« Meditation isn't about doing it right. It's about trusting yourself. | Main | My book made Shahid Kapoor into a vegetarian. Now he follows Radha Soami. »

February 11, 2024


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

>>How could everything contain a thing that is both everything and itself? If it's everything, it isn't a thing. If it is itself, it isn't everything.<<

Whatever we know is an "variation of the same"

We are neither able to "see" the variation apart from its sameness
are we able to see the sameness without its expression in a variation

We are not able to see the crow-ness of a crow, separate from this or that crow in our garden yet whatever we see and label as "crow" is nothing but its sameness.

Sameness and variation are not separate things they are at any moment inseparable.

Looking outside, whether as common people or as scientists, that riddle cannot be solved ...but mystics have found the door ...being "inside themselves" they have found the door,. That door bypasses the senses and the mind that "create" the "Variation" as it makes the sameness always seen as variations.

Once that is established the sameness of variations becomes vissible in ALL variable things ... and .. it should not be a surprise ... that sameness in all endless different variations is the same.

The foundation of it all is whatever you want to call it
energy, love, god

Obvious, based upon the testimony of humans all over the world and in all times, that can be experienced..

That experience is meaningless to those that do not have such an experience. To strive, after hearing from such and experience is also meaningless and useless waste of time in any effort to have such an "imagined" experience. ...but ... to be around with a person that has had such an experience, is a precious gift.

>> In this respect he [ Koerbach] also had even greater confidence in the powers of the human mind than, for example, Spinoza, Descartes or Hobbes.

Unlike Spinoza, he assumed that almost every person was susceptible to reason, that the common people could also be educated. While Spinoza was an outspoken elitist thinker who published exclusively in Latin because he was afraid that 'the rabble' would make off with ideas it could never really understand,

Koerbagh was a passionate optimist of progress and an outspoken egalitarian. That is why he saw it as his task to explain philosophical and religious matters in Dutch.<<

If something cannot be understood by the common people, one can wonder if it is worth to be understood at all.

“I suspect that most people who profess a belief in God really mean "I believe in believing about God." Meaning, they really are unsure that God exists, but for a variety of reasons they consider that it's a good idea to believe in God, so they do it.”

I realize I’m commenting on an incidental portion of your post, Brian, that isn’t really to do with the main thrust of your discussion on Spinoza’s God. But still, when I read the quoted portion, here’s what occurred to me:

Sure, there’s many reasons why people (kind-of sort-of) believe in God. But one reason probably is because of a combination of two factors. One, the fact that most people lack either the time or else the inclination to delve too deep into the subject, and so imagine that they are not qualified really to independently hold a view on this. And two, an excess of diffidence, a sort of reverse-Dunning-Kruger, which again means that they don’t feel qualified to hold on to any independent view about God, except only very tentatively and without taking that personal opinion/view too far.

(They may privately think there’s no God. They may talk about it sometimes when drunk. They may discuss their suspicions when in a mellow mood, with guard down, with their girlfriend for instance. But given that most people haven’t really spent too much time researching this thing, or thinking this through, therefore they don’t trust their own opinion, even when their own common sense tells them this is all bullshytte plain and simple, at least not enough to do anything about it as far as their daily life. So they go on going through the motions of going to church or synagogue or temple or whatever.)

…At least that’s been my own anecdotal experience, what I’ve myself seen, of quite a few so-called theists.

@Um: "Looking outside, whether as common people or as scientists, that riddle cannot be solved ...but mystics have found the door ...being "inside themselves" they have found the door,. That door bypasses the senses and the mind that "create" the "Variation" as it makes the sameness always seen as variations.:

Would you please direct me to a mystic or scientist, I can visit to find the door.

@ looking

If I would know who you would love and who would love you ..I MIGHT consider it hahahaha ..maybe good coffee will help you

For quite a number of people over the decades, belief in a God or Gods, particularly among western countries, has declined and has been replaced to some extent by beliefs in various spiritual systems and in some cases, the guru or teacher has become almost a substitute for God where one attaches oneself to someone who perhaps claims to have realised.

In my opinion, an appropriate teaching would be a simple practice of meditation incorporating the invitation for the practitioner to enquire into his or her cognitive processes in order to experientially see how certain habits of thought have led to misapprehensions as to ‘who/what I am’. Such a practice could reveal how one has formed (and continues to form) a social, cultural or thought constructed identity whose raison d’etre is to maintain its illusory self-structure.

@ Ron E.

>> ...... whose raison d’etre is to maintain its illusory self-structure.<<


Is its raison d'etre any different that that of having a body, eyes, legs???

What about other creatures?
The farmers in our family, showing people around, will tell them that ALL cows are different; they all have an recognizable personality of their own.

Next time I will ask them if they can imagine a cow WITHOUT such a thing as what we call personality.

Obvious that personality is there for a reason, like legs and eyes. ..don't you think so?

Hey Brian

Can God as placebo for whatever be substance enough?

For Instance,

Capitalized "IN GOD WE TRUST" on the reverse of a United States twenty-dollar bill

Um. Yes, of course animals have what can be described as a personality; it is a recognised fact in primates and other mammals. And I would add that a mammal, a cow’s ‘personality’ is not there for a reason, it just is, naturally. A personality is natural and part of one’s physiology (animal or human) A self on the other hand is a mind created mental structure peculiar to humans.

What animals don’t have is the type of identity or self that is a construct formed from thought, ideas, opinions and beliefs. Unlike us, they do not have such a separate mind-made self – you should know this.

“God” is simply this: https://youtu.be/odZpToxOo8A?feature=shared
Nothing to be afraid of—nothing to fear. Guilt is the biggest lie.

We can SEE the world differently. It’s your choice.

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.