If God and the supernatural are real, where's the evidence of them?

Religiously minded people like to have it both ways. I know whereof I speak, because I used to be one of those people before I saw the error of my ways. 

The basic error is this: religious believers assert that (1) God and the supernatural can't be known through reason and the physical senses, yet (2) God and the supernatural are real, and deserve the respect shown to these divine realities.

So those of us who reject blind faith are supposed to accept that one or many someones, somewhere, some time, had an experience of God and the supernatural that can't demonstrated to other people, yet is used as proof that these entities are objectively real -- not merely subjective fantasies of the human imagination.

Frequently I see comments on this blog's posts that take issue with my praise of science and demonstrable evidence as the best guide to truth. A commenter will say that only direct personal experience can lead to knowledge of God and the supernatural.

Well, who can argue with direct personal experience? Not me, for sure. There's no way for me, or anyone else, to know what another human is experiencing. Each of us lives within a subjective bubble of consciousness that is off limits to everyone else. 

Perhaps one day neuroscience will evolve to a point where a highly advanced brain imaging device can reveal exactly what someone is experiencing. Not only their sensory experiences -- vision, hearing, touch, smell, taste -- but the detail of each emotion and thought, and every mental picture projected in the theater of consciousness.

We're a long ways from such a device becoming a reality. Such may never happen. But even if it came to be, what would this Experience Revealer be able to tell us about the truth or falsehood of what a person is experiencing? 

Very little. Arguably, nothing. Dreams are experiences. So are fantasies. So is imagination. Each of us is easily able to conjure images that exist only within our own consciousness, not anywhere in shared reality.

Thus even if personal experience could be released from the confines of an individual mind through an Experience Machine, once revealed to others that personal experience would need to be confirmed as reflecting objective reality in order to be viewed as anything other than the product of a subjective consciousness. 

If religious people want to elevate reports of personal experiences that supposedly point toward God and the supernatural as worthy of worship, I've got no problem with that. Nor do I have a problem with someone looking upon their own personal experience as a reflection of divinity.

What I object to is the basic error noted above. If the only evidence for God and the supernatural is personal experience, with reason and the physical senses irrelevant, then religious believers can't expect anyone else to accept their claim of divine knowledge.

Many years ago the Flying Spaghetti Monster was put forward as an object of worship. Though this was done in jest, the point was serious. The tenets of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Sikhism, or any other religion are as unprovable and absurd as the Flying Spaghetti Monster is.

Anyone can make a claim about anything. That's free speech. But to be taken seriously, the claim has to be backed up with verifiable evidence. That's science.  

Comments

[um]

Funny ...

On the other hand we see or seem to be aware of so many things that are not there in reality but are attributed by the human mind to its surroundings.

Almost everything for which we kill and are killed is imagination

What all do we not attribute to ourselves, others and the universe?!

Think of the many subjective attributes we use, the many roles we play and are lost in, the things we identify ourselves with

These are all things that are not THERE and yet we perceive them AS THERE.

We project them ... or ..we attribute meaning and value to a world that has no meaning an value of its own.

Believe in God, digesting inner experiences are all part of the human experience.
Projection
Projection
Projection
everything Cultural, social and even science is all void by itself.

[um]

hahaha .. I can recall who it said but one of the Indian thinkers brought the human affair, the human experience back and down to:

FOOD BODIES

[um]

And ...

a strange reaction occurred in my mind .... most practices, even if they are not designed for that reason, are making the practitioner ..DOING ...mentally ACTING

"not doing" can be done in an active way and in doing so, the opposite is arrived at.

The real outcome of any spiritual practice, in order to have KNOWLEDGE about reality, should be ..RECEPTIVITY ....OPENNESS ....THE IN-FLUX of the all ...SURRENDER

Stopping the PROJECTING MIND from its activity .=> => YOGA = re-union

Probably the Taoist masters understood best what receptivity is all about.. reason for Lao Zi, to walk away in the darkness of the night, realizing that it did make no sense, to talk about it any longer

They were not empty, giving up filling the world with Their mental activities, the world filled them up, took possession of them.

Born to act, made to act, programmed to act ..it is not that easy to bypass that power.
It demands a total different understanding from what activity is.
In that funny Zen story it points at it when in the end the young monk beaten twice, screaming to his teacher .@#$#@%^ ...if I act you beat me and if I do not act you beat me ...@#@#$%%$# ..What do you want from me ......the answer was ..ACT

So meditation can be done in different ways if it is used to surrender, to open up

And ..if it does not bring the fruits imagined ..do not blame the teacher, the teachings ..not even yourself ... just accept it for what it is. ...and have coffeee.

[October]

@um
I believe you are not on wrong path whatever that is

[sant64]

It doesn't matter how often I post that nothing existed before the "big bang," and that scientists have no explanation for how the universe arose from nothing, or how life inexplicably began from matter (and just on earth, the "goldiocks planet). What could be greater evidence of the supernatural?

Do you want fries with that?
https://polymarket.com/

[um]

@ Oktober

Path
wrong Path

Years ago a lady share her whole life-story in one single session During that session I did not outer a single word, or even had my body tell something.
After she finished her story I said to her ..Look, it should be clear that you did everything wrong, that could be done wrong ...and after a moment of silence so that she could swallow and digest what I said ..I added ...but if fate would have put me in your shoes, I would have done everything as you did.
Upon which she started to weep, releasing herself of all her guild and left me with her human dignity restored.

I too have believed the majority of my days that things, people, surrounding, could and should be changed for the better ...that presumption includes the notion that everything is wrong.

Add to this the many humans that have come with "solutions" or the suggestion to others that they have a better life than others ..what I came to label here in this blog as "the evil of wealth"

Now a days i start to wonder if that desire to change for the better not the root of all human misery

[Ron E.]

As I mentioned in the previous post, human nature is programmed to explain any phenomenon not understood into something that the prevailing state of the brain (mind) can except. We humans have always used supernatural, religious and mythical beliefs to explain what we feared and could not understand; it’s a normal part of human culture.

Mostly, such beliefs have given way via understanding through science. But there will always be diehards who latch on to some of life’s still unexplained mysteries, paste a supernatural label over them and call it evidence.

To find a true answer to our questions maybe best to look at the questioner, to look at ourselves to see where the question arises from. Invariably it is seen to arise from our fears, our insecurities, our particular conditioning, our desires hopes and wishes. All in all, it can be observed to stem from our natural human need to ‘fix’ the problem giving us what we hope would be peace of mind.

There are some questions (perhaps more than we have already answered) that may be beyond our ability to answer. If this causes anguish, annoyance, pain and suffering (in the sense of an unsatisfied ego/self) then that may be a good place to begin an enquiry.

[um]

@ Ron E.

What you wrote in this and the previous post, made me think of gravity.

We all know that if we throw something in the air it will come down and thatapples soner or later will fall from the tree.

Scientists have come up with an explanation by the name of gravity and explanation that allows them to use what they call gravity for other useful purposes as rockets, bullets etc

The question is however does there exist such an POWER as a stand alone causal something ....like God?

Are the so called laws of nature, not the same as religious believes in a causal entity?

Or is this a misunderstanding on my part due to the wrong brand of coffee?

[Appreciative Reader]

“Are the so called laws of nature, not the same as religious believes in a causal entity? (…) Or is this a misunderstanding on my part due to the wrong brand of coffee?”

um, Ron, I’m sure you won’t mind my getting into your conversation with my 2c on this!

And um, I’m very happy you’re clearly asking this question now, given our past impasse following our long discussion about subjectivity and objectivity, as well as the whole tree thing. This is a very elementary matter, and yet a very important matter, I believe, clarity about which can clear up much completely unnecessary confusion.

Short answer, um: No, they’re not the same.

Slightly longer and more precise answer: They’re similar in some respects, but in other very important respects they’re completely different.

Fuller discussion:

Across many subjective measures, the so-called laws of nature are similar to religious beliefs in a conscious causal entity. These would include some of the things you’ve said to me in our past discussion about subjectivity and objectivity, and indeed said other times as well. Psychological and strategic measures, essentially. Measures like both of these addressing, at a primal level, our instinctual need for pattern-recognition, for understanding, and for control. As well as measures like individual recognition and power, of the individual within the immediate and larger society. As well as strategic measures, for instance furthering some larger agenda.

Across some objective measures as well, the so-called laws of nature are similar to religious beliefs in a conscious causal entity. For instance, in the fact that both are abstractions, that is, neither is directly real. In other words, both are products of our brain; and strictly in this sense the product of our imagination.

But across two very important objective measures, the so-called laws of nature are very different to religious beliefs in a conscious causal entity. One: the former actually reflect reality, even if not perfectly but well enough for our purposes, and they are possessed of very real predictive strength; while the latter neither actually reflect reality nor possess any predictive strength. And two: the former are arrived at by clearly and systemically plotting the actual evidence (science is the method via which we do this systematic plotting of the evidence); while the latter are either straight-on lies, or else straight on hallucination, or else a bona fide attempt to evaluate the evidence that has simply gone astray.

(Note that there is, in principle, no reason why the two shouldn’t converge. There’s nothing fundamentally opposed in, on one hand, studying the evidence, and formulating our observations via science into the so-called laws of nature; and, on the other hand, in arriving at a bona fide belief in a conscious causal entity. Except, in that case, should that convergence happen, then the belief in a conscious causal entity will not be religious per se, but perfectly sane and reasonable and rational.) (So that, all reasonable people, including me, and including Brian and Ron as well I’m sure, will be happy to embrace a belief in a conscious causal entity, should such be clearly evidenced and borne out via science.)

[Appreciative Reader]

Note that I've added the qualifier "conscious" to what you'd said, um. "Conscious causal entity", as opposed to merely "causal entity" --- because both full-on theism as well as deism necessarily are about the causal entity being conscious.

Should we talk only and literally about what you'd said, which is "causal entity", without necessarily stipulating that it should be conscious, then that's probably a more reasonable assumption --- except, even so, it isn't true, it's still no more than a flight of fancy. Because of two reasons: first, there's no reason why there should necessarily be one single causal entity as opposed to a whole bunch of them (Aquinas was completely wrong about this, as we've discussed in that thread here); and two, because to directly assume a causative link like that is to extrapolate our everyday common sense onto an environment that is very different than what our common sense has evolved to address, and may therefore be entirely misleading.

And in any case, and like I said, to talk about a causal entity without also stipulating that this entity is conscious, is not to talk about any extant religious belief at all. Not even Advaitic Oneness. Osho Robbins was wrong about that, as you may remember we'd established during our very long discussion (the discussion I'd had with him, I mean, and during which you were present).

[um]

@ AR

>>For instance, in the fact that both are abstractions, that is, neither is directly real. In other words, both are products of our brain; and strictly in this sense the product of our imagination.<<

That is the point, the rest is what we as humans do with this fact, how we make it seen.

As far as the penultimate paragraph is concerned that is largely addressed in chapter 4 of Dr. De Wit's book on "Contemplative Psychology" where he focuses on the use of [academical] language and concepts.

Reading that book might help you to understand the bridge and saves me to spell it out here, ..something that is not my cup of coffee

Personally I do look at science and at spirituality as an equal psychological human affair and have little to no interest in rules that govern those fields.

[um]

@ AR

After reading his book you will also understand that the traditions that have proved themselves can be labeled as science and why, giving that they both lead to knowledge although having an different approach and a different field.

Again ...personally I am not interested in setting science appart from spirituality.

Both human activities can and are used, practiced and made seen in different ways...
There are as much would be scientists as would be spiritual practioners.

[um]

@ AR

In the triade of observer, observing, object of observing one can focus on the object and asking questions about proof, truth reality, etc

One can also focus on the observer how he/she is related to that proof, truth and reality

Seen from the observer the object of both science and spirituality is projection, abstract and un accessible in it absoluteness.

[Appreciative Reader]

"That is the point"

Haha, no, um, that is NOT the point. The point is all of what I said in those two comments of mine. That is just one incidental matter.

-----

"As far as the penultimate paragraph is concerned that is largely addressed in chapter 4 of Dr. De Wit's book on "Contemplative Psychology""

OK, that's interesting. Maybe I'll check it out one of these days.

-----

"Personally I do look at science and at spirituality as an equal psychological human affair"

But why, um? Particularly in light of what I just said, in response to your question posed to Ron? About the very important differences between the two kinds of belief?

-----

"personally I am not interested in setting science appart from spirituality"

That's fair, um. That's your right, sure. ...But you're the one who raised this, after all, in your question addressed to Ron. You're the one who asked if the two kinds of beliefs were the same. I said what I did expressly in response to that question.

-----

"One can also focus on the observer how he/she is related to that proof, truth and reality"

It doesn't have to be either-or! Why not "focus" on both?

Haha, we're going back to that old dance of ours, about subjectivity and objectivity. I take your point that subjectivity is important. But I completely don't understand why you insist that objectivity is unimportant. They're both important.

When evaluating what Moses said, or Jesus, or anyone else of that kind, then sure, we can look at the psychology of why they said what they said. We can also look at the psychology of why people who believe them do that. Those are both interesting, and important as well, sure. ...But that does not take away from the importance of also talking about whether these beliefs are actually true. ...Again, it doesn't have to be either-or!

--------------------

Heh, this looks like spiraling off into another very long-drawn discussion that goes round and round. Let's just step back from that.

I only said what I did because you seemed interested in clearly exploring the question about whether scientific beliefs are of the same kind as religious beliefs. Not sure why you asked the question at all if, like you say now, you're not interested in comparing and contrasting the two, and assessing their similarities and dissimilarities.

But no issues. I enjoyed thinking my way through what I said to you in those two comments up there, and spelling out my thoughts about this. And it's always good, generally speaking, to be talking with you! Cheers, um.

[um]

@ AR

Whatever I write is just expressing as good as I can what I have in mind. What others do with it is all theirs. I have no message, nothing to prove.

You see AR when somebody produces something, others take his or her product and use it for their purpose, purposes often not even related to the product.

Look at what happens with the products of farmers but also of artists, etc ... writers, painters ...there are the marketeers, the sellers, the critics, the commentators etc

hahaha ..It is said that Christ for that reason call scribes, theologians etc ..thieves

I have nothing against objectivity ... why should I ..I only realize that humans do not live from bread alone. There is more to the human experience that what is available in the senses. Those things are all available for [academical]. Science is there to gain knowledge, there are more fields about which knowledge can be gained that is beyond the reach of science. Humans have developed other means to do so and did gather science = knowledge about those fields. ..they can even look from out that knowledge to the world and have things to say about science.

I

[um]

@AR

Your reaction made me think of the interactions of Carlos Castaneda with his fellow students and his teachers. He used his academical, analytical, logical [western] trained mind to converse with them ..and in the end he he came to understand that they were not able to enter his mental domain and that he had to let go of that domain for his own benefit in order to digest his experiences.

It is not important of that book was fiction or not. His books tells a story about humans, their minds etc and strategies of handling the unknown

That were great days, digesting his books

[sant64]

Let's flip the question. Do those who identify as atheists truly believe the supernatural isn't real?

Atheists might believe in God without realizing it.

For example, an atheist might exhibit behaviors or attitudes that suggest a belief in a higher power or purpose, even if they do not explicitly acknowledge it. Actions are the more accurate barometer of belief. Therefore, someone who professes atheism yet spends considerable time meditating, reading books on Buddhism (a religion that's not truly atheist btw, as even the most non-theist branches of Buddhism depend on an unseen and extremely reliable spiritual physics) and chanting mantras is, by his actions, demonstrating that he has a latent belief that there's more to this universe than chaotic matter. He is acting as if he does believe.

Many atheists still grapple with deep existential questions about meaning, morality, and the nature of existence. This search for meaning could likewise indicate a latent belief in something beyond the material world.

Some argue that humans have an inherent psychological need for connection and transcendence, which might manifest in belief-like sentiments even among self-identified atheists.

Belief can be complex and nuanced, often existing in ways that are not straightforward or easily categorized. A spectrum. I'd argue that there's no such thing as a genuinely true believer, or a saint. That's because the literature on saints, or whatever religion, reveals that their struggle for fidelity to their intuition of God's will comes at the cost of suffering. Wouldn't someone who is totally attuned to God's will not suffer pangs of desire at all?

By the same token, many of the atheists I see carry a great deal of beliefs that don't square with absolutely zero belief that life is purely an affair of accidentally begotten meat puppets. You say life came from chaos and means nothing? It should follow that all your ideas of morality and concern for others wellbeing are chimeras. But the fact that you don't view life that way indicates a belief that there is something more to this universe than mere matter.

As I said, belief is best understood as not black or white, but a spectrum.

[777]

She exist

because of

0*0 = NOT 1

[7]

That were great days, digesting his books

With Rosita ?

PS
Thar Tinnitus" you had or have
At left or right?
Painful - neutral or pretty?

7

[um]

@ 7

I can't follow you.
What do you mean with the question "with Rosita"

And why do you ask about Tinnitus did I write about Tinnitus?

[7]

Thar must be my old Aga s memory

Be fine

[um]

@ 7

You know why and what you asked .. so speak up.
And than I will answer you too

[um]

@ 7
I wrote something in that message about reading the books of castanedda and how I liked it.

In reaction to that you ask we about Rosita.

Again what has she to do with what I wrote.

YOU have something mind so speak up.

[um]

@ 777
Yoour PS

Thar Tinnitus" you had or have
At left or right?
Painful - neutral or pretty?

I have a buzzing in my head, no idea of its direction, it is neither pretty, neutral or painful.

I has been there for decades and over time I have changed in dealing with it.

Most of the times I am no longer aware of it but that has not been always the case and it started of as unpleasant to say the least after an over exposure to sound in a train, metal on metal.

[manjit]

More than a year into committing the most barbaric crime against humanity of the 21st century, the Palestinian genocide, and hurtling all of humanity towards WW3, military industrial complex puppet Killer Harris has pivoted her campaign to likening Trump to Hitler.

Are the American public dumb enough to believe this nonsense and deny their own lying eyes?

Tick tock, only time will tell.

[um]

@ Manjit

One of the female members of our family gets easily annoyed about things that are going on in the world, around her, and especially how others behave ..she no longer does ...hahaha

I told her that if people would know what she knows, they too would act and behave as she did. ...and ... people are only looking the same as long as you look at them from the outside ...and ... sometimes to stress I will say .. look ...the appear all to be humans but they are not, many are sleep-walkers ..have mercy on them.

No body is to blame for what and who he is

[Jimmy]

We all want evidence innately. It is why we pursue anything that will match what we experienced before we came to this earth plane. It is like the homing beacon of the pigeon. Does it need evidence? The closest we will have until we get the evidence/experience is the work of Dr. Bruce Greyson or Dr. Raymond Moody among others.
Until then look at sunsets or a wood fire. Why is the fascination to gaze and lose ourselves in the light so timeless. It is because those are the colors we have seen before.

[manjit]

Dear Um, you write "gets easily annoyed about things that are going on in the world, around her, and especially how others behave ..she no longer does ...hahaha"

This is an interesting choice of word, "annoyed". Annoyed is finding one's coffee has got cold, or that one's broadband has gone down, or some orange politician said something which, well, "annoys" them but has no actual impact on their life at all. Mental dissatisfactions, I would call them.

But to witness the ceaseless indiscriminate slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent people, mostly women and children, in the most cruel and vicious of ways, for more than a year, with the FULL support of our democratically elected governments, whilst media and large parts of society either pretend it isn't happening or even cheering it on, calls for a human sentiment somewhat more primal than "annoyance".

But to each their own level of humanity.

Regardless, your apparent insinuation that a detachment from the suffering in the world is some sort of aspirational state of being is a notion I not only disagree with but also find to be lacking in wisdom. This is also the very anti-thesis of embodied spirituality imo. Please note I wrote "embodied", by which I mean an actual experiential and ontological understanding and LIVING of "spiritual" realities, insights or modes of consciousness, as opposed to intellectual familiarity with so-called "spiritual" concepts, theologies and religions.

Life is indeed a play and we are all just playing parts, wearing masks. We are all given a limited set, costume, characters to interact with, and a play it remains, but how we play our part is our choice.

Choose your part carefully, and play it wisely.

[manjit]

Brian: "If the only evidence for God and the supernatural is personal experience, with reason and the physical senses irrelevant, then religious believers can't expect anyone else to accept their claim of divine knowledge."

Yes, you are spot on here, no doubt! Now move on with your life!

Simple.

"Ayahuasca, conflict, and peace: Reflections on Palestinian and Israeli ceremonies" at Horizons 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2E-nMJ4EwA

In a moment of great darkness, when vast swathes of humanity turn their back on crying children and pretend they can't hear their cries, there are some points of light in the darkness.

A nice little presentation on some of the potentials of sacred medicines in healing even the most deep rooted of sicknesses, of trauma, cycles of hate & violence.

Very mature discussion, briefly touches on some of the mistaken notions of many RS satsangis about having deep spiritual experiences making one "detached" from the world as opposed to even more deeply connected, what I believe the presenters call "sacred activism", how touching the sacred actually makes one MORE involved in the troubles of the world, rather than self-ishly detaching themselves and pretending they have transcended this deeper connection, of unity.

Well worth a watch.

[um]

@ Manjit

If I would write in Dutch i might have used another word, that would translate differently than Annoyance.

It is not up to me to address the mental contents of anybody but now and then I might point out to somebody the psychological mechanisms of human mind as I do understand them and it is up to them what they do with it.

Again .. if I would stand in another persons shoes I would act like them.

[manjit]

Coincidentally enough, I had 4 Ayahuasca ceremonies deep in the Peruvian rainforest earlier this year with a traumatised Israeli woman.

So many stories to tell, so many insights to be had, but this simply isn't the place for such things.

[manjit]

Dear Um - I hear what you're saying, you may be surprised, but I do.

We must all play our own parts, right?

[um]

@ Manjit

I suppose so.

[Kranvir]

No one has ever found god. No one has ever found god in any religion. In particular no one has ever found god in the rssb cult. Gurinder singh dhillon (satan reincarnated) says the reason you haven't found god is that you haven't done your 2.5 hrs of meditation a day - what a liar, what a fake path, how pathetic !!!!. The psychologically damages you so end up doing more meditation but still no result - why else are you never allowed to share your experience ?? Lol. Rssb meditation is like banging your head on the wall to cure a head ache. The meditation is satanic, the first word in the mantra is jot nirunjan which literally translates to light of the devil. So the meditation leads your to kaal. The light and sound / sound current / shabad are all of kaal. Beware, you are in the belly of the beast , and monsters like gurinder, who incidentally are living their dream life are sucking innocent souls dry - they actually get a sickly pleasure out of your pain and suffering. Gurinder your days are numbered , you will face your karma.

[777]

Thar Tinnitus" you had or have
At left or right?
Painful - neutral or pretty?
UM
In answer of yr :
I have a buzzing in my head, no idea of its direction, it is neither pretty, neutral or painful.
I has been there for decades and over time I have changed in dealing with it.
Most of the times I am no longer aware of it but that has not been always the case and it started of as unpleasant to say the least after an over exposure to sound in a train, metal on metal.

Couldn't t you try to modify that
a little bit
1)
10 minutes flue the 5 words on it
2)
Listen to my music on X and look, while also concentrating on the noice
3)
1 & 2

Please let us know after a few weeks
Please try to believe in Q.E. which science says we all have

777
Almost forgot : Place a like on the vids

[7. -]

UM What s your age ?

7

[Um]

@777

I have no intention to change what happens to be there.
I am not on any social media platform.
I am a some years younger than you are.

[777]

UM
We once met in Utrecht

7

We all need to do what s nice
without harm
Sorry I did hit U once but U deserved it

[7]

Kranvir
You must have strong associations with all this

I willl be more than happy to take Gurinder's Karma
but I believe I have it IN a simple way

You wrote the word wrong as if that matters.
"Coca Cola Neflix Crypto Brian" would work as well when given by a Sant Sat Guru
and now we have Two of them
The trick in Sant Mat is to be the Guru and millions DO

Because of your tendency I guess you will also fall in Love

and Yes
The 5 words as given represent the frequencies of this purer states of mind
Nobody is forced to attend
Creation itself is big fun and pleasure if you don have stolen to much
sis harm, stole a smile, a car, a wife, a country, a planet . . .
and in the process of "Giving Back"
Nice that God does not punish, . . there is just "giving back"

God wants just to have the same pleasure as we do
Ik wish U a Nice ( what Brian calls )
EXISTENCE

888

[s*]

Manjit,
Nice what you tell here!
My daughter does what you do..
Itś all about´ being´Human..´
We have to deal with lots of things here on earth..I dońt really know..
what Love is..but I think that it is most important always..
Right now there is a dark atmosphere..
created by ...
So Light and Love..is a bit of my´mantra´

[um]

@ 777
I can't remember you evr hit me and if you did and I forgot .. the answer is simple ...nobody, DESERVES anything from any body.

If you did hit me,it was your own choice and for your own pleasure, and it had nothing to do with mew.

If you hit me and you feel sorry ask Maharajah Ji to forgive you, for hitting one of his initiates. as he is accounting every bodies karma.