« I've finished "The One." It ended up kind of ho-hum. | Main | Israel on verge of becoming a Jewish authoritarian nation »

July 27, 2023


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

It is my impression that those that all those that have reached enlightenment of sorts, describe ithat enlightenment as an "state" but talking and writing describing their experience, they use words and concepts that "allows" others to believe that there is something with human characteristics.

They say that: ....humans are made in the image of THAT

and that is transformed by humans in ...

THAT is made in the image of THEM.

And that is how it is and can not be otherwise as the use of language and conce[pts does not allow it otherwise,

To describe an computer and its workings to those that live far away from the so called western world in rural NATURAL environments one has to use THEIR language, language that is born from living in these rural natural environments.

People that do not have inner experiences themselves are like those living in rural forests of the world,. To explain what the experience is all about, one has to use THEIR words, their language and based upon THEIR world view.

Computers and inner experiences do exist but NOT in the way they are SAID to exist.

Atheists etc are like people living in these forest, after havong heard of the description go on and on to state that "the computer" doesn't exist as they cannot find one where they happen to live.

Hahaha ...they are right, .... it is not there to be found

In my opinion, you are wrong about those that have reached enlightenment. Here is where we have to differentiate between enlightenment and mystical experiences. Mystics manipulate the (usually kundalini) energy to achieve "states" up to the "God" state. These are temporary experiences and when the experience ends they return to normal egoic consciousness.

Enlightenment is something completely different by most accounts. It is the recognition that your true nature is the unchanging consciousness that does not come and go, has never been harmed, and can never be harmed. The subjective, invisible, empty knower of all. The reality that persists through all experiences. The foundation in which no other experience is possible. Even "God," if there is such a thing, requires that "I" exist first to know if it exists. Without my existence first, I cannot investigate the existence of anything else. Therefore "I" am the ground of all.

Everyone on investigation will have to admit, that "I" have never changed. The objects that appear to "me," such as my body and surroundings have constantly changed. But "I" the knower never has. That is why someone of 70 or 80 will say they feel no older than when they were 10. Sure appearances have changed, but I have not and neither has anyone else.

This recognition ends all suffering when seen correctly because what you are can never be harmed or suffer losses; whereas the false identity is in constant disturbance with losses all over the place and finally the ultimate loss which is death. To identify as a person is to be depressed and suffer when you are truthful about it.

To accept or refute “God,” we must have a clear definition of what “God” is. What I mean by “God,” is likely different than what someone else means.

By looking in 8 different dictionaries on the definition of God, one quickly finds they are wide-ranging in their definitions.

Some say: “the supreme or ultimate reality,”
“the supreme being and creator of the universe,” “ruler of the universe.” We must note these dictionaries do not agree on basics. Some say “God” is a "male deity," some say, “a being,” some say “a spirit.” Others disagree and use a more amorphous definition such as the ultimate reality or the creative principle.

If the dictionaries themselves cannot agree on what “God,” is, then obviously there can be no agreement on WHETHER God is.

To refute God we must be clear on what we are refuting and the dictionaries are all over the map on what “God” is.

@ 12 etc

>> To accept or refute “God,” we must have a clear definition of what “God” is. What I mean by “God,” is likely different than what someone else means.<<

For that very reason , I am not "wrong" nor can I as i "read" from my "own" book.
[ Do not take it to serious ... hahah]

Well if what you wrote about feeling unchanged in age is an sign of enlignment I must be ... hahaha. These days whem my age comes up in a conversation, some people gaze at me as if the see water burning, so much so that it starts to effect me and I start to wonder if I am indeed that old as I think to be...very strange feeling to be honest.

Back to topic.
It os my understanding that all ultimate experiences and state do end in tbeing the same, irrespective the approach, irrespective the description and explanation ... I can not be otherwise.

Of course those that have walked a given path and those that follow in their footsteps do deny it as they hold on to the the uniqueness of their variation of the same. and I guess it has to be so.

All whites are white even if this white is not that white.
All forms of psychotherapy are the same as they are all working IF and and only IF, there is an so called therapeutic rapport or relationship between the two. No text book will explain how to establish that relations hip however.
All forms of meditation are also the same and are also, like therapies, based on something that is never discussed.

Anyway ...it is all just my persona;l understanding and there is no need to enter discussions about what exists and what not.

I am here writing .. that much do I know ... hahaha ... and " I " just meaning a point in time and space, god knows who does the writing, chooses the words, manipulates the keyboard ... I am not resposible ... that for sure ... hahaha

Time for coffee

@ 12 ...

Before I forget ... whatever you wrote is correct,, a reasonable description of an point of view. Well worth to be expressed that way in the public domain.

But I love to stay "inside" the comfort of my own home these days

“I am here writing .. that much do I know...”

But DO you know that?

King Janaka had a dream in which he lost his kingdom. When he woke up he wondered, “was the dream real? Did I lose my kingdom? Or is the current situation real and I still have it? While in the dream this life seemed unreal. Now the dream seems as if it were unreal.”

He called his advisor. The advisor said, “the dream is not your situation now so it can’t be real. Discard it. Also, while in the dream, your current situation was not real, so it too must be discarded.
Then what is real?
What was there both in the dream and now?
“I was there during both.”

“Then YOU must be real since you were in both places. Not the person you took yourself to be in the dream or now.”

@ 12 month left

What is ..."REAL" ... i know how to write the word and in general how it is used in conversations, but beyond that the word has no value and meaning for me.

To look in the mirror while shaving and stating ... you are real ... would not make any difference .. don't you think so? I would still need to be attentive not to cut myself ... hahaha

By the way what happens when the 12 months are over?

@ 12 enzo

I am not an expert in anything, neither theoretical nor practical, but i hear what fellow humans had and have to say and witness what they do, did and will do as long as there is a "future"for me.

That said,

Yolande Duran, the lady that spontaneously entered into , what is described by people like Nisargadatta as the end state. It would be a THIRD state a state from which their is no return. a state that is beyond the two you mentioned.

A state one is DRAWN IN and not a state that can be ACHIEVED, by ANY practice whatsoever a state of love.

That sounds as reasonable to be as that crows are born crows, live as such and will die as such ....what holds for crows holds for everything and everybody.


Hi Um,

You said, “By the way what happens when the 12 months are over?” I don’t know.

Regarding the 4th state, here is my view:

Reality or Truth is sometimes referred to as the fourth state. Why? Because it doesn’t belong to the three states of waking, dreaming, or deep sleep. Those three states are the only three generally known.

Many describe samadhi as the 4th state and some yogically try to enter the 4th state through kundalini, mantra, control of the breath and other means. Radhasoami is based on that idea. So let’s call that state of samadhi, the fourth state.

What do we really mean by samadhi? We mean a state of union. A state of oneness. In the yogic path, whether RS, kriya yoga, or other such means, you achieve a temporary experiences of union or samadhi. Unfortunately when that experience ends you return to one of the other 3 states (waking, dreaming, deep sleep) and are essentially no better off than before you performed your yogic feat.

That is why the Maha-yogis suggested another step. That is to experience union or oneness even during the experience of the other 3 states. Some have experienced this on LSD or other drugs, in which case you walk around and still interact with the world, yet are consciously “totally at one with all and everything.” Complete and total union, at all times. This is sometimes referred to as Sahaj samadhi. It never goes away. Whereas the yogic experiences do go away, this is not temporary and does not go away once it is stabilized.

In Sahaj samadhi, the other 3 states (waking, dreaming, deep sleep) continue even while undisturbed Union or Oneness is all that is really present. Thus, it cannot be called one of the 3 states and is referred to as the 4th state. But it is not really a state in that the other 3 states function at the same time.

The achievement of “states” of consciousness are temporary measures, such as the achievememnt of Sach Khand, and as such should in no terms be considered a final goal, or actually even important.

Soamiji Maharaj who founded RS, may have been an expert at performing this samadhi yogic feat, but that does not “end the ego” and no matter how exalted it seems, is still not any kind of advanced understanding.

@ 12 ..

Thank you for this detailed exposition of states,

Its corresponds with the view point I came to understand from reading some pages on Advaita literature and the description of Yolande Duran Serrano that spontaneously, without any previous knowledge or interest in altered states,got into that fourth state while maintaining her capacity to function in the other states.

As I wrote in yesterday in the open threat 46, she has fallen in the light and has become one with it.

If you do read that contribution ... do read the last sentence twice ...hahaha

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.