word/Sound and Light/Shabd is the hidden secret that the inner teachings of all true spiritual paths have strained to divulge. I have read too many examples, in too many cultures, in too many instances involving those who had no idea of the formal teachings, to dismiss it. To me, it is a description of how the One organizes on all levels of Reality. How we uncover it for ourselves is the goal of life.
4) It is never really explained--at least that I was aware of--exactly WHY a living teacher has to connect you to this Stream. In other words, what does a third party add (yes, I know...God in flesh) that we have to trust must be the Mechanic on Duty Now. Why would utter sincerity and dedication not provide the thrusters to get it done, at least to the first stages of transport? PS In Radha Soami Teachings, there is no mention made of Tulsi initiating the youthful SJ; he started meditating spontaneously from early childhood according to the report there. Is this the beginning of the line? If so, how was this exception explained in re the need for an initiation by a living master?
5) I walked out of a satsang nearly 25 years ago, never to return. Why? It was spent largely on flogging the need to avoid fish oil as a Vitamin D supplement in dairy products. OK...not at all partaking of the magnificence and mystery I got from the early writings but certainly in line with a new obsession on minute regulatory practices. It reminded me of sitting in a pew by myself as a young boy, the church almost empty before services started. I bathed in the colors of the stained-glass, and the silence. Then the service started and ruined it with Sunday School attendance records and announcements of pot luck suppers. No thanks to all of that again.

How I came to RSS was somewhat of a miracle to me. How I left and have grown since is, in every way, another miracle to me. I see it all as necessary, helpful, validating and part of my growth in this life. I regret none of it and begrudge no one whatever value and spiritual care it gifts them. I have no need to besmirch GSD or question the mental capacity of those who still find value there. I truly wish each soul the best, and a smooth path up the mountain.

Tomorrow, a summary of the conclusions I have arrived at regarding the Big Questions. Hilarity ensues...

[Appreciative Reader]

"A family that accumulates $250M in wealth in a few years of low-visibility business activity, that provisions 20-year olds with a Mayfair lifestyle, seems to me to be far from that ideal. It doesn't really matter to me the fine points of avarice vs criminality. To accumulate that shows a preoccupation with wealth that seems to me to be incompatible with Sant Mat principles."

..........Hear, hear. Well said, Dibblogenes. (What on earth does that name mean, by the way? Don't recall ever having come across anything like it.)

That's such a reasonable POV, that I wonder how and why everyone doesn't immediately grok it. Must be the congitive dissonance thing.

-----

Dungeness, see what Dibs here is saying? That's exactly what I myself said as well, except I guess he says it more clearly than I may have done.

You insist that GSD's criminality is a matter for courts to decide. While we've had this discussion before, and explored the limitations of such an attitude in the past, but for now and for the sake of argument let's grant you that. You further insist that immorality, even without criminality, is a matter of what actually transpired, and we'd need to be fly-on-wall privy to all of the details to arrive at a correct picture. Again, there's limitatins to that attitude that we've discussed in the past, but once again for now let's grant you this as well for the sake of argument.

But the third objection? There's no getting around that. This preoccupation over, this focus on, this predilection for, this attention to, personal and familial enrichment well beyond merely comfortable subsistence, while that might not be 'wrong' necessarily, not when it comes to regular folks like you and I; but when it comes to the preceptor of a mystical movement, who must necessarily be possessed of mystical faculties and focus and practice if his position isn't a sham, this kind of ambition and worldly focus at the personal and familial level, beyond merely secure comfortable subsistance, is quite evidently incompatible with that higher focus.

I'm afraid you keep obfuscating your way out of having to admit this plain fact, Dugneness.

[Dibloggenes]

(What on earth does that name mean, by the way? Don't recall ever having come across anything like it.)

This should help. It makes more sense as I wrote it: Dibloggenes, one "b", two "g"s. A hydbrid locution of Diogenes and a blogger = Dibloggenes

Actually, the full form is "Dibloggenes (We're going to need a bigger lamp!)" That's my hat tip to Roy Scheider in his role of Chief Brody in Jaws. Was Roy Scheider a Bodhisattva? You be the judge : ))

[GrassHopper]

"You insist that GSD's criminality is a matter for courts to decide."
A courts decision is not truth. everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
With his wife no longer able to testify, there is no case against GSD.
the companies were on her name.

doesn't mean GSD was not involved, but there is not enough evidence against him now, so no case worth pursuing.

Each guru brings something different to the party.
GSD made it clear that a master will not come at death.
He also said it was about realisation not regions. no sach khand, no kal, no sat purush.
but the faithful can't hear him, so he doesn't push it.
everyone is on their own journey through life. some people need a master today and may get stronger then drop it. we're all at different points on our journey.
Let each person walk their path

[Brian Hines]

GrassHopper, for some of us the path we walk includes warning other people about the dangers and limitations of the path they’re on.

[Dibloggenes]

"He also said it was about realisation not regions. no sach khand, no kal, no sat purush.
but the faithful can't hear him, so he doesn't push it."

The question then becomes: Realization of what, exactly? If you jettison the foundational conceptions of what is being attempted--attainment of an incorruptible sphere, avoidance of the snares of a universal negative power, and ahhhh....how shall I delicately put this? No freakin' God that the line has talked about for 150 years, what exactly are we doing here? What are "the faithful" when the things of the faith have been thrown overboard?

If this shift is not carefully and compellingly explicated, you leave not just the simple-minded but the committed intellectual satsangis scratching their no-longer radiant heads. He doesn't push it? What are we talking about, a diplomat or a true teacher? It seems to me these monumental shifts in the signposts of the faith deserve excruciatingly clear explanation from The Man. Otherwise, we are left with the impression it's more important to maintain decorum than to lead anyone to God. This is the guy who is attaching us to the Audible Lifestream?

[GrassHopper]

Brian,
That is absolutely true. Warning others because you have been there, done it, is also part of the journey.
someone listens, someone doesn't - thats also their journey.
This blog is as much your path as being a speaker was once your journey. our journey constantly changes if we are open and honest. it is part of our progress. only dishonest people remain where they are.

[GrassHopper]

Dibloggenes,
Realisation of the truth that the real teachings are not dual.
The "kal, sach khand, sat purush" teachings are a romantic version.
Just as children are told about santa claus, then grow out of the need for a santa, the mature follower has to, as he grows, realise the story was a consolation, a stepping stone, a temporary resting place.
some hold onto that because they are not ready yet. Not all children grow up at the same speed.
This is not a physical growing, this is spiritual maturity, accepting that reality cannot be dual, by nature. duality is necessarily part of maya and the time/space illusion. spiritual realisation is the recognition that this is not reality. spiritual stories like kal, dayal, sach khand etc are just stories, food for the mind, designed for the greedy mind to follow the path. The greedy mind seeks sach khand, and good things. But these are just enticements, no more real than santa.

[GrassHopper]

Dibloggenes,
the things of the faithful had to be thrown overboard, because they are promises that cannot be fulfilled.
"Lies" if you want to be brutally honest.

an incorruptible place like Sach Khand, cannot have "beings, places, rivers of light, individual souls, kal, dyal, sat purush" etc. it is impossible. The only thing that is incorruptible is that which is outside duality, and cannot have any things or beings or places in it.

[GrassHopper]

"The satsangis are left scratching their no-longer radiant heads. He doesn't push it? What are we talking about, a diplomat or a true teacher?"

I don't consider him a true master. He is a teacher at best. He is not there for a true seeker.
You are right. A true master will not compromise with the truth, not allow you to deceive yourself. The responsibility of this falls on the follower also, who will not continue to follow someone who compromises the truth. such a follower has outgrown this path, and will find his own way to another path that does not compromise. There are plenty.
RSSB is not a pathway for the true seeker. It is for the neophyte, the beginner, the one who still believes in santa claus. When you grow up, you leave. There are no prizes for remaining in the nursery class all your life.

[Jim Sutherland]

Grasshopper says,…..” an incorruptible place like Sach Khand, cannot have "beings, places, rivers of light, individual souls, kal, dyal, sat purush" etc. it is impossible. The only thing that is incorruptible is that which is outside duality, and cannot have any things or beings or places in it. “

I agree 100%. Annihilation is what is destined to individual souls who merge in to the Ocean of Sach Khand as a drop. Creation ceases in Sach Khand, because Kal/Brahm/Demiurge do not have access to Sach Khand. Only Anami Purush exists on Sach Khand, which embodies Radhasoami Mat created by Rai Salig Ram. Ishwar Puri said he discovered he never had to travel or merge back in to Sach Khand, because he had never left there. Now can any one explain that mystery?

Jim Sutherland

[Jim Sutherland]

The only other rational, reasonable reality can be is,……..Sach Khand is a non existent fictional realm that does mot exist.
Jim Sutherland

[Dibloggenes]

And now, as previously threatened: The Universe Explained for Dummies. These are my own conclusions to date, subject to revision at any time. They have been abbreviated to allow the reader less of a commitment to follow along. I have placed these under four topic headings to make it easier to dismiss large chunks of my thinking at one fell swoop.

THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM
1) In a universe that requires material (or attenuated material) bodies to manifest the limitless creative urge of the One, by necessity this involves conflict, i.e., the introduction of the no longer unitary awareness. This is a concomitant of the polarities we see everywhere, and that have been philosophized about for 3000 years, give or take.
2) We are steeped in the appearance of “individuation.” This is prior to individuality, which is a showing forth of those tendencies we associate with personality. Individuation is simply the atomizing of everyone and everything into constituent parts. Our senses report at a level in normal consciousness that what we perceive is real, but actually it is an abstraction. If we could see at the energetic level ( more than a few claim this ability) we would understand foreground and background, player and play are really all just one.
3) Human beings have truly made God in man’s own image. Believers are so wedded to the idea of a personal God that they are horrified at the suggestion this may not be true. Test it yourself: you’ll find folks are more gracious to quiet atheism than they are to a quiet belief in an impersonal deity. And what is that, but no more than the One, the unitary consciousness, that which precedes any individuation at any level, conceivable or not.

FROM THAT FLOWS
A personal God is a god...
1) who is free to pick winners and losers; 2) to have chosen people and nations as His main squeeze; 3) to appeal to as if He were deaf and dumb to our needs; 4) who will remain forever an enigma to us as the problem of the origin of evil is one that monotheism never has been able to satisfactorily scrape from the bottom of its shoe.
Instead, think Universal/Unchangeable/Immutable Law. This Law subsumes all lesser laws, known and unknown, on all levels of manifested existence. Magic is the conscious or unconscious understanding and application of the Law, either in white (selfless) or black (selfish) flavors. The vast majority of humankind practice gray magic throughout their life, alternating between white and black as their lower faculties buffet them. The One IS the Law; the One is A collective dynamic, for lack of a better term, that is inexorable in its workings. All justice, all mercy, all vengeance, all indifference are contained within it in exquisite balance. Appealing to It is pointless, as it already has done the math and set in motion the sequence of events most conducive to the ends of the One. When miracles happen after prayers are made, it is because the faithful harnessed the Law, albeit without their knowing it.

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF EARTH LIFE?
Assuming there IS a purpose, I propose it is the conscious re-integration of the faux individual personality into a unfettered experience of unity with the One, an oceanic immersion that overwhelms our sense of isolated individuality. Sound familiar? Sure it does; it’s been preached by esoteric schools and natural mystics for thousands of years. It also dovetails nicely with the idea if we are looking for the anchor that keeps us in the world’s harbor, look to individuation. Examine it, turn it to and fro and really understand what it is...and what it is not.

Our individuality, from life to life, seems to be as substantial as leaves, twigs and grass that are swirled together in a stream by the various eddies and vortexes. This flotsam comes together due to obeying certain laws of fluid dynamics, but there is no substantial reality to this observed instance. It may drift downstream, or break up before our eyes. Was it real? Yes. What was the purpose? None we may discern. What happened to the wreckage when it dissolved? Went their separate ways, perhaps to reunite, perhaps never to be in contact again. Why would we care if “we” don’t continue since the vast majority of humanity have no recollection of anything more than early childhood. The cases of seeming recall of a previous life is more interesting as it brings into focus the question, “What is doing the remembering here?”

TORA! TORA! TORA! DERA! DERA! DERA!
How do the above conclusions pertain to the value of participating in Sant Mat, and RSS Beas flavor? I believe the Audible Lifestream is an authentic account of how humans may experience a direct connection with the Law, that foundation and organizing principle of all creation. For anyone who cares to spend the time assaying the world’s esoteric literature and reports of mystics, it appears to me to be a foregone conclusion that concept is a more or less accurate representation of a phenomenon foreign to all but a relative few. However, for those few, I do not doubt the authenticity of that experience. In fact, how we choose to engage with this Word—when once we are made aware of it—is the crux of the question of participation in the most important activity we will ever undertake in this life.

Do we need a guru to connect us to it? Some gurus say yes, some gurus say no. What is the appropriate response if we believe our Contact may not be of the caliber we assumed was required? The truth is, each one of us by necessity must own our beliefs. Who calls us, who is worthy, what sect or branch do we trust, why am I feeling shaky on this path? We can’t escape the need to erect a superstructure of beliefs, whether they originate within ourselves, are influenced by the thinking of others, or blindly follow someone who claims insights that we don’t possess. Those who claim no religious beliefs have express their own beliefs. This is an unavoidable and inevitable outcome. The question is, what will be our response to it?

If you’ve read this far, please use the code VISINE 2022 upon checkout to help with the eyestrain you are probably experiencing. Have a great Sunday!

[Brian Hines]

Dibloggenes, well said. I like your nicely weird sense of humor. You have earned another fifteen minutes of fame, a'la Andy Warhol, by my elevating the comment above to become a blog post tomorrow. That's the benefit to you.

The benefit to me is that I won't have to labor on the creation of my own blog post, freeing up some time that I'm sure I'll spend wisely on some important activity such as finishing watching the highlights from the last round of the British Open.

I'm not enough of a golf fan to watch hours of coverage. But I do find the Old Course kind of fascinating, particularly the pothole bunkers that look impossible to climb into and out of, much less hit a golf ball from. (Well, I could do it, except I'd keep hitting the walls of the bunker.)

[GrassHopper]

RSSB, just like all teachings is an attempt to give an explanation to that which is beyond all explanations.

ONE or non-dual simply means that all explanations are necessarily lies.

you cannot explain it in words. hence call it "Neti, Neti"

There is no personal God and there is no personal "You", both are delusions.

all explanations are also delusional.

In Taoism or Zen it is called "The First Principle"

The neophyte asks the master the stupidest question, "Master, what is the First Principle?"
The master laughs ( he has to)
"I cannot tell you. The moment I utter the words, they become the second principle"

The First Principle cannot be said, and any attempts to say it, even by a master, only take you further away.

you are already home. so all travel can only take you further away.

There is no separate "You" so why are you concerned? There is no possibility of bring saved. There is nothing at the root, to be saved.
"Nothing" doesn't need to be saved.
Hence Buddha said "There is no saviour, not even me"
why?
saving or salvation is not needed.
The thing you are trying to save is illusory

Laugh at your own stupidity, and there might be a little hope for you

[Appreciative Reader]

"A hydbrid locution of Diogenes and a blogger = Dibloggenes"

..........Diogenes, that was the barrel dude wasn't he? Cool handle.

"And now, as previously threatened: The Universe Explained for Dummies. These are my own conclusions to date, subject to revision at any time."

..........Funny, like Brian says. And quirky. Cool, whatever works for you.

If I may interject a possibly boring (somewhat) serious question in the midst of all of this: Any particular reason for your having arrived at your deistic worldview? (Because that is what this amounts to, at the end of the day.)

[Appreciative Reader]

"RSSB, just like all teachings is an attempt to give an explanation to that which is beyond all explanations."

..........That's all very well, Grasshopper, but I hope you realize that your deistic worldview, as evidenced in that last comment of yours, is not a whit more evidenced than, and therefore not one bit more likely to be representative of reality, than is RSSB's fantastic and more detailed cosmology. I'm afraid that word salad of yours, while entertaining enough, does not actually make any kind of sense ---- and no, appending another word salad that reads "Anything that makes sense does not actually make sense" does not in fact actually spell wisdom.

Of course, if your comment was intentially nonsensical, an intentional word salad posted merely as a joke, a Poe as it were --- that is, if the Grasshopper's merely hopping around and having fun, as opposed to trying to actually make a point --- in that case sure, the humor's appreciated.

----------

On a more serious note, though, Grasshopper. Your criticism of RSSB theology, that I've quoted here, isn't valid. I'm no votary of RSSB either, but it's simply incoherent to claim that "(Reality) is beyond all explanations", and incoherent to base your criticism of RSSB basis that incoherent claim.

True, there's a great deal about reality that we do not so far know; and while it is entirely possible that humankind will never come close to understanding 'everything', but it is also not impossible that one day most of these mysteries we'll have evidenced answers for; and in any case, it's fallacious, incoherent in fact like I said, to simply claim, without evidence and without explanation, that "(ultimate reality) is (necessarily) beyond all explanations".

That's merely deism, begged in by the back door instead of claimed honestly.

(And once again, if all you were going for there is a joke, a joke bereft of any content, a joke made with the sole intent of giving rise to some content-free mirth, well then apologies for ruining it by over-analyzing it like this!)

[GrassHopper]

AR: "(ultimate reality) is (necessarily) beyond all explanations".
That's merely deism, begged in by the back door instead of claimed honestly.

I don't understand all these terms. deism, theism, a-theism, and likely many other isms.
too many isms.
The only ism i have any interest in at all is taoism precisely because you cannot put it into a clear ism.
your day to day living requires logic.

ONEness (as in non-dual) needs no explanation. or argument or logic.

accept or dont accept. it doesn't matter either way. i offer no proof as none is required. i am not selling a position to be argued over. i am not proposing a god.
i am proposing nothing.
buddha proposed Nirvana. no proof, no logic.
logic is not supreme in this arena.
you have made logic your god, and its not infallible.
i favour logic where it functions and serves me.
there is a time to drop the logic. relax, and have fun.
dont you get tired trying to figure it all out?
in an area of sky the size of a grain of sand held at arms length there are billions of universes. and you want to figure all this out with logic?
we are a tiny insignificant drop thinking we can figure out everything. we cannot even magage this tiny planet called earth. we are destroying it, with global warming, wars, and we think we are intelligent beings.
The only thing thats clear is how unintelligent we, as humans, really are.

Have to hop off now to my next insignificant task....

[s*]

What a joy to read all these last posts!!!!
Love it and...
Thanks too all of you
_/\_

[Appreciative Reader]

“ONEness (as in non-dual) needs no explanation. or argument or logic.”

……….Afraid it does, GrassHopper.

----------

“accept or dont accept. it doesn't matter either way.”

……….That’s what many subscribers to many kinds of woo tend to say. The Christian does sometimes say that it doesn’t matter (to him, or to reality) whether or not you accept his articles or faith. Ditto the Muslim. No doubt Hindus and RSSB types as well. While it is trivially true that your belief, or mine, in something does not impact its truth value; nevertheless, surely you see why it is silly to take this line.

----------

“ i offer no proof as none is required.”

……….Nope. You offer no proof, because you aren’t able to. It is required, though, absolutely. Without proof, without evidence, there’s no question of any rational reasonable person accepting your POV.

----------

i am not selling a position to be argued over.

……….Clearly you are, although you claim otherwise.

----------

i am not proposing a god.

……….Maybe not a personal God, but you certainly do posit this “One”. That’s why I suggested that you’re begging in deism by the back door. You’re proposing something akin to Aquinas’s First Principle, and doing that blithely in absence of any kind of evidence.

----------

i am proposing nothing.

……….You did propose the “One”. And further, you did propose that ultimate reality is necessarily beyond all explanations.

----------

buddha proposed Nirvana. no proof, no logic.

……….First of all, non sequitur. What the Buddha proposed has no relevance to what you’re saying, because the Buddha did not propose this “One”.

Second of all, the Buddha did not “propose” Nirvana without proof. He proposed it, he claimed it, on the evidence of his own personal experience. Whether you or I consider that evidence to be valid --- however we might accept it, or however we might reject it --- is a separate matter, a separate discussion; but absolutely, the Buddha did say what he did basis (what he considered) solid (subjective) evidence.

----------

logic is not supreme in this arena.
you have made logic your god, and its not infallible.

……….Sure, logic isn’t infallible. But at least it is more reliable than thinking, saying, and believing random unevidenced illogical things.

----------

i favour logic where it functions and serves me.
there is a time to drop the logic. relax, and have fun.

……….As do I. None of which impacts the truth value of what either you or I say.

----------

dont you get tired trying to figure it all out?

……….Sure, I do. We all do. Can’t speak for others, but I do this figuring out thing only when I want to. And I do other things when I want to do other things. What has that got to do with anything?

----------

in an area of sky the size of a grain of sand held at arms length there are billions of universes. and you want to figure all this out with logic?

……….With science, actually.

Why, what other means do you propose?

----------

“we are a tiny insignificant drop thinking we can figure out everything. we cannot even magage this tiny planet called earth. we are destroying it, with global warming, wars, and we think we are intelligent beings.
The only thing thats clear is how unintelligent we, as humans, really are.”

……….Sure, we’re insignificant, tiny, all of that. What’s that got to do with anything?

Sure, we end doing many things wrong. Some of which we try to correct, as best we can. What’s that got to do with any of this?

Sure, we’re not all that intelligent, neither individually nor collectively. On the other hand, we’re the most intelligent species/entities that we know of so far; and, barring AI that may surpass us one of these days, we do not, so far, know of anything that surpasses us in intelligence. In any case, what has that got to do with anything? Sounds like a non sequitur.

Are you suggesting that because we’re insignificant, because we’re tiny, and because we’re insufficiently intelligent, therefore we should give up trying to figure things our rationally and scientifically, and instead blindly acquiesce with whatever random things you tell us? That’s no different than what the Christian suggests, or the Muslim, or the Hindu, or I suppose the RSSB types as well. I think I’ll pass, and stick with science and reason, rather than believe random things just because figuring things out is long, hard and uncertain work.

Have to hop off now to my next insignificant task....

……….Have fun, GrassHopper, and God bless.

Like I said, if all you were trying here is to have fun, then that’s cool. But I’m afraid under the cover of “fun” you’re trying to push through a bunch of stuff that you cannot defend rationally and scientifically.

Like many votaries of Advaitism and Neo-Advaitism, you tend to see your articles of faith as self-evident and beyond the necessity of proof; not realizing that all other woo-peddlers, including Christians and Moslems and Hindus and just about everyone pretty much thinks exactly that about their own brand of woo. Hence all of these words, to point that out to you.

[GrassHopper]

You are wrong. The christian needs you to have faith in the bible.
The muslim, in the koran.
The sikh in his holy book
and the RSSB follower, in naam, the guru and attendance at their satsangs for a weekly session of brain washing.

The {null set} is not the same as other sets like {christian set}.
all religions need faith.
emptiness or {nothing} does not.
belief in christ, mohammad, guruji are beliefs.
the absence of those is not a belief

{set of beliefs}
{}
these are not the same.

if you think {} is a belief, you misunderstand it

[271 Days]

Grasshopper:
Isn’t the proof obvious?
1. Non-being cannot produce Being.
2. We exist.
3. Therefore something had to always exist.

Whether you call it God, the Universe, the Tao, there is an existent (something/ nothing) that is eternal.

I don’t understand why that is difficult for anyone.

[Appreciative Reader]

271 Days, a reasonably bright 12 year old can point out the flaws in that reasoning. I'm not saying Aquinas was a retard, but I don't think he was particularly bright even by the standards of his dark dank times; and to flog Aquinas's antiquated and never particularly compelling claptrap, in this day and age, is beyond risible.

Here's what's wrong with your argument.

First: Your #1, "Non-being cannot produce Being", is an ipsedixitism. It's an unevidenced claim. Which is not to say it is necessarly wrong, but it is indeed to say that you cannot directly assume that. (For instance, in quantum mechanics, matter is indeed known to manifest spontaneously.)

Second: Even should we grant you your #3, that "something had to always exist", merely for the sake of argument, even then, that something that's always existed, might simply be our universe itself. After all we can extrapolate back in time only to some fraction of a second after the hypothetical Big Bang singularity, and do not actually know anything about what happened before that.

Third: Even should we grant you your #3, merely for the sake of argument, and further grant you that the universe began at a singularity, and further grant you that 'something' existed eternally that gave rise to the Big Bang: Well then, even then, that "something" could take many forms. It could be black holes within other universes. It could be simply quantum flelds. It could be anything at all. There's no reason whatsoever to imagine that that "something" there can in any shape or form be thought of as remotely Godly, at least not necessarily, and not by dint of the argument you're offering here.

Aquinas isn't "difficult". What Aquinas is is infantile. What Aquinas is is wrong.

[Appreciative Reader]

"If you think {} is a belief, you misunderstand it"

..........Well, what you've spoken of here is clearly a belief, GrassHopper. Your belief. I've explained how, I've explained why. I've explained that using your words. Your simply claiming it isn't a belief is yet another ipsedixitism, yet another unsubstantiated claim --- very easily made, after all, by merely uttering some words --- and changes nothing at all.

Now if that thing means something different than what you've said about it so far, well then perhaps you could try to explain what you did mean.

And no, simply saying it's beyond explanations isn't valid. That's simply nonsensical. That's basically the dragon in my garage.

----------

Here's the thing. To say, "If you think XYZ is a belief, then you've misunderstood XYZ", without clearly explaining what you do mean, is simply incoherent.

That's like, the RSSB type telling you, "If you thinkSach Khand is merely a belief, then you've misunderstood Sach Khand", without explaining why; or the Muslim telling you, crypticaly and faux-wisely and without clearly explaining himself, that if you believe that faith in Allah is a matter merely of belief, then you've misunderstood the whole Islam-Allah deal.

Sorry, I call BS. But of course, I also invite you, by all means, to explain yourself more clearly if you'd like to. Basis what you've said here so far, GrassHopper, your beliefs as you've spoken of them here seem as much of "beliefs" as any other reliigous beliefs, and just as unsubstantiated.

[UM]

@ AR

From WITHIN the faith, the tale etc that is a correct standpoint, from WITHOUT not.

I amwating for the lemon balm tea to cool down ... hahaha

Please do not hang me for what i write.

[271 Days]

AR:
Thanks for explaining your reasoning.

You disagree with point one. Let’s look at how I am defining non-being. I am defining non-being as “what is not.” “What is not” is different than “what is unmanifest,” or, “an existent nothing,” or even “an existent emptiness.” “What is not” is also beyond “what has no properties.”

What is not, is simply not. It is not defined as what is unmanifest. It is not at all. “What is not” cannot produce what is. Sure, what is unmanifest can produce what is, but that is a different discussion.
So you’ve defined point one differently than I have.

Since you brought up quantum mechanics a quote from the inventor of quantum mechanics might be relevant:

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness." —Max Planck

Or perhaps:
“Consciousness cannot be counted for in physical terms, for consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else. Quantum physics reveals a basic oneness of the universe. Multiplicity is only apparent; in truth; there is only one mind.” — Erwin Schrodinger

It seems to me you have a very different grasp of quantum physics than the eminent scientists who created it.

[271 Days]

Here is a nice way of putting what I was trying to say written by Greti Li on quora:

https://www.quora.com/Is-nonexistence-possible-Wouldnt-existence-have-to-exist

On Existence by Gretis Li

The nature of existence is one of the most fundamental problems of philosophy. For thousands of years, philosophers have debated the meaning and definition of existence. When looking at the extensive literature on the subject, it’s easy to be persuaded that definitive conclusions about existence are near impossible to come by. In this paper I am going to advance an alternative view, that existence is not complex to understand, that it is actually extremely simple and can be understood by everyone. In the interest of clarity and coherence, I am going to give you the argument I advance in this paper straight away, and then I will explain and justify the premises and conclusion of my argument.

Existence is All

Consciousness is Existence

Consciousness is all

Existence is All

Everything that is, was, and ever will be by definition must be said to exist. Everything that is in our universe has one thing in common, and that is existence. Everything in every other universe and possible dimensions has one thing in common, and that is existence. Absolutely everything, that ever was, is, and will be must be said to exist. Why? Because nonexistence is an impossibility. Nonexistence is absolutely inconceivable and not possible to experience. Why? In order to experience something, you must be conscious. If you are conscious, you exist. Therefore, nonexistence is outside the realm of possibility, we can only ponder, we can never experience Nonexistence. If nonexistence is impossible, then that only leaves Existence. The only thing that exists is Existence.

2. Consciousness is Existence

Consciousness is existence and nothing can exist outside of consciousness. Most “rational” people would say that the universe exists independently of consciousness. But why? Let’s see if an “objective” universe really does exist outside of consciousness. If an objective universe exists, then would it continue to exist if there were no conscious beings to experience it? Who would be there to know that the objective universe still exists? No one. So we run into the question, if there is no one to consciously know that the universe exists, does it still exist? Scientists say yes but who cares? No literally, I’m asking you, who cares? No one. If there are no conscious entities there to inhabit it, for all practical intents and purposes the universe ceases to exist! There would be no one to know that the universe existed! What does this mean? The universe only exists in the minds of conscious entities, no where else period. The universe cannot exist independently of consciousness because consciousness IS the universe IS existence! It is impossible for anything to exist outside of consciousness. If you disagree, try thinking of something that exists outside of consciousness. Anything that you think can exist outside of consciousness exists only as mental projection in your consciousness. It doesn’t exist anywhere else. The only place a universe without consciousness can exist is in the imagination of a conscious entity. The majority of humans that believe in an objective universe will probably reject this statement outright. If presented with this argument they would most likely argue that the universe is a mechanical, deterministic program that obeys fixed natural laws. Sure, I grant that the universe seems to obey unchanging laws that govern its behaviour, and that science can study and benefit from knowledge of these laws; but that doesn’t mean that it exists out there somewhere, outside our consciousness. The presumption of scientists that an objective universe is mystifying given science’s lack of proof of an objective universe. No matter what anyone says, no matter what grand theory of the universe science comes up with, the fact still remains, it’s impossible to come into contact with the universe outside of consciousness.

WIthout consciousness, you can’t see, hear, touch, feel, or know the universe in any way. If it’s impossible to come in contact with the universe outside of consciousness, how can you be sure that the universe exists outside of consciousness? It’s obvious, you can’t. So why does such a large percentage of the human population believe in an objective universe? The answer is simple. Because we have been led to believe this by our scientists. But does science really show the existence of an objective universe? If you look at what science has uncovered in the last century with a truly open and unbiased mind you will come to a different conclusion.

The quantum double slit experiment is a paradigm shattering experiment that scientists are still confused about today. The experimental evidence of the quantum double slit experiment shows that matter particles (what makes up the whole universe) do not exist as physical particles prior to being observed. In the quantum double slit experiment electrons are fired through two slits at a screen. When scientists fired electron particles through the two slits without observing the electrons they saw a wave interference pattern on the back screen. This shocked the scientists who expected to see a pattern of electron particles, not a wave pattern. They fired more electrons through the double slits and observed the electrons this time. They saw electron particles on the back screen! The act of observation changed an electron from a wave to a particle! The results of this experiment stupefied scientists for a long time because it conflicted with their belief in an uniform, objective universe that exists independently of consciousness. Yet the only explanation that fits the experimental data is that prior to being observed electrons do not exist as physical particles. Instead, they only exist as wave probability patterns of possible existence. Only in the presence of a conscious observer do the electrons exist as particles. This experiment proves without a doubt that on the smallest level, matter doesn’t exist as matter until being observed by consciousness. The quantum double slit experiment is a paradigm shattering experiment as it disproves the existence of an objective material reality independent of consciousness. Scientists have had a hard time letting go of their belief in an objective universe however, and as a result they have been perplexed by the quantum world (the subatomic level of reality) for a very long time. According to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, scientists can never know the position and momentum of subatomic particles with 100% accuracy. We can only know a probabilistic ratio of an electron’s position and momentum. In other words, if we know the position of an electron it’s impossible to know its momentum. Why is it that scientists are always stymied when they try to hold the subatomic building blocks of the material universe? Why do electrons, protons, and neutrons seem to mysteriously slip through scientist’s fingers? Why can scientists only talk about subatomic particles in terms of probabilistic ratios and never with 100% certainty? Because scientists wrongly assume the existence of an objective universe. They are looking for matter “out there” where there is none. They are operating under flawed assumptions.

There are numerous other scientific studies as well that have proven how consciousness creates reality, disproving the view of an objective universe that exists independently of consciousness. Princeton’s Pear Lab performed experiments for over 25 years researching the effect of human intention on random number generators and their results are shocking: human intention effects the outcome of random number generators! Their experiments have tested every possible variable that could affect the outcome and influence the results. And their results have been remarkably conclusive: human intention can affect a mechanical system through non physical means. This means our consciousness creates our reality!

Consciousness is all

If Existence is all, and Consciousness is Existence, then it follows that Consciousness is all. And if there is one thing I am absolutely certain about, it is that there is nothing outside of consciousness. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Not one thing. Consciousness is the totality of all Existence. A lot of people have other beliefs. And because this paper threatens their belief systems, they will dismiss it as untrue and ludicrous and launch all of sorts of attacks at it. And that is perfectly ok, for beliefs are just beliefs and the truth is the truth. No matter what you believe, you can not change the truth that you are consciousness and that you will never experience anything outside of the present moment. All beliefs are illusory. You have always been consciousness. Nothing more, nothing less. If you believe otherwise, you find out at death the latest :)

[Appreciative Reader]

@ AR

From WITHIN the faith, the tale etc that is a correct standpoint, from WITHOUT not.

I amwating for the lemon balm tea to cool down ... hahaha

Please do not hang me for what i write.

Posted by: UM | July 20, 2022 at 02:03 PM

-----

Hang you? No, my friend, it is God who will deal with you as He sees fit. I can only express disappointment at your faithlessness.

Lemon balm tea? What next, UM, golden calves?

-----

But jokes apart: You’re speaking of internal consistency, vis-à-vis external validation, isn’t it?

Agreed, certain religious creeds are (more or less) internally consistent. Many aren’t even that, but some are, sure. But even those that are (more or less) internally consistent, come up short when it comes to the external validation part. So that end result is exactly the same: the garbage can.

Do I understand you correctly? If that is what you were saying, then I agree, sure.

[Appreciative Reader]

Hi, 271 Days. This is in response to your comment addressed to me, and posted on June 20 at 9:09 PM. (I’m not quoting your comment all over again here.)

While you’ve responded to my comment (which comment of mine was entirely and fully in response to all of your earlier comment), but I’m afraid you cherry-pick one portion of my comment, and deflect off from the overall thrust of my argument, and ignore the overall implications of what I’d said.

You’ve latched on to my example from quantum mechanics to launch on a discussion on “manifestation”. You’re right enough about that, at least in my layman’s understanding of the issue: I believe physics has shown that the “nothing” that virtual particles pop into existence from, and occasionally real particles as well, is what is known as the quantum field. Fair enough, as far as that.

But then, after that you completely ignore the second and third parts of my comment. I’d pointed out in the second part of my comment, that you’ve chosen to ignore, that it is possible that this universe itself may have existed eternally, given that we do not know for sure what transpired beyond a few fractions of a second after the hypothetical singularity. And I’d pointed out in the third part of my comment, that also you’ve conveniently ignored, that even assuming a singularity, what led to it may well have been other universes, or else the so-called quantum field.

You’re saying that nothingness, as you define it, is absent even a quantum field; and even, I would imagine, space and time, since even those do have properties and potentials in quantum mechanics. Well okay, then, let me use your particular definition, in that case, and agree that something like a quantum field may have always existed (which in any case is part of what I’d covered in the third part of my argument).

But what then? We then end up either with this universe of ours itself having existed eternally; or else with our universe having sprung up from other universes, maybe an eternally existing and eternally expanding multiverse; or else with our universe having sprung up out of nothing (except of course, “nothing” would tantamount to an eternally existing quantum field or quantum potential, because literally “nothing” is, in a sense, a nonsensical concept, it simply doesn’t exist, so that to even speak of that seems utterly pointless ---- so that, using that particular defintion of "nothingness", your #1 becomes meaninfless, in as much "nothingness" does not exist at all, and so cannot be spoken of with any semblence of coherence).

I ask again, what then? What has this to do with any kind of a theistic or deistic Oneness? Remember, that is what your original comment was about, about GrassHopper’s comments on Oneness. What has this to do with anything at all? Like I said, your comment was simply deflection.

----------

Perhaps you could clearly, and unambiguously, lay our exactly what your point is, exactly. You’d brought in Aquinas’s ancient argument in support of GrassHopper, and in the context of (or at any rate in the midst of) our discussion (the discussion between GrassHopper and me), and specifically at the point where he was unable to supply the substantiation I’d insisted on from him, as far as his Oneness.

ARE YOU TRYING TO ARGUE THAT MAYBE SOMETHING LIKE A QUANTUM FIELD HAS EXISTED ETERNALLY? IF YOU ARE, PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PHILOSOPHICAL AND/OR THE DEISTIC ONENESS. ALSO, PLEASE NOTE THAT YOUR MOTH-EATEN AND LONG-REFUTED ARGUMENT FROM AQUINAS IS NOT WHAT LEADS TO THAT CONCLUSION: THE ONLY THING THAT ACTUALLY LEADS TO THAT IS EMPIRICAL OBSERVATION, THAT HAPPENS TO POINT IN THAT DIRECTION: THAT, AND THAT ALONE.

Again, I’m going to have to ask you to state clearly where exactly you’re going with this, and what any of this has to do with the portion of GrassHopper’s discussion with me, that you’d responded to.

----------

As for your quotes on consciousness from some scientists, to be honest I’m not aware of their having said that, and the context for their having said it, so I can’t really comment on those two instances directly, at least not without some “research” on it. However, I’d like to make two general comments on this:

First, I’ve often seen theists twist the words of scientists out of context, in order to dishonestly try to have them appear to be supporting theism. Two very conspicuous examples are theists twisting the words of Einstein, as well as, more recently, of Hawking. Like I said I’m not aware of the two specific instances you brought up, but I hope these aren’t that kind of cherry-picked misrepresentation.

And second, you do understand that a scientist’s private religious beliefs have nothing whatsoever to do with their scientific work, don’t you? Newton after all was a deist. So were many other scientists, especially scientists from a century ago and earlier (which includes these two whom you bring up), when theism, or at least deism, used to be the norm. That has zero bearing on what science has to say. Think over this, if you would, because the sentence with which you end your comment addressed to me makes me think you don’t realize this fact. You’d said, “It seems to me you have a very different grasp of quantum physics than the eminent scientists who created it.” The fact is their private religious beliefs, and their private philosophical cogitations, are a whole separate matter than their actual work in science, and are not a reflection of their actual “grasp of quantum physics” at all.

[UM]

@ AR

Yes. to the question.

Those , for example that believe in say "karma" ... will tell you that whether you . as outsider, believe it or not is immaterial as the karma is a law to them, like the sun that shines on everybody.

They are not at all interested in prove. They might believe that one day, science can find a prove but untill that time, karma is a law to them like gravity is.

[271 Days]

Hi AR:

My original post was this:
1. Non-being cannot produce Being.
2. We exist.
3. Therefore something had to always exist.

You seem to agree with all three points as far as I can tell, at least the way I explained what I meant by “non-being.”

You seem to be saying perhaps a quantum field “always was,” but at least something always was. So it doesn’t sound like we have any disagreement about it.

[271 Days]

AR:
Perhaps if we have any disagreement, and I’m not sure about this, but it could be on whether there is continuation after physical death?

My view is that nonexistence is impossible by definition. Just as you can’t have warm coldness, dry water, blind vision, or sunny darkness, so too you can’t have nonexistence. It can’t happen. “To happen,” means existence. Sunlight means the end of darkness.

No one has to worry they will go into nonexistence because that is logically impossible by definition.

[Appreciative Reader]

“You seem to be saying perhaps a quantum field “always was,” but at least something always was. So it doesn’t sound like we have any disagreement about it.”

……….Hello, 271 Days. If that much is all you’re saying, then you’re right, we don’t seem to have any disagreement, at least not about the conclusion you arrive at (albeit we do, about HOW you arrive at that conclusion; but still, in as much as the conclusion itself we’re in agreement about, I think we could let that nit go unpicked, beyond merely mentioning it clearly, that is).

That still leaves me confused about the point you were trying to make, since you’d interjected that original comment of yours in the context of (or at any rate, in the midst of) the discussion between GrassHopper and me, and specifically at the point where he was unable to come up with the substantiation that I’d insisted on for his two claims, and what’s more ended that (original) comment of yours by saying “I don’t know why this is difficult for anyone to understand”, or words to that effect. But again, since now you seem to be saying you meant no larger implications with that comment of yours, that other nit too I’m happy to let go unpicked.

And finally, the part in your comment immediately preceding (and addressed to me), where you segue on to that bit about consciousness, as if responding to what I’d said, again it’s somewhat mystifying what the context of that sidebar might be, if you meant no broader implications with your original argument. But once again, since you seem to be suggesting now that your comment was standalone and free of larger implications, then sure, I’ll take you at your word, and no reason then why we shouldn’t let that slide as well.

-----

To sum up, then: I thought we had disagreements basis the implications I read on to your original comment (and I’ve explained why exactly those implications seemed reasonable to me). If you now tell me you meant no such subtext, then sure, we obviously don’t then disagree over what I’d thought you meant but what you now say you didn’t.

Again, taken from a different angle: I don’t agree with the argument you’d presented, because I believe your premise is unwarranted, for two reasons: first, I don’t see why we should take as given what you clearly do, which is to say your starting premise (that is, what you're engaged in here is textbook begging the question); and second, because in as much as complete nothingness (a nothingness that excludes even a quantum field, and even a potential for space and time) does not exist at all I don’t see why we’re even talking about it, kind of strawman-hunting the exercise then devolves to. However, in as much as the conclusion you arrive at largely comports with the conclusion that science arrives at basis evidence (the conclusion that “something” probably existed eternally, be it this very universe, or the multiverse, or maybe some quantum field or potential), I guess sure, we don’t really disagree at all about that much --- again, always provided you don’t mean to snidely slip through any subtext there about Oneness or Theos or Deos or Consciousness or whatnot.

[Appreciative Reader]

“Perhaps if we have any disagreement, and I’m not sure about this, but it could be on whether there is continuation after physical death?
My view is that nonexistence is impossible by definition.”

……….In the context of our consciousness, I’m afraid that does not sound very coherent, 271 Days. It could be a question of how you’re defining “existence” here, or I don’t know where you’re getting it wrong. You can figure out your error in reasoning for yourself, but maybe I can nudge you a bit by introducing an analogy here.

I’m not sure who it was who first came up with this analogy, probably the Buddha I think or maybe one of the later Buddhist thinkers. But you could think of our sense of self, our sentience, or consciousness, all of that, like the flame of a candle. The flame burns, and when the candle has burnt out, the flame extinguishes. The components of the flame, the chemicals that went into the chemical reaction of combustion, obviously those do not cease to be. Those components had existed before the flame came into being, and they continue to exist even after the flame has ceased to be. But the flame itself arises with combustion, and ends when the combustion ceases.

You can figure out yourself how you might want to see this, in order to understand why it is fallacious to say that “nonexistence is impossible by definition” when speaking of life after death. You could choose to define existence such that the flame, or our consciousness, isn’t seen to “exist” concretely; or you could choose to define cessation such that cessation is not an impossibility. You can do that exercise how you like. But if you end up imagining that “nonexistence is an impossibility”, when it comes to speaking of life after death, and of consciousness, then clearly you’re making a logical error somewhere, either in your definitions, or in selecting your premise, or in how you construct your argument.

----------

Incidentally, I’d like to point out here the error in your apparent preoccupation with pure logic, in trying to arrive at answers about reality. I’m afraid, as I hope I’ve shown you, you tend to get the logic itself wrong at times (like, in the earlier issue, starting off with a premise that isn’t quite given, so that your entire argument devolves into question-begging pure and simple, that is to say starting off assuming your conclusion and then circling around and arriving back at your starting point, like a dog chasing its tail!). But that apart, that is to say apart from the error in how you sometimes reason out your logic, here’s the thing:

If you’ll hark back to the exchange between UM and me a few comments up, you’ll see that we’d touched on two things, as far as an argument (or a belief system): first, internal consistency; and second, external validity.

Logic itself is ultimately barren. It is a great tool, but the extent of this tool is limited to ensuring the first of those two, which is to say internal consistency. The external validity part is a matter for empiricism, and that is where science comes in.

That is where the pure philosophers got it wrong. They produced great works of the mind, but to the extent that those were divorced from actual empiricism, what those amounted to was no more than --- I’m sorry, that same image springs to mind again --- a dog chasing its tail. And to say that, incidentally, is not to deride their intellect or their work, because clearly we owe a large part of what we know and understand to them and their work; but it is merely to point out the limitations of non-empirical logic. It is science, and science alone, that is equipped to marry logic with empiricism, and comes out with conclusions that are both internally consistent as well as externally valid.

For instance, your earlier conclusion about “something” always having existed. You simply cannot logic your way to arriving at any such conclusion, one way or the other, at least not in any way that adds anything to our understanding of the world. That kind of exercise may hit home, or not, a matter of happenstance; whether it does actually “hit home” is a matter that only science can comment meaningfully on.

[271 Days]

AR: I like your example that everything can be broken down into its component parts.

What is the barest component part beyond which you don’t have anything?

Obviously "consciousness/existence/being/ knowing" or whatever word you want to use for it. To have anything you have to have existence as a precondition. Or in other words for the existence of anything you have to have the existence part.
We can’t say “there are” quarks for example, without the “there are” in place. To posit anything presupposes existence.

To say, “There is ... xyz,” without "consciousness/existence/being/knowing" is to say “There is that which isn’t.”

To say, “There is that which isn’t,” refers to an impossibility. .. like sunny darkness or timed timelessness.

Perhaps you are saying you have a more basic component than existence? What would that be?

To say nonexistence is a possibility is similar to saying water can be dry. Possibilities are limited to what exists. “Possible,” means something that can happen. To say nonexistence is possible and may happen to me, is to mis-define words.

[Roger]

The term "non-existence" would/ could be used as a non-conceptualized existence. There are Semantics issues out there. And yes, out there ........, one can dis-define words.