"Believe" is a book that claims religions are true. I doubt it can do that.

I bought Ross Douthat's book, Believe: Why Everyone Should Be Religious, not because I agree with that thesis. Rather, I was curious about how Douthat would make his arguments, figuring that it would be easy for atheists like me to undermine them.

After reading 25 pages, I'm impressed with Douthat's lofty goal, but not with his reasoning so far. Being a New York Times opinion columnist and a former senior editor at The Atlantic, it isn't surprising that Douthat is a talented writer.

He makes his points clearly. So kudos to him for that. And I admire how in his Introduction, he says that he doesn't want to take the easy way out when it comes to defending religion. Which is:

In contemporary arguments with atheists and skeptics, religious writers tend to make a few familiar moves. One is to insist that both critics and defenders of religion spend too much time focusing on dogmas and doctrines and specific claims about reality, when religion should be understood primarily as a practice, a habit of being that can be fully understood only communally and liturgically.

...To people who hover on the threshold of religion, open to belief but unable to quite get there, the implied advice is to set aside your skepticism, swallow your doubts, and just act as if you actually believe: pray and go to church, love your neighbor, sing the hymns or keep kosher, immerse yourself in religious literature and art, try to reap the psychological and communal benefits of faith.

The idea is to embrace religious practice somewhat in defiance of the reasoning faculties, making experience rather than argument your guide, and see what happens next. 

Instead, Douthat wants to convince the reader of his book that religions are a reliable guide to truth and reality, more so than a secular worldview that naturally includes science. 

This isn't a book about how religious stories are psychologically helpful whatever their truth content, or about how religious communities offer a valuable solidarity even if their doctrines are made up, or about how embracing the mystery of existence can make you happy in the day-to-day. Such benefits to religion clearly exist for many people, but those benefits accrue precisely because religious perspectives are closer to the truth about existence than purely secular worldviews.

And the benefits are not the best place to start, if we're after something more than just contentment and good vibes. Rather, we'll start with religion's intellectual advantage: the ways in which nonbelief requires ignoring what our reasoning faculties tell us, while the religious perspective grapples more fully with the evidence before us.

Okay. Great. Rather than trying an end run around the formidable structure of modern science and secularism in general, Douthat wants to attack head on, busting right through the castle walls that, in his opinion, do a poor job of containing the truth about reality.

For Douthat, that includes the supernatural.

I'll be defending beliefs and practices that fall squarely on the supernatural and dogmatic side: real belief in a creator God or ghostly ancestors or a divine pantheon, real commitment to following Jesus or Muhammed or the Buddha, not just general ideas about the good life or cultural practices that you'd like to see handed on.

Being a Christian, Douthat admits "there is no way for me to be perfectly fair to the other religions I'm discussing, especially at the level of generality that this book is aiming for." Fine. But someone should have told him that in no way does the Buddha belong in the company of Jesus and Muhammed. 

Buddhism famously advises, if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him. Meaning, Buddhist teachings not only don't require a belief in the divinity of the Buddha, such a belief in actively discouraged, since Buddhists are encouraged to be a light unto themselves -- a far cry from Christianity and Islam.

This morning I just made a start at reading Douthat's first substantive chapter, The Fashioned Universe, where he argues for the universe having been created by a supernatural entity, which for him is the Christian God. So far, I'm not impressed. 

Amazingly, somehow Douthat finds in the order of the universe as revealed by science evidence for religiosity.

For a general religious attitude to be safely discarded as irrational, modern science would need to have proved more than just the fallibility of the Ptolemaic system, or done more than sow doubts about the historicity of the early books of Genesis. It would need to have demonstrated that it's a fundamental mistake to interpret the universe as a whole as something structured, ordered, seemingly artistically created and mathematically designed.

This shows the flimsiness of his arguments. Modern science does indeed find that the universe is structured and ordered. But science doesn't view the universe as artistically created or mathematically designed. Those are religious sentiments.

Douthat wants us to believe that the orderliness of the universe needs to be explained. Who says? Maybe someday science will be able to do this. But maybe it won't. Perhaps we humans will never know why there are laws of nature rather than chaotic randomness. All we can be sure of is that if the universe wasn't ordered, we wouldn't be here, debating the origin of order.

This makes no sense to me. It is a classic God of the Gaps argument.

Douthat admits that cosmology and evolution are settled truths about the universe. Science has succeeded in presenting solid explanations for how the universe came to be as it is, and how life evolved on our planet. Yet because science only has unproven hypotheses about how order itself arose (the multiverse is one hypothesis), Douthat sees this as a reason to embrace religion's equally unproven hypotheses about a Creator God who designed the universe.

Darwinism established, with uncertainties around the edges of the theory, that an algorithmic process running over an extended period of time can generate increasingly complex and increasingly diverse machines made of cells and atoms. From small acorns, mighty trees; from the building blocks of life and the complex pressures of Earth's environment, stags and fungi, orcas and armadillos, praying mantises and human beings.

But those building blocks, that orderly environment, the system of the world in which the algorithmic process takes place, Hinduism's rta -- all this Darwin assumes as a given, not explained as the result of a blind process in its own right.

Comments

[sant64]

The "kill the Buddha" phrase comes from a 9th c. Mahayana monk. It's essentially a koan, i.e., a rationally non-sensical statement intended to cut through dualistic concepts. I guess this koan could be said to fairly represent the spirit of Buddhism's radical inquiry, and its rejection of concepts like creator gods and permanence.

However, Douthat is correct that Buddhism is a religion. Karma and rebirth are cornerstone concepts of early Buddhism. Buddha taught that one's actions and insight most definitely determine destiny in future lives. Buddha also taught that there are heavens and hells. That's religion.

Mahayana monks like the 9th century's Lin Chi didn't chuck these core concepts of Buddhism -- and these concepts of states after physical death are notably non-material. They have to be. Of course, that doesn't mean that such non-material states truly exist. But it does mean that the Buddha taught that these states exist. To think otherwise is to hold that the Buddha was a nihilist who nevertheless taught karma and reincarnation for no reason whatsoever.

I look forward to reading Douthat's book to see what argument he makes for a creator God.

[Appreciative Reader]

“I bought Ross Douthat's book, Believe: Why Everyone Should Be Religious, not because I agree with that thesis.”

Yep, that’s what an open mind looks like. 👍

Appreciate you doing that, and your sharing this here. No way I’d ever have read this book, or any book of this kind. That is, I probably would have, ten years back, but most certainly not the me of now. …What I’m getting at is, it’s because of you that I’m now getting a view of this man’s thought processes here, which otherwise I’m certain I wouldn’t have gotten to take a look at, for which thanks!

…One always wonders, what leads people to believe things like these? Might they, just maybe, have any sound reasons for those extravagant beliefs, that maybe might be of use to us as well? ...Usually, though, one just ends up disappointed, and amazed that grown men can actually abase themselves like this, by publicly admitting to such halfwittery, and actually writing books about it. …But that’s just a general observation. As far as this specific book, let’s not get ahead of ourselves, and give his book a fair chance, before criticizing it.

----------

“But someone should have told him that in no way does the Buddha belong in the company of Jesus and Muhammed.”

Man’s actually astonishingly ignorant, isn’t he. It’s amazing how people can hold forth with a straight face about things they know nothing about.

Lots of people do that, gas away about things they know nothing about. Specifically, quite a few people I’ve seen, who pretend to know about what the Buddha taught, and actually themselves presume to “teach” basis that: but end up only demonstrating their own ignorance, and their dishonesty in so brazenly pretending to know what they clearly don’t.

----------

“For a general religious attitude to be safely discarded as irrational, modern science would need to have proved more than just the fallibility of the Ptolemaic system, or done more than sow doubts about the historicity of the early books of Genesis. It would need to have demonstrated that it's a fundamental mistake to interpret the universe as a whole as something structured, ordered, seemingly artistically created and mathematically designed.”

Haha, that’s an elementary logical fallacy right there! This guy’s pulled the oldest trick in the book, and simply flipped over the burden of proof.

No, science does not need to disprove your cockamamie fairy tales. It is you who need to prove that they’re true.

Let’s bring forth Shadowfax! If I claim I’ve got an invisible unicorn in my garage, then “science” does not need to demonstrate that it is a fundamental mistake for me to claim that: it is I that carry the burden of proof, to provide credible evidence for my unicorn. Else anyone that believes my claim is a fool, and I myself a delusional or a charlatan for having made that claim in the first place in the absence of evidence.

----------

“But those building blocks, that orderly environment, the system of the world in which the algorithmic process takes place, Hinduism's rta -- all this Darwin assumes as a given, not explained as the result of a blind process in its own right.”

Yep, as you say, textbook God of the Gaps right there.

This guy …these people …how *can* they do this, abase themselves in public by openly airing their halfwittery like this. Sane, adult, educated men. Someone who, in this case, apparently writes serious articles in serious journals --- so that presumably his halfwittery is selective, presumably on other matters than his religious superstitions he isn’t as transparently stupid and as silly.

[The Unknown Buddha]

If it's true that the earliest scraps of writing we have about the Buddha didn’t appear until centuries after he supposedly shuffled off this mortal coil—and only then after an awfully meandering game of telephone in oral form—how can anyone speak with a straight face about what he “really taught”? The record is murky at best and hagiographic at worst, leaving us to sift through centuries-later attributions like archaeologists rummaging through a dusty attic, trying to figure out if that letter from Grandma was actually written by Great Uncle Mort.

And yes, of course, the same problem stalks the historical Jesus—except in the Buddha’s case, it’s arguably much more glaring. We might think we know who said what, but in reality, we’re swimming in secondhand (or thirdhand, or fourthhand) lore, cobbled together by redactors who lived well after the fact. Let’s admit it: we’re wandering in the fog of speculation if we insist we’ve nailed down exactly what the Buddha really did or precisely what he really taught. Until someone invents a time machine or unearths a 2,500-year-old reel-to-reel tape, the best we can do is shrug, guess, and keep reading the footnotes.

[Appreciative Reader]

"If it's true that the earliest scraps of writing we have about the Buddha didn’t appear until centuries after he supposedly shuffled off this mortal coil—and only then after an awfully meandering game of telephone in oral form—how can anyone speak with a straight face about what he “really taught”? (...)"

"(...) And yes, of course, the same problem stalks the historical Jesus (...)"

----------

Fair points all.

However, I'd argue that the points you raise, while not untrue, are only incidental. Here's why. (Let me enumerate my points as I write, to make for clarity.)

----------

1. The Pali "basket", the Dhammapada that is to say, was allegedly written down not very long after the Buddha passed, and collected together by his disciples that were closest to him, including his closest companion and cousin Ananda. Everything was then written down clearly, and this was done precisely so that his teachings would survive undistorted over time. And this basket carries no significant internal inconsistencies, that I'm aware of.

This was very different than the accounts of Jesus and his teachings, that came down to us via the different apostles, all written down at different times, sometimes removed by whole decades and centuries. And, importantly:

(i) Portions of the gospels were authored by people who did not even ever set eyes, or ears, on Jesus. It was all hearsay, else fantastical visions. In stark contrast to the Dhammapada.

(ii) There's internal inconsistencies aplenty within the gospels themselves. Again in contrast with the accounts that make up the Dhammapada.

That puts the Dhammapada on a whole different footing than the Christian gospels.

----------

2. Agreed, though, that the earliest physical written evidence of the Dhammapada that has survived dates back to around the time of Jesus, very roughly. Which would be around five or six centuries after the Buddha. So that, given that the intervening period we have no direct evidence of, I agree that it makes sense to take the veracity of the historicity of the Buddha and his teachings with a pinch of salt, absolutely. Particularly given, as you point out, that life of the Buddha itself is hagiographic, and not without fantastical details that are obviously embellishments at best, and maybe outright fiction.

However. And here's the very, very, very important "However" here, that actually makes your objection, while valid, no more than an incidental nitpick:

(i) It does not really matter if the account of the life of the Buddha was all made up. The Jesus story is predicated wholly on his alleged personal history/story, while with the Buddha, the details of his personal life are of no consequence to the teachings at all. This is one stark difference between the two cases, the weight of the alleged historical details of the two lives.

(ii) It does not even matter if the teachings came from a different person, or indeed from different person. The teachings, they stand by themselves. Unlike Jesus's teachings, that stand solely on the basis of the claims of who he was, and in any case those latter teachings themselves are riddled full of inconsistencies.

----------

TLDR:
Your objection is valid, and you do well to raise it, here, absolutely, in order to set the record straight. But it is more by way of an incidental nitpick than an actual substantial objection. Because replace "(the teachings of) the Buddha" with "(the alleged teachings of) the alleged historical Buddha", and it makes no substantial difference at all, the teachings still stand completely by themselves. And ditto what Brian had said about the Buddha and about this Douthat person's holding forth on it despite his apparent ignorance of the basics of such, and I as well in my comment.

[Appreciative Reader]

On rereading, I find some typos have crept in, that in some places might perhaps make my comment above not fully intelligible. Hammered that out in a hurry, I'm afraid, without taking the time to preview or edit properly. If there's any doubts about what I meant, then I'm happy to clarify, later when I've time.

And also, happy to engage further with any more disagreements you might have, basis what I've said above. Later when I have time.

You're clearly knowledgeable about the nature of the historical records that make up the Dhammapada, and presumably the Gospels as well, so that it is good to have knowledgeable people like you raise substantial issues like these here.

Hope you're able to agree that my response addresses your objection/s squarely. If not, and if you'd like to discuss this further, then happy to, like I said.

Cheers

[AIhigherspecies]

Our A.I. Overlords have this to say:
Your statement contains some inaccuracies and oversimplifications regarding the Dhammapada and the Pali Canon. Here’s a more accurate version:

The Dhammapada is part of the Pali Canon, not the entire "basket" – The Pali Canon (Tipitaka, meaning "Three Baskets") consists of:

Vinaya Pitaka (monastic rules)
Sutta Pitaka (discourses of the Buddha, including the Dhammapada)
Abhidhamma Pitaka (philosophical and psychological analysis)
The Dhammapada is a relatively short text within the Sutta Pitaka, specifically within the Khuddaka Nikaya, a collection of miscellaneous smaller texts.

The Pali Canon was written down centuries after the Buddha’s passing – The oral tradition of the Buddha's teachings lasted for several centuries before being committed to writing. The earliest written version of the Pali Canon was recorded in Sri Lanka around 29 BCE, during the Fourth Buddhist Council. Before that, it was preserved through oral transmission by monastic communities.

Ananda played a key role, but did not write the texts down himself – Ananda, the Buddha's cousin and attendant, was known for his extraordinary memory. He played a crucial role in reciting the Buddha's teachings at the First Buddhist Council (shortly after the Buddha’s death, around 5th century BCE). However, at that time, everything was still transmitted orally.

The purpose of writing it down was both preservation and doctrinal stability – The monks wrote down the teachings to prevent loss or distortion, especially due to external threats like war and famine. However, some variations and interpretations naturally emerged over time, leading to different Buddhist traditions.

The Dhammapada does contain some inconsistencies – While it is one of the most coherent and poetic collections in the Pali Canon, minor contradictions exist between verses and other texts in the Canon, particularly regarding karma, the nature of enlightenment, and the role of effort vs. grace. However, these are relatively minor compared to later Buddhist doctrinal disputes.

Summary:
The Dhammapada is a part of the Pali Canon, not the entire "basket."
The Pali Canon was written down centuries after the Buddha, around 29 BCE in Sri Lanka.
Ananda helped preserve teachings orally but did not write them down.
The purpose of writing it down was both preservation and doctrinal stability.
While the Dhammapada is relatively consistent, some minor contradictions exist within the text and the broader canon.
Would you like references to specific inconsistencies in the Dhammapada?

You said:
yes continue
ChatGPT said:
Here are a few internal inconsistencies and tensions within the Dhammapada, as well as discrepancies between it and the broader Pali Canon:

1. Effort vs. Predestination
Effort emphasized:
Dhammapada 276: "You yourselves must strive; the Buddhas only point the way."
This aligns with the idea of self-reliance in Buddhism, where enlightenment is a personal journey.
Predestination implied elsewhere:
Dhammapada 174: "The wise are guided by the law, as the moon is drawn along its path by the stars."
This could suggest a cosmic determinism, implying a more structured, fated path to enlightenment.
Tension: If effort is the key to enlightenment, does predestination play a role at all?

2. Self is Illusory vs. Self is Important
No-self (Anatta) emphasized:
Dhammapada 62: "This man thinks: ‘These sons belong to me, and this wealth belongs to me.’ He himself does not belong to himself; how then can sons or wealth be his?"
This aligns with the fundamental Buddhist teaching of anatta (no-self), that there is no permanent, unchanging self.
Self emphasized as crucial:
Dhammapada 160: "One is one’s own refuge; who else could be the refuge?"
Here, the text seems to indicate that the self is the ultimate source of salvation, which could be seen as contradicting anatta.
Tension: If there is no self, what is the subject of effort and enlightenment?

3. Solitude vs. Community
Solitude praised:
Dhammapada 329: "One should wander alone like a rhinoceros."
This verse suggests that spiritual progress is best made alone, without attachments.
Community praised:
Dhammapada 78: "Live with the wise who are noble and diligent, like the moon freed from clouds."
Here, companionship and guidance from the wise are encouraged.
Tension: Should a practitioner pursue solitary asceticism or engage with a monastic community?

4. Violence and Non-Violence
Non-violence is absolute:
Dhammapada 129: "All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill."
Violence may be justified in some cases:
Dhammapada 201: "Victory breeds hatred. The defeated live in pain. Happily the peaceful live, giving up victory and defeat."
This can be read as implying that conflict (even violent conflict) is an inevitable part of existence.
Tension: If non-violence is absolute, how do we reconcile with the existence of conflict and historical Buddhist military engagement?

5. Monastic vs. Lay Life
Renunciation is supreme:
Dhammapada 75: "A person who has given up worldly ties, who has renounced home and wandering about, is truly great."
Lay life is still valuable:
Dhammapada 303: "A layperson who is generous and upright shines in this world and in the next."
Tension: If renunciation is the ideal, how does a layperson attain enlightenment?

Conclusion: Why These Inconsistencies Exist
Oral Transmission – The Dhammapada was compiled from various sources over time, leading to differences in phrasing and doctrine.
Multiple Audiences – Some verses address monks, while others are meant for laypeople, creating contradictions based on audience needs.
Contextual Flexibility – Buddhist teachings often adapt to different contexts, and apparent contradictions may reflect this.

[Ron E.]

Trying to decide whether Douthat is convinced that religious belief can be beneficial to everyone in that such beliefs would lessen the psychological pressures of day-to-day living and that religion is good for society, or that he is just proselytising in the hope that eventually everyone will gravitate to his religion of Catholicism.

I see that he has another book ‘Bad Religion’ How we have become a nation of heretics where he talks about how American Christianity has lost its way. He blames the cause of America’s slump on the departure from its Christian roots, which leads me to conclude that his interests do lie in bringing people back to ‘American Christianity’.

He may have a point regarding Christianity being a binding force for society. There are numerous advantages in such cohesive organisations. But what would bother me is that such cohesion's often are or can evolve into huge cliques that look unfavourably on other’s beliefs – or non-beliefs.

In adopting any beliefs system, it seems to me that the search for truth (or reality) whether through science, philosophy or any of the non-duality teachings, succumbs to a rigidness that outlaws earnest inquiry.

[Appreciative Reader]

ehhh

@AIhigherspecies, are you the same dude, or dudette, that I'd been speaking with before, that would be @TheUnknownBuddha? And was that comment above addressed to me, and in response to my comment?

Don't mind me if not! In that case, just a case of crossed wires. Carry on, in that case.

Just in case that was indeed addressed to me: That's ...kind of all over the place, right? That is, I can see, or at least, guess at, some arguments that are implied there, and indeed some of them seem valid. But I'd rather not have to guess, you know? ...In other words, I'd rather not sit here talking to some AI bot! Basis what went before, basis your original comment, and my response, just clearly fashion your own arguments. Feel free to use your AI thingie as backup for what you have to say --- although ideally I'd prefer it if you could just follow the links they provide and directly go to the source material that the AI thing references, and lists, and present those instead of the AI-generated output: but not to impose, that last I'll leave to you to do as you like. But, like I said, just spell out clearly what you're saying, yourself, and we might have an interesting conversation --- like I said, you do make some interesting points, and indeed some valid points as well ...well, assuming I guess right about you.

(And again, in case I guess wrong, and in case you aren't that earlier commenter, and/or this latter comment was not addressed to me, then apologies for the confusion.)

[Spence Tepper]

Logic requires a closed system to be accurate, because the assumptions of all premeses are that they are universal and infinite in application.

It is only by the addition of other premeses that any assumptions are given limitations.

Therefore logic itself is simply inadequate to deduce, project or forecast what lies beyond the tiny sphere of known and accepted premeses.

And therefore arguing for or against God with anyone else is a huge waste of time.

Instead use sense and intellect where they are functional.. To contemplate the incredible moment and all we can capture with a fully awake mind that has been, by sheer peacefulness, raised above opinions to honor the impact of the beauty of what is. This is our connection to whatever reality there is. Maybe God will reveal theirself, or maybe this reality is God, and we are just learning to see and listen better.

[Appreciative Reader]

"logic itself is simply inadequate to deduce, project or forecast what lies beyond the tiny sphere of known and accepted premeses"

True. Logic by itself is barren. What we embrace is the logic plus objective evidence combo. The formalization of which is science.

This has been clearly explained to you, Spence, many times. This has been discussed threadbare so many times here, yes, with you. And yet, there you go again.

This is a textbook strawman, is all.

It seems to me that your mind, in order to keep your delusion alive, actually keeps shutting out those discussions of ours, and that simple obvious resolution to and refutation of your argument, from your view. No other way to explain this bizarre amnesia.

...Do you really not remember those last exchanges of ours, and my correcting you on this very point on at least four or five different instances, maybe more?

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
I think I remember thinking, "He doesn't get it, and going into detail only results in his doubling down on a misunderstanding, and raise unpleasant feelings."

So take what you can understand and leave the rest.

You wrote
"True. Logic by itself is barren. What we embrace is the logic plus objective evidence combo. The formalization of which is science."

Logic is based on premeses, AR, and some of those are everything extracted from scientific enquiry. Logic isn't distinct from science nor is it just a part of science but is in fact the mechanism by which all things science are poured into and which all things you call facts emerge.

Sadly some other things slip into your logic that aren't very scientific. And that is how you deal with the unknown.

Those things that are beyond current science are beyond accurate forecast by logic. You must make sweeping generalizations and assumptions to make claims about God and the entirety of reality. Why? And to compound that error by calling this science is unfortunate and untrue.

Most scientists don't go there.

Where your logic falls completely apart is in that dark space you refuse to acknowldge, and that is the entirety of reality outside of your own thinking, however much you work to base that thinking on what you have learned from science.

You call what is unknown to you "delusion". That is unfortunately the identical argument and the same parochial thinking used to dismiss the voice of the other throughout history.

It's ok. We don't need to keep repeating ourselves. I may not understand you.

It is certain that you have not understood what I wrote.

If only folks restricted their opinions to something closer to what they actually know and learn to respect each other's differences, we could all get along so much better.

[Appreciative Reader]

facepalm

You're ignoring what I said, and keep pulling down your strawman.

Again, not logic alone, but the logic plus empiricism combo. Formalized, that equals science.

----------

Anyway, carry on.

I don't mean to be an ass, and will let your comments be, in future.

Cheers, old friend.

[um]

@ Spence

It appears to me that something has changed in your style of writing....or ...me .. or both!

Apart from whether I agree, understand or appreciate the content of what you write, the way you write does not provoke any reaction in the way as it did before..

[Jim Sutherland]

@um, same as you miss the former Spence’s style of writing, I miss horrmji’s former style of writing.

Too bad all masks are not finally removed, and writers write, and say, EXACTLY what they are thinking, and exactly WHO they are directing their comments toward, instead of like just shoveling crap against the wall, and hoping enough of it will stick, that it will attract some one to respond.
as for Spence, I remember when he sucked up to Brian Hines like a Puppy dog , same as when Appreciative Reader humped Manjit’t trouser legs every time Manjit appeared with Word Salads of egotistic Bragadosia of claiming to have read and experienced every thing on the planet that every Mystic has ever experienced since the birth of Creation!

But, it even made me ( almost ) sad, to read Appreciative Reader turn so violently against his Guru, Manjit de Ilusion, calling him out as a Liar, ….among other choice words, that neutralized Manjit so badly, either because of shock, or by truth, that his Puppy DOG former Disciple would turn on him so violently, similar to how Guru Brian Hines turned so violently on his #1 Disciple, our former Spence Kepper, who insinuated that he had more inner access to Brian Hine’s inner thoughts, than even Brian had him self!
Manjit de Illusion must still be working on his Rebuttal to Puppy Dog’s last Torpedo and guided Missiles that were unleashed on him! I suspect Manjit de Illusion will load up on a huge Megadose of Mushrooms, larger than the 20 year doses of Chris Basche’s Mega Doses of LSD, and confront Puppy Dog AP with his Rebuttal of how Puppy Dog has Zero Collateral to apply for a Spiritual Loan from any RSSB Bank, let alone any others!

Such Rifts between Brother Initiates of Charan Singh of Spence and Brian, surprised me much more than the Rifts by uninitiated Manit de Illusion and Appreciative Reader, which prove that the BS word,….Love, is non existent among humans, regardless of the Masks they hide under, which eventually expose what’s underneath the masks.

[um]

@ Jim S.

There are writers, here or in books, that use an language that I either can easily forget or that goes on to attract my attention.

That has nothing to do with the content of what is presented nor with the person

It is part of the layout ..some books are layed out in such an way that you hardly notice it so that you can focus completely on the content. The same , at least for me, is with the linguistic / grammatical form.

That is also how I look upon people and many other things ... it is what i love to call the "collateral information"... Trump and Musk , just to name two that stand in the lime light these days, might be genial and a blessing for the country and even the world, but their way of presenting themselves makes it difficult for me to listen to them.

The same in the past for Baghwan Rasjnees and SaiBaba. Their way of presenting themselves and their teachings to the world, made it impossible for me to listen to them.

We have a saying that one should not run your hand through the cats fur against its natural direction of growth ....even if you are a cat lover, an expert or even an guru ..the cat wil not be pleased if you do so ...hahahaha

After all what matters to me is that what and how something is written helps me to understand what the writer is pointing at ... mostly not in the words themselves.

[um]

@ Jim S.

There is that beautifull saying of:
"Standing shoulder by shoulder"

Standing in that way two or more people, share the same stand-point from where the have a common view on something.
In doing so the do not see one another.
The moment they do THEY become the coccus of attention and the common ground is lost.

The best masters of art, art can be anything, share with their students, the curiosity, the interest etc for the same topic and they rejoice inthat contact for that reason

The personalities do not matter ...now think of all the DICTATORS that are around and were around ..they all drew attention of the people onti THEM and not anything else.

[Jim Sutherland]

@um, since I mentioned Chris Bach’s Name, Here is the free pdf of his Book that has made him the Academic Guru and a 20 year secret user of LSD , plus other psychodelics in his Home, under the care of his Clinical Psychologist Wife, that kept him on full 8 hour Trips, not just 30 minutes with Micro dose trips.

https://www.kawuabonga.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/LSD-and-The-Mind-of-the-Universe-Christopher-M-Bache.pdf

Years ago, when I was sharing private cordial conversations with Manjit, when he stared commenting about his interest in Mushrooms, I tried to warn him against risking permanent damage to his brain, by sending him Links to Prof. Chris Bashes]’s work, which originally caught my attention, seeing in his book title, “Diamonds From Heaven”. For those who have read my Meditation for Neophytes posts, and listened to my podcast of it, notice how I listed my Diamonds that swirled at my Third Eye , which was the entrance to what I called The Star Gate! Well, I accessed that same Diamond From Heaven by the Surat Shabd Yoga Tecnique I shared, as Prof. Chris Basch accessed , after years of torturing him self with Mega Doses of LSD. I accessed Diamonds from Heaven with out haven EVER taken LSD or psychedelics in any of my 83 years of life to present, and surely still warn young Mystics about risking damaging their brains with what Prof. Basche went through!

To any one who reads this book, I don’t think any one has ever One Upped the deep, deep, Dive in to the Bowels of Creation that Chris has shared in this book, that even Manjit de Illusion will never catch up to, with out frying his brain more than he already has ……when he once was a delight to communicate with, before Mushrooms and Ayawasca made him nasty . 🥲

[um]

@ Jim S.

If a person is knowledgeable on the experiences in the inner world, irrespective of how they are attained, he might act according that knowledge.

That said Ia memory comes up of an skating trip. We had just passed an soft spot in the ice, while somebody else was skating in that direction ...so I tought it I appropriate to warn her ... and to my surprise she rebuked ...that is none of your business where I go ... don't bother/interfere with it.

All the things you address in that previous message and many others, are far beyond the daily reality have lived in and are living in.

Many don't even know about the Mnt. Everest or have ever seen a mountain, there are many that live in between mountains and never climb one, for other it is the passion of their life or a means to make money ...that all said ...it must be great satisfaction to climb and to have a view on the top.

[Jim Sutherland]

@um,…..You won’t head this about Trump in any Media.

TRUMP DOES THE UNTHINKABLE. by Liz Crokin
As an entertainment journalist, I've had the opportunity to cover Trump for over a decade, and in all my years covering him I've never heard anything negative about the man until he announced he was running for president. Keep in mind, I got paid a lot of money to dig up dirt on celebrities like Trump for a living so a scandalous story on the famous billionaire could've potentially sold a lot of magazines and would've been a Huge feather in my cap.
Instead, I found that he doesn't drink alcohol or do drugs, he's a hardworking businessman. On top of that, he's one of the most generous celebrities in the world with a heart filled with more gold than his $100 million New York penthouse.
Since the media has failed so miserably at reporting the truth about Trump, I decided to put together some of the acts of kindness he's committed over three decades which has gone virtually unnoticed or fallen on deaf ears.
In 1986, Trump prevented the foreclosure of Annabell Hill's family farm after her husband committed suicide. Trump personally phoned down to the auction to stop the sale of her home and offered the widow money. Trump decided to take action after he saw Hill's pleas for help in news reports.
In 1988, a commercial airline refused to fly Andrew Ten, a sick
Orthodox Jewish child with a rare illness, across the country to get medical care because he had to travel with an elaborate life-support system. His grief-stricken parents contacted Trump for help and he didn't hesitate to send his own plane to take the child from Los Angeles to New York so he could get his treatment.
In 1991, 200 Marines who served in Operation Desert Storm spent time at Camp Lejune in North Carolina before they were scheduled to return home to their families. However, the Marines were told that a mistake had been made and an aircraft would not be able to take them home on their scheduled departure date. When Trump got wind of this, he sent his plane to make two trips from North Carolina to Miami to safely return the Gulf War Marines to their loved ones.
In 1995, a motorist stopped to help Trump after the limo he was traveling in got a flat tire. Trump asked the Good Samaritan how he could repay him for his help. All the man asked for was a bouquet of flowers for his wife. A few weeks later Trump sent the flowers with a note that read: We've paid off your mortgage.
In 1996, Trump filed a lawsuit against the city of Palm Beach ,
Florida, accusing the town of discriminating against his Mar-a-Lago resort club because it allowed Jews and blacks. Abraham Foxman, who as the Anti-Defamation League Director at the time, said Trump put the light on Palm Beach not on the beauty and the glitter, but on its seamier side of discrimination. Foxman also noted that Trump's charge had a trickle-down effect because other clubs followed his lead and
began admitting Jews and blacks.
In 2000, Maury Povich featured a little girl named Megan who struggled with Brittle Bone Disease on his show and Trump happened to be watching. Trump said the little girl's story and positive attitude touched his heart. So he contacted Maury and gifted the little girl and her family with a very generous check.
In 2008, after Jennifer Hudson's family members were tragically murdered in Chicago , Trump put the Oscar-winning actress and her family up at his Windy City hotel for free. In addition to that, Trump's security took extra measures to ensure Hudson and her family members were safe during such a difficult time.
In 2013, New York bus driver Darnell Barton spotted a woman close to the edge of a bridge staring at the traffic below as he drove by. He stopped the bus, got out and put his arm around the woman and saved her life by convincing her to not jump. When Trump heard about this story, he sent the hero bus driver a check simply because he believed his good deed deserved to be rewarded.
In 2014, Trump gave $25,000 to Sgt. Andrew Tamoressi after he spent seven months in a Mexican jail for accidentally crossing the US-Mexico border. President Barack Obama couldn't even be bothered to make one phone call to assist with the United States Marine's release; however, Trump opened his pocketbook to help this serviceman get back on his feet.
In 2016, Melissa Consin Young attended a Trump rally and tearfully thanked Trump for changing her life. She said she proudly stood on stage with Trump as Miss Wisconsin USA in 2005. However, years later she found herself struggling with an incurable illness and during her darkest days, she explained that she received a handwritten letter from Trump telling her she's the bravest woman, I know. She said the opportunities that she got from Trump and his organizations ultimately
provided her Mexican-American son with a full-ride to college.
Lynne Patton, a black female executive for the Trump Organization, released a statement in 2016 defending her boss against accusations that he's a racist and a bigot. She tearfully revealed how she's struggled with substance abuse and addiction for years. Instead of kicking her to the curb, she said the Trump Organization and his entire family loyally stood by her through immensely difficult times.
Donald Trump's kindness knows no bounds and his generosity has and continues to touch the lives of people from every sex, race, and religion. When Trump sees someone in need, he wants to help.
Two decades ago, Oprah asked Trump in a TV interview if he'd ever run for president. He said: "If it got so bad, I would never want to rule it out totally because I really am tired of seeing what's happening with this country.'"
That day has come. Trump sees that America is in need and he wants to help. How unthinkable! On the other hand, have you ever heard of Hillary or Obama ever doing such things with their own resources?
Now that's really unthinkable! Might be worth passing on!!!
Just shows we hired the right guy. If Hollywood , the liberals and the
media ever STOP harassing him, Trump will have time to do many more positive things for our country....the good ole United States of America!!
PS ~ To those who are already Fact Checking, don't bother . . . already did it, and all the stories are TRUE!
The Liberal, progressive, socialists want to destroy this guy. .

[um]

@ Jim S.

Just read a few lines ..I will do the rest later but what I read is enough to answer you.

You see whatever decisions I have taken in life was based upon my personal preferences. Several times I made it clear for everybody to understand that these preferrences are MINE, they tell something about me ..namely my prefferences, they have no value or meaning otherwise but for me and they are no judgement on anything or anybody.

If a brand of coffee doesn't please me, I will just not drink it. My refusal to drink it says something about my preferences and nothing about the quality of the coffee brand ..after all I am not an professional coffee roaster and / or coffee expert. It could well be that I dislike a coffee brand that is considered the top of the bill by experts etc or the other way around like to drink coffee that does not even deserve the name by experts.

The same is with people like Mr. Trump .... Even if all the facts you wrote about are true and even just a minor selection of all the good he has done for other, his country and the world at large ... I hold on to my own preferences

[Appreciative Reader]

Hmm, what have we here? Jim Sutherland, speaking about Appreciative Reader --- that would be me --- as well as about two others, Spence Tepper and Manjit. Jim, saying this (and I quote from his comment right here on this thread): and I’ll just enumerate the portions I wish to highlight from his comment, in order to separate them, and thereby highlight them further:

1. “…as for Spence, I remember when he sucked up to Brian Hines like a Puppy dog…”

2. “…same as when Appreciative Reader humped Manjit’t trouser legs…”

3. “…Appreciative Reader turn so violently against his Guru, Manjit de Ilusion, calling him out as a Liar, ….among other choice words, that neutralized Manjit so badly, either because of shock, or by truth, that his Puppy DOG former Disciple would turn on him so violently…”

4. “…Manjit de Illusion must still be working on his Rebuttal to Puppy Dog’s last Torpedo and guided Missiles that were unleashed on him!...”

5. “…I suspect Manjit de Illusion will load up on a huge Megadose of Mushrooms, larger than the 20 year doses of Chris Basche’s Mega Doses of LSD, and confront Puppy Dog AP with his Rebuttal of how Puppy Dog has Zero Collateral to apply for a Spiritual Loan from any RSSB Bank…”

6. And, towards the end of that particular comment of his, this particularly ironic gem from Jim: “…Love, is non existent among humans…”

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

Does the above call for an ass whupping? Sure it does. But I find I haven’t the stomach, any more, to hand it to him now, as I had back when he’d dared to pull a similar stunt, some six or seven or eight years back.

I’ll stay content with merely highlighting this clearly, and further emphasizing this for all to see.

Those that already know Jim for what he is, will probably not need this further reminder of the nature of the man, and therefore, indirectly, also the nature of his claims of spiritual visions.

Those that are aware of the nature of the man, and yet continue to find his claims credible, or at least remain ambivalent about them, will I suppose continue to hold those opinions. And they’re welcome to their opinions, and to their ambivalence; or indeed to their indifference, should that be the case.

I suppose this highlighting now is really for the benefit of new visitors here, or occasional visitors who don’t follow comments regularly, and who might be inclined to give Jim and his claims the benefit of the doubt, at least to begin with. As I had myself, at one time.

I direct the attention of such to these portions I’ve emphasized, and then I’d like to clearly tell them that these luminous thoughts, clothed in such sparkling pellucid prose, and that reflect such deep compassion and humility, flow not from a particularly nasty adolescent teenager, but actually a grown-ass man, in fact an old man in his eighties. It comes from someone that apparently sports a Doctoral degree, no less --- never mind from which illustrious institution. These profound reflections flow from someone that had actually served as Preacher for a time, and who claims to regularly access the deepest spiritual experiences that are spoken of in the RSSB faith.

I present to you the author of the above, Jim Sutherland. And invite you to make what you will of the man, and of his extravagant “spiritual” claims. Seeing this presented starkly like this might, just perhaps, help you save time in making up your mind.

[Jim Sutherland]

@Appreciative Reader, …the only 2 people I ever remember having had any real negative encounters with 7-8 years ago, was on Lane’s RSS site , was with Gloria Farman and Her partner protecting her on Yahoo, by letting her use his email address , when the Aussie she was attacking was ready to get her banned from Yahoo, while she was going beserk, was The Association Ex Rock n Roll Star.

So, Gloria obviously can never “Whoop my ass”, So AP must be my old arch enemy that always cursed me, and was disappointed I had not really died, after Rat had reported when I disappeared off RSS , and I briefly resurfaced to disappoint many. Frankly, I always took a bad rapt on RSS, because of the extreme hatred that was used against the late Michael Martin! Only because I never ganged up on him , and trashed him along with the others.

Any way, that was then, and now is now. Every one knows who I am, and I have never hid behind masks, because of being ashamed of any thing I have posted on the Internet.

So, AP, if you really want to “Whoop my ass”, you might start by just removing your mask, and expose your real identity. So, all the new comers will know who we both are, and what your grievances are against me, that are still holding you hostage , and keeping that hate in your heart against me.

I really don’t think you are Gloria Farman, or you would have unleashed your FF comment again, as you once did, against Manjit de illusion.

But of course, I could be 100% wrong, about either of you , and AP might possibly just be another of my secret loathers, who choose to hate for reasons unknow to those hated.

Since you appeared here, you have always acted like posters are obligated to answer questions you ask, if they can figure out exactly just what you want to know. Of all the totality of your posts here, I have never read any thing that could even be remotely considered helpful to others, or your sharing ANY of your supposed meditation styles and techniques you keep insinuating you do, that that is so much more effective than Surat Shabd Yoga Technique.

But, it’s never too late. If you have any thing of value, to SHARE, than why not just share it, rather than continuing to be trying to smother those who do share, with your never ending word salads of meaningless , worthless chatter amounting to exactly what Manjit asked you to try and use as Collateral for a Spiritual Bank loan!
😇😍😁

[Appreciative Reader]

I've no "grievances" against you, Jim. It's you that's calling me names, and others as well, and doing that unprovoked. Not the other way around.

I don't wish to whup your ass. Haven't the stomach to swing my arm. Your ass repels me. Your patently dishonest and utterly worthless claims of spirituality repel me. You disgust me, and repel me.

Bugger off. Off with you. Git. Shoo. And take your filthy ass, and your putrid "spirituality", away with you.

[umami]

swami umami: "As with levels of spirituality, there are levels of humor. Why couldn’t the banana yell high? Because it could only yellow."

[manjit]

Hehe. This was cute :)

Hey Jim. You wrote "Love, is non existent among humans".

I can assure you, I love you so much it's painful. Just don't get me wrong, I don't love you any more than the ant crawling on a hill in the Peruvian rainforest. This kind of love you may be unfamiliar with, and how it is expressed.

One manifestation of this multi-faceted love is a strict passion and adherence to the truth in a public forum discussing such fundamentally complex, confusing and personally important things as the search for meaning, God, the Divine, the ultimate nature of reality, exploring consciousness etc.

It is a vast sea of exaggerations, distortions, lies and false avenues. Now, while most folks probably deserve whichever false avenue they find themselves down, there should at least be 1 or 2 authentic voices speaking from actual, considerable experience on such matters, for those with a scintilla of discrimination. Let the chips fall where they may.

So out of my love for you, let me provide some truth, as I blindly grasp the elephant at least:

Read Christopher Bache's long book in it's entirety. I recommend ANYONE with an interest in "inner experiences" or mysticism of any sort do that, and do that now if they haven't already done so. It is one of the few masterpieces on describing "inner experiences" thoroughly. Read the utterly profound existential, ontological changes to his very being which culminates in the vision/experience he labels "Diamonds from Heaven" which he had after years of thoroughly intense & transformative trans-personal experiences.

Then compare this with your " For those who have read my Meditation for Neophytes posts, and listened to my podcast of it, notice how I listed my Diamonds that swirled at my Third Eye , which was the entrance to what I called The Star Gate! Well, I accessed that same Diamond From Heaven by the Surat Shabd Yoga Tecnique I shared, as Prof. Chris Basch accessed , after years of torturing him self with Mega Doses of LSD. I accessed Diamonds from Heaven....."

Dear Jim. This is love, this is truth; If I got a 5 year old child and asked them to draw a picture of the Niagra Falls on a big 6ft canvas, and then I stood 1 foot away from it and touched it with my hand, what would I feel?

Now, go to the ACTUAL Niagra Falls, and stand 1 foot away from it and reach out with your hand. What do you feel now?

If you haven't been totally swept away and annihilated, you at least got very WET, and a mighty ROARING sound would have shook you to your very core.

This is the difference between your "Diamonds from Heaven" experience "at the 3rd eye" and Christopher Bache's experience. The evidence is there for anybody to see and read.

Now, you can take this "love and truth" two ways, 1) Recognise the obvious truth in the words, and try and grow from them, or 2) Take it as another part of these juvenile and absurd online ego games of status and recognition, of likes and followers, of EGO, that you're obviously invested in.

It's up to you, I really personally couldn't care less. You're not so special. There are billions of Souls with no interest in exploring, REALLY exploring, Reality and Consciousness. That's cool, that's all right. "Let this also continue".

I will say this though, paradoxically one of these 2 options can make you very, very adored, rich, well recognised and "loved" (as you would have it, anyway), yet is completely, completely worthless (to the mystic).

The other option cannot even buy you a cup of coffee. Yet, it is utterly priceless.

Sat Sri Akal.

“The intellectual is always showing off;
the lover is always getting lost.
The intellectual runs away, afraid of drowning;
the whole business of love is to drown in the sea.
Intellectuals plan their repose;
lovers are ashamed to rest.
The lover is always alone,
even surrounded with people;
like water and oil, he remains apart.
The man who goes to the trouble
of giving advice to a lover
get’s nothing. He’s mocked by passion.
Love is like musk. It attracts attention.
Love is a tree, and lovers are its shade.”
― Rumi

[manjit]

Oh dear.

Having been on this futile merry go round before, IE. Totally, thoroughly and imo inarguably deconstructing and dismantling your arguments on mystical experience, paranormal experiences and politics, to then not only have the decency to acknowledge this but instead, bizarrely, have the nerve to say you "eviscerated" my argument is, well, a little too bizarre, absurd and disconnected from reality for me.

So I will save myself from totally "eviscerating" your half baked, banal and bankrupt arguments again.

Have at it with flaunting your, errrm, bankruptcy I guess!

May the Flying Spaghetti Monster be with you always!

[manjit]

Oops, above comment is on the wrong thread. It's a reply to AR's recent silliness.
My apologies.
I'll save us all the tragic banality of reposting this trash there and perpetuating that meaningless drivel filled thread of discussion.

[Appreciative Reader]

Now reduced to speaking with ourselves, are we?

(I can't see any immediate reasonable context here for this latest, unless someone's replaying old conversations in their head and imagining that those are happening in the present time.)

And if perchance this pertains to the my brief comments in the other thread, then let's just get this clear: Someone simply saying "I've inarguably dismantled your argument" does not actually tantamount to doing that. To do that one has to actually do that. To simply say that one has done that, when in fact one has not even addressed anything substantially, is ...not very sane, really. No matter the subject, whether spirituality or politics or any other.

In other words: Maybe stop embarrassing yourself? There's no need to paint yourself in so starkly as a figure of fun.

[Appreciative Reader]

"Oops, above comment is on the wrong thread."

Okay, got that.

----------

" It's a reply to AR's recent silliness."

There you go again. Stop baldly saying "It's silly". Instead, just actually show that it is silly.

You've gotten so used to parading amount empty claims, since you choose to make it on this subject of spirituality where anyone can say anything at all, and getting away with it, that you seem to repeat that same strategy everywhere. ...Not going to fly any more. ...Certainly not this halfwittery about having won arguments that you did not even have the balls to substantially engage in; but not even your cock and bull stories about profound experiences that you go incessantly beating your chest about. I reject them, absent evidence. Your word is not to be trusted.

----------

"My apologies."

No problem, no apology needed, not about such a simple thing as posting in the wrong thread. On other matters, though, you might consider actually apologizing, and doing that sincerely.

----------

"I'll save us all the tragic banality of reposting this trash there and perpetuating that meaningless drivel filled thread of discussion."

Sure, your comments are trash and drivel, that I agree. Not the entire thread, though. Even if you haven't the wits to understand that, and/or the integrity to acknowledge that.

[manjit]

https://youtu.be/8StG4fFWHqg?si=fBlYu34y1m0rvZtf